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.

dimanche, 17 février 2013

Interview of Dari Dugina

Interview of Dari Dugina :

“We Live In The Era Of The End”


Open Revolt is very happy to present a conversation between the Eurasian Youth Union’s Dari Dougina and our own James Porrazzo.

Dari, the daugher of Alexander Dugin, in addition to her work in the Eurasian Youth Union is also the director of the project Alternative Europe for the Global Revolutionary Alliance.

Dari you are a second generation Eurasianist, daughter of our most important thinker and leader Alexander Dugin. Do you care to share with us your thoughts on being a young militant this deep into the Kali Yuga?

We live in the era of the end – that’s the end of culture, philosophy, politics, ideology. That’s the time without real movement; the Fukuyama’s gloomy prophecy of the ”end of history” turns to be a kind of reality. That’s the essence of Modernity, of Kali Yuga. We are living in the momentum of Finis Mundi. The arrival of Antichrist is in the agenda. This deep and exhausting night is the reign of quantity, masked by the tempting concepts such as Rhizome of Gilles Deleuze: the pieces of the modern Subject changes into the ”chair-woman” from the “Tokyo Gore Police” (post-modern Japanese film) – the individual of the modern paradigm turns into the pieces of dividuum. ”God is dead” and his place is occupied by the fragments of individual. But if we make a political analysis we will find out that this new state of the world is the project of liberalism. The extravagant ideas of Foucault seemingly revolutionary in their pathos after more scruple analyze show their conformist and (secretly) liberal bottom, that goes against the traditional hierarchy of values, establishing pervert “new order” where the summit is occupied by the self-adoring individual, atomistic decay. 
That’s hard to fight against the modernity, but sure – it’s unbearable to live in it – to agree with this state of the things – where all the systems are changed and the traditional values became a parody – being purged and mocked in all spheres of controls of modern paradigms. That’s the reign of the cultural hegemony.
 And this state of the world bothers us. We fight against it – for the divine order – for the ideal hierarchy. The cast-system in modern world is completely forgotten and transformed into a parody. But it has a fundamental point. In Plato’s republic – there is very interesting and important thought: casts and vertical hierarchy in politics are nothing but the reflection of the world of ideas and higher good. This model in politics manifests the basic metaphysical principles of the normal (spiritual) world. Destroying the primordial cast system it in the society – we negate the dignity of the divine being and his Order. Resigning from the casts system and traditional order, brilliantly described by Dumezil, we damage the hierarchy of our soul. Our soul is nothing but the system of casts with a wide harmony of justice which unites 3 parts of the soul (the philosophical – the intellect, the guardian – the will, and the merchants – the lust). 
Fighting for the tradition we are fighting for our deep nature as the human creature. Man is not something granted – it s the aim. And we are fighting for the truth of human nature (to be human is to strive to the superhumanity). That can be called a holly war.

What does the Fourth Political Theory mean to you?

That’s the light of the truth, of something rarely authentic in the post-modern times. That’s the right accent on the degrees of existence – the natural chords of the world laws. That’s something which grows up on the ruins of the human experience. There is no success without the first attempts – all of the past ideologies contained in them something what caused their failure.

The Fourth Political Theory – that’s the project of the best sides of divine order that can be manifested in our world – from liberalism we take the idea of the democracy (but not in it’s modern meaning) and  liberty in the Evolian sense; from communism we accept the idea of solidarity, anti-capitalism, anti-individualism and the idea of collectivism; from fascism we take the concept of vertical hierarchy and the will to power – the heroic codex of the Indo-European warrior.

All these past ideologies suffered from grave shortcomings – democracy with the addition of liberalism became  tyranny (the worst state-regime by Plato), communism defended the technocentric world with no traditions and origins, fascism followed the wrong geopolitical orientation, its racism was Western, Modern, liberal and anti-traditional.

The Fourth Political Theory is the global transgression of this defects – the final design of the future (open) history. It’s the only way to defend the truth.

For us – truth is the multipolar world, the blossoming variety of different cultures and traditions.

We are against racism, against the cultural and strategic racism of the USA’s Western modern civilization, which is perfectly described by professor John M. Hobson in ”The Europocentric conception of world politics”. The structural (open or subliminal) racism destroys charming complexity of the human societies – primitive or complex.

Do you find any special challenges as both a young woman and a activist in this age?

This spiritual war against (post)Modern world gives me the force to live.

I know, that I’m fighting against the hegemony of evil for the truth of the eternal Tradition. It is obscured now, not completely lost. Without it nothing could exist.

I think that any gender and age has its forms to access  the Tradition and its ways to challenge  Modernity.

My existential practice is to abdicate most values of the globalist youth. I think we need to be different from this thrash. I don’t believe in anything modern. Modernity is always wrong.

I consider love to be a form of initiation and spiritual realization. And the family should be the union of  spiritually similar persons.

Beyond your father, obviously, who else would you suggest young militants wishing to learn our ideas study?

I recommend to make acquaintance with the books of Rene Guenon, Julius Evola, Jean Parvulesco, Henri Corbin, Claudio Mutti, Sheikh Imran Nazar Hosein (traditionalism); Plato, Proclus, Schelling, Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, E. Cioran (philosophy); Carl Schmitt, Alain de Benoist, Alain Soral (politics); John M. Hobson, Fabio Petito (IR); Gilbert Durand, G. Dumezil (sociology). The base kit of reading for our intellectual and political revolution.

You’ve now spent some time living in Western Europe. How would you compare the state of the West to the East, after first hand experience?

In fact, before my arrival to Europe I thought that this civilization is absolutely dead and no revolt could be possible there. I was comparing the modern liberal Europe to bog, with no possibility to protest against the hegemony of  liberalism.

Reading the foreign European press, seeing the articles with titles as ”Putin – the satan of Russia” / ” the luxury life of poor president Putin” / ” pussy riot – the great martyrs of the rotten Russia” – this idea was almost confirmed. But after a while I’ve found some political anti-globalist groups and movements of France – like Egalite&Reconcilation,  Engarda, Fils de France etc – and everything changed.

The swamps of Europe have transformed into something else – with the hidden possibility of revolt. I’ve found the ”other Europe”, the ”alternative” hidden empire, the secret geopolitical pole.

The real secret Europe should be awakened to fight and destroy its liberal double.

Now I’m absolutely sure, that there are 2 Europes; absolutely different – liberal decadent Atlanticist Europe and alternative Europe ( anti-globalist, anti-liberal, Eurasia-orientated).

Guenon wrote in the ”Crisis of the modern world” that we must divide the state of being anti-modern and anti-Western. To be against the modernity – is to help Occident in its fight against  Modernity, which is constructed on liberal codes. Europe has it’s own fundamental culture (I recommend the book of Alain de Benoist – “The traditions of Europe”). So I found this alternative, secret, powerful, Traditionalist other Europe and I put my hopes on its secret guardians.

We’ve organized with Egalite&Reconcilation a conference in Bordeaux in October with Alexander Dugin and Christian Bouchet in a huge hall but there was no place for all the volunteers who wanted to see this conference.

It shows that something begins to move…

Concerning my views on Russia – I’ve remarked that the bigger part of European people don’t trust the media information – and the interest to Russia grows up – it’s seen in the mode of learning Russian, of watching soviet films and many European people understand that the media of Europe are totally influenced by the hegemonic Leviathan, liberal globalist machine of lies.

So the seeds of protest are in the soil, with  time they’ll grow up, destroying the ”society of spectacle”.

Your whole family is a great inspiration to us here at Open Revolt and New Resistance. Do you have a message for your friends and comrades in North America?

I really can’t help admiring your intensive revolutionary work! The way you are working – in the media – is the way of killing the enemy ”with it’s own poison”, using the network warfare strategy. Evola spoke about that in his excellent book ”Ride the tiger”.

Uomo differenzziato is someone who stays in the center of modern civilization but don’t accept it in his inner empire of his heroic soul. He can use the means and arms of modernity to cause a mortal wound to the reign of quantity and its golems.

I can understand that the situation in USA now is difficult to stand. It’s the center of hell, but Holderlin wrote that the hero must throw himself into abyss, into the heart of the night and thus conquer the darkness.

Any closing thoughts you’d like to share?

Studying in the faculthttp://openrevolt.info/2013/01/23/we-live-in-the-era-of-the-end-a-interview-with-dari-dougina/y of philosophy and working on Plato and neo-platonism, I can remark, that politics is nothing but the manifestation of the basic metaphysical principles which lays in the fundament of being.

Making political war for the Fourth Political Theory we are also establishing the metaphysical order – manifesting it in the material world.

Our struggle is not only for the ideal human state – it is also the holy war for reestablishing the right ontology.


vendredi, 15 février 2013

Servië, van EU-kandidaat naar lid van de Russische Federatie


Chris Roman:

Servië, van EU-kandidaat naar lid van de Russische Federatie

Ex: http://www.eurorus.org/

De Europese Unie staat een zware klap te wachten. Na een periode van aantrekken van nieuwe lidstaten, begonnen van de oprichting tot heden, heeft de EU nu te maken met aankomend verlies van lidstaten. We kennen allemaal het domino-effect. Indien ééntje met iets begint, dan (pas) doen anderen mee.

We kennen allemaal eveneens de grote problemen waarmee de EU heden te kampen heeft: een munt die op instorten staat, landen die met het bankroet flirten, beknotting van de vrije meningsuiting, enorme toename van de armoede door het nefaste liberale beleid, enorme toename van de onveiligheid die niet steeds apart mag gezien worden van de enorme toestroom van vele door de Europese volkeren ongevraagde immigranten, denatalisatie doordat de Unie het krijgen en goed laten opvoeden van kinderen zowaar verhindert en de moord op ongeboren kindjes een handje toesteekt, corruptie, … De EU is stervende. Een ziekenwagen en spoedoperaties zullen niet veel meer verhelpen wegens de vergevorderde slechte en terminale toestand van de patiënt. Al deze problemen doen sommige lidstaten van EU overwegen om te … vertrekken !

Aparte Unie ?

De idee van het oprichten van een aparte Unie is niet nieuw. De leiders van de Scandinavische landen (Denemarken, Zweden, Finland en Noorwegen) overwegen het vormen van een Noordse Unie. Dezelfde ideeën vinden ook plaats in Tsjechië, Slovakije, Slovenië en de Baltische Staten. Zelfs Angela Merkel pleitte ooit voor het opdelen van de Euro in een Noordelijke Euro en een Zuidelijke Euro. Alle kleinere staten beseffen vandaag meer dan ooit heel goed dat ze niets anders zijn dan de dienaren van de grote lidstaten: Groot-Brittannië, Frankrijk en Duitsland. Van de Britten weten we dat ze er na het komende referendum, aangekondigd door premier Cameron, waarschijnlijk zullen uitstappen. De Fransen hollen gewoon de Duitsers na. Conclusie: vandaag is de Europese Unie niets meer dan een Groot-Duitsland, een soort Vierde Rijk. De Euro is een andere naam voor de nieuwe Duitse mark. Merkel wil haar kapitalistische anti-volkse politiek aan de hele Unie opleggen.

Presidentsverkiezingen: Van Boris Tadic naar Tomislav Nicolic

Servië was onder de pro-westerse president Boris Tadic kandidaat voor toetreding tot de EU. Servië zou aan een pak voorwaarden moeten voldoen om tot die Unie toegelaten te worden. Boris Tadic was de geknipte kandidaat om deze taak te volbrengen. Zijn achtergronden zijn interessant. Zijn adoptiemoeder is de joodse Klara Mandic, links-intellectueel en hoofd van de “Maatschappij van Servisch-Joodse Vriendschap”, geboren in 1944 in een Italiaans concentratiekamp en geadopteerd door een Servisch gezin in 1945. Zij werd in 2001 vermoord. Boris Tadic werd geboren in Sarajevo (Bosnië & Herzegovina) en is leider van de door de CIA ondersteunde Servische sociaal-democratische partij. Zijn raadgever was Predrag Markovic, het hoofd van de joodse gemeenschap in Servië. De eerste politieke daden van Tadic bestonden in het verwijderen van 60 etnisch Servische topambtenaren en deze te vervangen door ambtenaren van joodse origine. Dit klinkt niet heel politiek correct, maar de waarheid heeft haar rechten.

In december 2012 werd duidelijk dat Servië niet zou kunnen/willen voldoen aan de dictaten van de EU. Eén ervan was het herkennen van de onafhankelijkheid van Kosovo. De verkiezing van de nationalist Tomislav Nicolic tot president deed Servië totaal van koers veranderen. Brussel en Washington waren in shock. Zijn partij, de Servische Vooruitgangspartij SNS had een partnerschap met de Oostenrijkse FPÖ gesloten.

Het Westen hanteert maar al te graag de rol van Servische zondebok. Servië werd heel wat grondgebied ontnomen maar mag anderzijds duidelijke Servische gebieden niet opnieuw bij het moederland laten aansluiten. Omwille van ‘de moslims’ werd en kunstmatige staat Bosnië-Herzegovina gesticht. Het noordelijke Servische deel, de Republika Srpska, mag niet aansluiten bij Servië. Het Servische Montenegro werd door manipulatieve referenda tot separatisme gedwongen waardoor Servië de toegang tot de zee is kwijt geraakt. Kosovo enMetohija werd aan de Albanese immigranten en de terroristen van het door de CIA opgeleide UCK gegeven.

Een deel van de Serviërs was ooit inderdaad bereid om de EU- en VS-dictaten te aanvaarden omwille van de vrede. Dit veranderde de laatste vier jaar. De Serviërs zijn niet blind en beseffen dat ze met EU-lidmaatschap ook de NAVO zouden moeten erkennen. Gezien de oorlog van 1999 was dit toch wel een stap te ver.

Nicolic en zijn SNS hebben prachtig ingespeeld op zowel de radicale als de gematigder kiezer. Met zijn overwinning eindigt de horigheid aan de VS.

Terloops: ook Kroatië kent, net als Servië onder Boris Tadic, een zeer inefficiënt bestuur en een totaal geruïneerde economie met een enorm hoge werkloosheidsgraad. Het merendeel van de Kroaten (60%) wil niets weten van de EU. Zij vrezen de dictaten van Brussel. Voor de gewone Kroaten betekent de aansluiting bij de EU niets goeds ondanks de mooie beloften gedaan door de Kroatische elites.

Tomislav Nicolic en zijn grote liefde Rusland

Tot grote schok voor de Euro-Atlantische wereld kwam recent Tomislav Nicolic van de Servische radicale partij (nationalisten) aan de macht. Hierdoor bevinden zich een aantal getrouwen rond Slobodan Milojevic van de jaren ’90 opnieuw aan de macht. Sommigen onder hen werden indertijd door Tadic weggezuiverd.

Nicolic verklaarde tijdens de aanloop naar de presidentsverkiezingen van mei 2012 al dat deze verkiezingen een referendum zullen zijn over pro-EU of niet pro-EU. Hij verklaarde dat“hijzelf Servië liever als een Russische provincie te zien dan als lid van de EU”. De uitspraak was toen al zeker niet zonder bedoelingen. De Servische kiezer wist van toen al wat hij/zij aan Nicolic had. Vanaf het ogenblik dat Nicolic tot president van Servië werd benoemd begon de versnelde toenadering tot Rusland.

De plannen voor de toetreding van Servië tot de NAVO werd met het aan de macht komen van Nicolic naar de prullenmand verwezen. De Serviërs stonden zeer huiverig tegenover deze plannen, besproken onder het bewind van Tadic, want zij zijn de NAVO-bommenregen van 1999 niet vergeten.

Onmiddellijk na zijn aanstelling tot president van Servië ging hij op bezoek bij zijn grote vriend, Vladimir Poetin. Dit was zijn eerste buitenlandse bezoek. Nicolic was in Moskou zeer duidelijk over de NAVO: “Nooit !”.

In Moskou herhaalde hij ook dat de Servische grondwet verbiedt om Kosovo en Metohija op te geven. Hij prees er de Russen : “Rusland vroeg tenminste nooit dat we Kosovo e Metohija zouden opgeven”.

Toen het gesprek ging over de hoge positie van Nicolic in de populariteitslijsten, antwoordde hij: “De enige wijze hoe ik de presidentsverkiezingen zou kunnen verliezen was indien Vladimir Poetin zelf kandidaat zou geweest zijn. Zo hoog is het prestige van Vladimir Poetin in Servië”.

Poetin benadrukte dat Servië de Ruslands spirituele broeder is: “Terwijl Rusland naar Servië kijkt als partner in de Balkan, zo zijn we spirituele Broeders. Het was zo, het is zo en het zal altijd zo blijven.”

Servië lid van de Russische Federatie!

Servië zou wel eens aan de basis kunnen liggen van een heel uitzonderlijk domino effect. In Moskou ligt nu een uitgewerkt plan op te tafel om Servië te laten aansluiten bij de Russische Federatie.

Een team van verschillende deskundigen borduurt nu een weg om Servië bij Rusland te laten aansluiten. Servië zou dan de 84ste republiek van de Russische Federatie worden. De kenners van de geopolitiek en zeker van de Oost-Europese geopolitiek zijn niet verbaasd. Zelfs de CIA en andere Westerse inlichtingendiensten zijn zich van deze stappen goed bewust. De Amerikaanse regering en de regeringen van de sterkste EU-landen staan schaakmat. De steun van de Servische bevolking aan de plannen voor toetreding tot de EU is gezakt tot ver onder de 40%. De huidige Servische onderhandelaars onderhandelen internationaal op meesterlijke wijze over Kosovo en Metohija. De economische hulp van Rusland aan Servië neemt nu al gestaag toe.

We zien dat de Albanese Siptar-terroristen, die actief zijn in het zuiden van Servië, niet veel speelruimte krijgen. In die regio is de militaire aanwezigheid van het Servische leger enorm. De bevolking steunt massaal het leger. Ook de politie eenheden zijn er enorm. We weten allen dat de Servische politie iets kordater tegen bandieten optreedt (mag optreden) dan de Belgische. De extremistische (moslim)elementen in die regio hebben bij het Pentagon al gepleit voor een snelle militaire interventie en bezetting van heel Servië. De gevolgen voor zo’n interventie zijn zeer verregaande want Rusland heeft duidelijk gemaakt dat het alle steun zal verlenen aan de Servische militairen.


De Russisch-Servische plannen: enorme Russische steun aan Servië

Terwijl de EU verder in elkaar stort zal er in Servië veel Russisch geld worden geïnvesteerd in o.a. de media. De publieke opinie, die nu al zeer hartelijk en warm staat tegenover het Russische broedervolk, zal dan nog meer sympathie hebben voor een toetreding tot de Russische federatie. Servische politici zullen zich uitspreken voor de Unie met Rusland. Rusland zal veel geld in de Servische economie pompen, vooral in de landbouw. Rusland kan Servië meer geven dan de EU, dat staat vast. In een Russische Unie zullen de Serviërs veel gelukkiger zijn dan in de EU.

Nu al staat vast dat een komend referendum zal aantonen dat meer dan 70% van de Serviërs voor de Unie met Rusland zal stemmen. Nadien zouden beide parlementen, Rusland en Servië, instemmen met het akkoord. De deadline om de deal af te ronden zou einde augustus 2013 zijn !

Servië zal niets van zijn soevereiniteit verliezen. Nationaal embleem, vlag, volkslied, alles blijft behouden. De officiële taal blijft het Servisch. De tweede taal wordt wel het Russisch. In de Unie met Rusland zal Servië meer autonomie hebben dan bijvoorbeeld Tsjetsjenië of Yakutië binnen Rusland. Servië zal meer autonomie hebben dan bijvoorbeeld Vlaanderen binnen België en/of Nederland, Tsjechië of Polen binnen de EU. Het leger zal onveranderd en professioneel blijven maar wel de input krijgen van de allernieuwste Russische wapens.

Rusland zal enorm veel investeren in de Servische landbouw, die door het Westen doelbewust werd verwoest. Niet te verwonderen want ook de landbouw binnen de EU werd doelbewust afgebouwd ten voordele van vooral Amerikaanse import (Verdrag van Maastricht, 1992).

Vandaag is voedsel in Servië veel duurder dan in EU-landen zoals Frankrijk, Duitsland, België, Italië, … . Herstel van de landbouw zal de verlaten Servische dorpen opnieuw leven schenken. De werkloosheid zal drastisch dalen. Het geboortecijfer zal stijgen. Servië zal voedsel uitvoeren naar Rusland. In ruil krijgt Servië gas, olie en mineralen welke de economie vlot zal doen herop starten. Waarschijnlijk wordt het geen echte ruilhandel maar worden van beide kanten spotprijzen gehanteerd.

Rusland krijgt, als één van de machtigste landen ter wereld, zo de controle over één van de belangrijkste strategische posities van Europa. Zo vermindert de kans van agressie op het grondgebied van Rusland zelf omdat Servië als eerste zijn Russische broeder zal verdedigen.

Op het Servische grondgebied zullen Russische pijpleidingen lopen. De geostrategische positie van Servië is ideaal om van daaruit pijpleidingen naar andere Europese landen te laten lopen. Bovendien zou Servië als brug kunnen fungeren voor handel met het Westen voor Russische producten.

Resolutie 1244 en Kosovo en Metohija

Resolutie 1244 van de Veiligheidsraad van de Verenigde Naties (10 juni 1999) stelt wel dat de Servische provincie Kosovo en Metohija verregaande bevoegdheden krijgt maar dat de provincie nog steeds integraal onderdeel vormt van Servië en dat het ‘internationaal bestuur’ tijdelijk is. De resolutie kwam er in de periode dat de NAVO op gruwelijke wijze gedurende 78 dagen Servische steden bombardeerde en burgers vermoordde om in het hart van Europa een extremistisch moslimprotectoraat te stichten. De NAVO handelde met de aanval op van dit Europees land op eigen houtje want het kreeg geen steun van de VN-Veiligheidsraad.

Dank zij de Unie van Servië met Rusland wordt Kosovo op zijn beurt integraal onderdeel van de Russische Federatie. In dat geval geniet het Russisch leger het legitiem recht om in Kosovo en Metohija op te treden. De (toch wel verdrukte autochtone !) Serviërs zullen er een hart onder de riem krijgen.

Kosovo en Metohija zou de facto naar Servië terugkeren. De Amerikanen mogen er hun basis in Camp Bondsteel behouden, maar zonder er militaire activiteiten te mogen ontplooien.

Rusland plant om 50.000 elitetroepen in het zuiden van Servië te stationeren. Aan de huidige grens met Kosovo en Metohija zouden in eerste instantie 15.000 Spetznaz-soldaten gelegerd worden.

Hashim Thaci, ‘Kosovaars president’, zal worden opgepakt en vervolgd voor handel in menselijke organen en voor oorlogsmisdaden voor de tijd dat hij opperbevelhebber was van het terroristische Albanese UCK.

Na de aansluiting zal Rusland ook investeren in de Kosovaarse economie omdat de werkloosheid daar ook enorm is. Kosovo en Metohija vormen dan een brug voor de militaire en economische samenwerking tussen Rusland en het Westen.

Alle plannen voor een Groot-Albanië vallen in het water. Het opruimen van de Albanese maffia zal niet eenvoudig zijn. Sommige Albanese kopstukken verdienen grof geld aan wapen- en drugshandel en collaboreren sterk met de CIA en andere Westerse inlichtingendiensten.

Russisch compromis met de Amerikanen ?

Geruchten vertellen dat de oplossing ‘Kosovo’ een “compromis” inhoudt voor Syrië. De Amerikanen zien ‘Kosovo en Metohija bij Servië’ door de vingers indien Rusland de steun aan Assad zou intrekken. Ook zou Rusland zich niet bemoeien indien Israël en VS een aanval plannen op Iran. In ruil geven de VS en de EU Kosovo op.

Wat men daar moet van denken is echter koffiedik kijken. Wel is het zo dat in een vertrouwelijke e-mail die kon ingekeken worden Qatar aan Rusland de ‘bescherming’ van de Russische marinebasis in Syrië aanbood. De soms onduidelijke houding van Rusland lijkt deze stelling te bevestigen. Qatar zou het zogenaamde ‘Vrije Syrische Leger’ onder druk zetten om na de machtsovername de Russische basissen te beschermen.

Maar, er is een maar. Men moet rekening houden met alle mogelijkheden. We gaan terug in de geschiedenis. Toen de Sovjet-Unie viel, beloofde de NAVO dat geen enkel land van het Warschaupact (een soort NAVO maar dan met Sovjet-bondgenoten) zou worden aanvaard binnen de NAVO. Maanden later zagen we dat het Russisch leger zich conform de akkoorden had terug getrokken en dat verschillende leden van het Warschaupact inclusief nieuwe onafhankelijke staten die daarvoor deel uitmaakten van de Sovjet-Unie, lid werden van de … NAVO. Men kan begrip opbrengen voor de Russische onvrede en frustratie. Maar toen was het onder Jeltsin. Om verschillende redenen mag deze man terecht als één van de zwakste presidenten/tsaren/secretarissen van Rusland beschouwd worden. Onder Poetin veranderde Rusland geleidelijk aan naar een wereldmacht waar opnieuw moet rekening gehouden worden.

Poetin is de NAVO-leugens niet vergeten. Een mogelijkheid is dat hij met de VS ee compromis sluit over Servië, Syrië tijdelijk losser laat, om dan, eens Servië binnen is gehaald, Syrië en Iran volop te steunen. Machten die hun woord niet houden mogen immers op dezelfde wijze van antwoord bediend worden.

Om terug te komen op de zogenaamde bescherming door Qatar en het ‘Vrije Syrische Leger’ : Poetin heeft de herschappen met hun aanbod wandelen gestuurd.


Ook Montenegro zou op één of andere manier Servië vervoegen. Vanaf de gedwongen onafhankelijkheid investeerde Rusland er enorm veel. Rusland verwittigde Montenegro al vanaf het begin van de onafhankelijkheid dat NAVO lidmaatschap alle goede banden zouden kunnen beschadigen. Montenegro is er bovenop gekomen dankzij Rusland e niet dankzij de EU.

Russische miljardairs investeerden enorm veel kapitaal in Montenegro, en in het bijzonder langs de kuststrook. Feit is dat de Rusland via het kapitaal en de bezittingen van een deel van de steenrijke Russische diaspora in Montenegro al toegang tot een haven van Bar en de zee heeft. Daardoor is de toegang tot Servië de facto verzekerd.

Met dat Russisch kapitaal aanwezig in Montenegro is er meer dan voldoende om de ‘centengevoelige’ Montenegrijnse regering van Milo Djukanovic om te ‘gebruiken’. Een goedkopere oplossing is het actief steunen van een oppositiepartij.


Indien Servië aansluit bij de Russische Federatie dan verandert de hele geopolitieke situatie in de Balkan. Dan verandert de geopolitieke situatie in heel Europa. Dan verandert de hele geopolitieke situatie in Eurazië en in de wereld.

Voor de Europese as van Gibraltar tot Vladivostok, voor de Europese volkeren, voor de vrijheid en voor de bescherming van onze culturen zou dit een alternatief, misschien zelfs een verademing kunnen zijn.

De toekomst zal het aantonen.

Kris Roman

Voorzitter Euro-Rus

dimanche, 03 février 2013

Anatomie du durcissement russe


Anatomie du durcissement russe

Ex: http://www.dedefensa.org/

Une nouvelle déclaration officielle russe confirme le blocage complet des relations stratégiques avec les USA, notamment sur la question fondamentale pour la Russie du réseau antimissile (BDM et BMDE). Cette déclaration est du plus modéré des dirigeants russes, le Premier ministre Medvedev, qui était interrogé sur CNN, lors de l’émission de Fareed Zakarias GPS. Russia Today a extrait de ces déclarations, ce 28 janvier 2013, celles qui concernent ce point de litige fondamental des deux pays qu’est la question des antimissiles.

«No ease in relations over missile defense, no flexibility arose. We stand at the same positions – the position of the United States is one, the position of the Russian Federation is, unfortunately, different. And the convergence of these positions is not happening… […] We clearly understand that if we do not have guarantees such as the pairing of our programs, that means that missile defense could also work against the Russian nuclear arsenal. What does this mean? This means that the parity, which we recorded with President Obama by signing the New START treaty (a very important and very helpful treaty, by the way: I think this is the achievement of the so-called reset), [the parity] is being cracked by that, because the missile defense – is a direct continuation of nuclear offensive capability, combat nuclear weapons…»

Ces déclarations n’apportent rien de nouveau mais elles fixent encore plus précisément la vigueur de la détérioration du climat entre les USA et la Russie, compte tenu encore une fois de la position habituelle de Medvedev. Malgré la modération de ton propre à Medvedev, qui n’oublie pas de saluer le nouveau traité START de limitation des armements, le constat du blocage complet et de la dangerosité de la situation pour la Russie est énoncé clairement. (L’on sait, comme on l’a déjà vu le 22 janvier 2013, que ce traité est lui-même en danger si la situation n’évolue pas, que les Russes n’hésiteront pas à en sortir pour pouvoir renforcer leur arsenal offensif face à la pression que va faire peser sur eux le réseau antimissile lorsqu’il sera mis en place en Europe en 2015.)

…Mais au lieu de la Russie et des USA, on devrait parler d’une façon plus générale de la détérioration du climat, de façon plus générale, entre la Russie et les pays du bloc BAO, c’est-à-dire également avec l’Europe. Cette détérioration porte d’ailleurs sur bien plus que la question des antimissiles (qui concerne elle-même également mais indirectement l’Europe, en raison du déploiement à venir des antimissiles en Europe, comme on le voit également dans le même texte référencé du 22 janvier 2013).

La situation générale est très singulière, notamment du côté des Européens et de l’UE, à un point où l’on ne devrait pas hésiter à la qualifier de schizophrénique. Alors que la situation spécifique des relations avec la Russie continue à se dégrader, essentiellement à cause du comportement des pays du bloc BAO d’une façon systématique vis-à-vis de la Russie, les milieux européens qui sont comptables de cette politique s’inquiètent parallèlement de plus en plus vivement de cette détérioration et de ses conséquences. Il existe un courant favorable à des tentatives qui seraient développées pour tenter d’améliorer ce climat, ou tenter au moins de freiner sa dégradation. Des contacts très informels devraient être ou sont d’ores et déjà lancés entre les deux partenaires et, pour ce qui nous concerne ici comme sources de nos appréciations, entre Européens et Russes, essentiellement sinon exclusivement à l’initiative des Européens. Le côté européens est dans une position un peu différente de celle du côté US ; il n’y a pas entre les Européens et la Russie un énorme point de blocage comme celui des antimissiles entre la Russie et les USA, mais bien ce constat d’une dégradation irrésistible des relations qui semble être la conséquence d’un climat évoluant dans ce sens, sans que rien ne puisse sembler être fait contre cela. Ce qui nous intéresse ici est donc moins la teneur concrètes de ces éventuels contacts, la situation circonstanciée de ces très mauvaises relations, etc., que l’état d’esprit des Russes tel qu’il a pu être mesuré et constaté au cours de ces constats.

On fera principalement deux remarques à partir des impressions recueillies de diverses sources.

• La première concerne la position des Russes en général (là aussi, hors de toute question spécifique, – on parle bien de l’état d’esprit et de la position politique générale). Il semble bien se confirmer que l’on arrive à une situation de blocage qui ne tient pas précisément à l’un ou l’autre dossier (bien que le blocage existe bien entendu dans l’un ou l’autre dossier), mais qui concerne l’attitude générale des Russes. Il semble qu’un seuil ait été franchi, qui est celui de la perte complète de confiance des Russes dans leurs “partenaires” du bloc BAO. D’une façon générale ressort la complète lassitude des Russes devant le comportement de leurs interlocuteurs du bloc BAO, qui fait que, dans toute rencontre, dans toute négociation, l’intervention de ces interlocuteurs des Russes est sempiternellement introduite par une leçon infligée aux Russes, de bonnes manières démocratiques, de bonne morale et de respect des divers droits (ceux de l’homme en priorité, certes), accompagnée du conseil à peine voilé de la nécessité pour la Russie d’abandonner un régime quasi-dictatorial pour un comportement civilisé. Les Russes considèrent ces interventions, non seulement comme infondées par rapport aux situations respectives des divers interlocuteurs (la situation de la démocratie aux USA, par exemple, étant considérée souvent du côté russe comme plus mauvaise et plus corrompue que cette situation en Russie, et avec nombre d’excellentes raisons), mais en plus comme des cas flagrant d’ingérence dans les affaires intérieures d’un pays souverain.

• Subsiste plus que jamais, et même grandit jusqu’à créer, pour les Russes eux-mêmes, un problème d’une dimension considérable, la question de l’incompréhension totale où ces mêmes Russes se trouvent de la politique des pays du bloc BAO, et spécifiquement de l’Europe dans ce cas, dans le chef de son élaboration, de son développement, etc. Les Russes se posent ces questions et les posent à leurs interlocuteurs : “Mais qui élabore ces politiques foncièrement et très durement antirusses, et qui violent tous les usages entre nations souveraines” ? “D’où viennent ces politiques”  ? “Quelles en sont les causes et les fondements” ? Etc. Peut-être devrait-on citer, comme amorce de réponse qui n’éclaircit rien sur le fond bien entendu mais au moins mesure l'ampleur du problème, cette remarque faite dans notre texte du 25 janvier 2013, qui donne un certain éclairage à la situation extraordinaire où se trouve le bloc BAO d’une façon générale. Cette remarque concerne la politique interventionniste dans le cadre du “printemps arabe” du bloc BAO, mais elle pourrait parfaitement s’intégrer comme explication des questions posées ici concernant la politique russe du bloc BAO : «Il n’étonnera que ceux qui veulent bien l’être, ou ceux qui ignorent comment faire autrement que penser comme ils pensent, d’apprendre que quelques personnalités du plus haut niveau, [du bloc BAO], y compris pour quelques très rares exemples dans la diplomatie française, conçoivent sans hésiter que les politique du bloc BAO ne sont pas humainement élaborées mais bien le fruit d’une dynamique machiniste dont personne ne peut saisir les modalités de fonctionnement, et donc que personne ne peut modifier ou arrêter.» (Cette situation extraordinaire est bien entendu résumée par nous par le simple fait qu’il n’existe plus de politique spécifique dans les pays du bloc BAO, mais simplement l’entraînement irrésistible de ce que nous nommons la “politique-Système, voulue par le Système.)

On sait que les Russes se doutent de quelque chose dans ce sens, depuis un certain temps. En son temps (le 4 août 2008), Rogozine avait déjà exprimé certaines hypothèses à cet égard, en observant que la politique occidentale (bloc BAO) était menée par un système (qu’il désignait comme “le technologisme”) plutôt que par délibération rationnelle et volonté affirmées d’atteindre un but spécifique ; et aussi Lavrov, le 6 juin 2011, lorsqu’il affirmait à des journalistes : «We think our Western partners understand that the events in Libya are taking an undesirable turn, but the decisions that have been taken are continuing by momentum…» Poutine lui-même a déjà exprimé à diverses reprises sa perplexité devant cette “politique” qui semble ne répondre à aucun processus rationnel malgré certaines apparences, – par exemple lorsqu’il observait que la politique du bloc BAO recherchait en Libye et en Syrie le “regime change” mais qu’elle s’avérait finalement “coûteuse, inefficace et largement imprévisible”, c’est-à-dire informe et répondant finalement à d’autres impulsions, manifestement mystérieuses (voir le 5 mars 2012) :

«“Under the guise of trying to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction they [the US] are attempting something else entirely and setting different goals – regime change,” news agencies quote Putin as saying. The Russian PM pointed out that US foreign policy, including that in the Middle East, was expensive, inefficient and largely unpredictable. Putin also added that, among other things, it may eventually disserve Israel. “They changed regimes in North Africa. What will they do next? In the end, Israel may find itself between the devil and the deep blue sea”" he said.»

Les Russes ont désormais bien compris cela : que la politique du bloc BAO n’est pas quelque chose de rationnel, qui puisse être compris, discutée, négociée, mais une sorte de phénomène qui semble échapper à ceux qui semblent la conduire. A côté de ce constat, il semble également évident que les Russes ont décidé qu’ils n’en subiraient plus sans broncher les conséquences qui sont pour eux des désagréments inacceptables, ni sans durcir eux-mêmes leur propre politique pour éviter ces désagréments. La question des relations entre le bloc BAO et la Russie est donc en train de s’installer dans une situation de type crisique très aigue, comme quelque chose qui ressemble à une crise endémique comptable d’une tension grandissante et soumise à toutes les possibilités d’explosion selon les circonstances.

mercredi, 09 janvier 2013

Eurasia and Europe: Dialogue of “Big Spaces”


Natella Speranskaya

Eurasia and Europe: Dialogue of “Big Spaces”

Carl Schmitt regarded the earth as a single whole and was looking for its global mission. This "whole" was formed by Schmitt in the concept of Nomos. He used the Greek word derived from the verb «nemein», which is identical to German “nehmen” - “to take”. Nomos comprises three acts of the drama: "taking", "division and distribution of the taken", "exploitation and use of the taken and distributed." According to Schmitt, Nomos of the Earth existed always. First Nomos is described as a "promised land" of ancient peoples. It is the Nomos of the ancient times and the Middle Ages. It ceased to exist after the exploration of the great oceans and the American continent. Thus began the Second Nomos, the Nomos of national sovereign states that had the Eurocentric structure. Events of the World War II led to its destruction, so that the land was divided into east and west, which were in a state of "cold war". It is not about mere geographic opposites, but a more original and profound contradistinctions. Carl Schmitt wrote: "The whole history of the planetary confrontation of East and West in its entirety is reducible to the fundamental dualism of the elements: Earth and Water, Land and Sea. What we now call the East, is a single mass of solid land: Russia, China and India - a huge piece of land, the "Middle Earth", as named by the great English geographer Sir Halford Mackinder. What we call today the West, is one of the world's oceans, hemispheres, where the Atlantic and Pacific oceans are placed. Confrontation of the sea and land powers, worlds - is the global truth that lies at the heart of explanation of civilization dualism that constantly generates a planetary stress and stimulates the whole process of history ." Thus, the birth of a third Nomos was caused by division of the world between the West and the East. However, it was destroyed with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Schmitt's understanding of "three Nomoses of the Earth" brings us to the question, what will be the fourth Nomos of the Earth? Alexander Dugin, the founder of the theory of a multipolar world, the founder of the Russian school of geopolitics, believes that the new Nomos of the Earth will be a Nomos of large continental logic of the Eurasian continent. Certainly, the worst possible option would be a unipolar, globalist Nomos. Which of the Nomoses will be established depends on the strategic decision of Heartland, Russia, the civilization of land.

Italian political scientist Tiberio Graziani thinks, that Russia "has everything necessary to fulfill the historical role of the cornerstone of the whole global system," and he regards its location in the heart of Eurasia to be one of its most important elements. That is why all the strategic decisions of Atlanticists imply  fragmentation of the Heartland, considering that this process will provide the accession of a unipolar order. Alexander Dugin says, "On that, whether Russia can be sufficiently weakened, split and destabilized, and subjected by its fragments to the external power, largely depends the fate of globalization." And further: "For anyone who is serious about counter American hegemony, globalization and planetary domination of the West (Atlanticism), the axiom should become the following statement: The fate of the world order is decided at the moment only in Russia by Russia and through Russia." To describe the time in which we now live, the prominent sociologist Zygmunt Bauman applies the concept of Interregnum – so was called in ancient Rome the period between the death of Caesar and the accession of another one. It is a state of instability, uncertainty, unpredictability, when the demolition of the old order is as obvious as the emergence of the new one is. But what this new order (and, accordingly, the new Nomos) will be - is unknown. In the context of the changes of the new world order, we can speak of  paradigmatic shift from the "unipolar moment" to the formation of a multipolar world order. In other words, the focus should be on the end of the era of unipolarity, because there are all essential conditions for the realization of the alternative project. According to Huntington, the unipolar state is able to "effectively deal with all the major international problems alone, and none of the unions of other states can even be hypothetically capable of stopping it." It is difficult to deny that the hegemon represented by the United States now has no serious opponent, whether a coalition of states or, quite incredibly, a single state  that shows such strong potential that it inevitably involves the speedy restoration of the bipolar order.

According to Zygmunt Bauman, about 60-70 years ago an event occurred that contributed to a fundamental change in global politics: the gap between Macht and Staat, in other words, between Might and Politics, Might and the State (which are integral aspects of the Power) led to the situation, when Macht (Might) moved to supra-national space. Thus, the nation-state could no longer control it. In unipolar paradigm namely national states are actors of international relations. The said gap means neither more nor less than a gradual slippage to non-polarity. Namely, this, according to Richard Haass, Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institute and head of CFR, will determine international relations in the XXI century. Nation-states are nearly deprived of possibility of efficiency, "of doing things" (as Bauman understands Macht), emerging into a state of political paralysis. Antonio Gramsci treated Interregnum as a period when the old is no longer working, and the new has not yet appeared.

We are "stuck" between unipolarity and multipolarity, and have no idea what should the solution to this situation be. Of course, the question arises: what to do? And, above all, question themselves nation-states, de jure retained the ability to make decisions , but Zygmunt Bauman rightly argues that under current circumstances, the question should be formulated in a different way: who will do what is necessary rather than what to do? Which actor will assume responsibility for the actions that solve fundamental problems? Sure, we do not consider like such nation-states. Instead, we turn to the theory developed by Alexander Dugin, the Theory of the Multipolar World. Book with the same title gives a clear picture of what is happening in the field of international relations today: when the bipolar model of the world order has changed to unipolar one, it came to mean the triumph of the liberal-democratic ideology . The West has modeled values and guidelines system that were imposed upon the world as universal. Thus, the West came to the consistent implementation of the control (dictatorship) of cognitive and strategic spheres. The area of international relations became "American Science", the content of the discussions was reduced to polemical confrontation between realists and liberals. The diplomatic corps itself was formed within the unipolar world and the Western discourse, Western mentality, where political actors are  the national states. Another model of the world order, namely the multi-polar model, involves a form of organization of spaces based on several actors - "civilizations", as rightly pointed out by Samuel Huntington. This leads us to the formation of a new diplomatic corps and the new diplomatic language based on a multipolar world order. And the most progressive political thinkers have already come to a conclusion about the need to change the paradigm of international relations. One of them just raised the question of what will be next, others - have found the answer and freely operate  the basic concepts of the new system. It is impossible not to recognize the fact that the vast majority of politically engaged figures remain under the old paradigm, failing to perceive  the ongoing shift, which will commence the new historical period, completely changing the picture of the world politics . The Unipolar world - is yesterday. Here and now we are discussing the change of the unipolar paradigm to the multi-polar one, poly-civilizational.

Theory of the multipolar world suggests to establish new actors in international relations, which are of civilizations , and each of them, by definition, has a strategic center, serving as the subject of dialogue in international relations and, therefore, the subject of power. The transition from national states to civilizations is an inevitable consequence of the rupture described by Zygmunt Bauman.

Specialist in International Relations, Professor Adam Roberts notes the loss of a leading U.S. role in the current world order. Asked who will perform their receiver , he gives a completely obvious answer: no one. More precisely, we have not yet entered the period of interregnum, but just got close to it, and all that is happening in global politics - is the agony of the dying Caesar (USA).

The genuine emergence into Interregnum will happen with the final loss of the U.S. role as the world's hegemon and the cancellation of a "unipolar moment." It is here that the danger appears, that in the period of interregnum and consistent implementation of the formative stages of a multipolar world order will come "The variable geometry" of the nonpolarity and everything will be in the melting pot of globalization; we are immersed in liquid modernity (Z.Bauman), the main feature of which is "non-directedness of changes”, that is lack of strict direction, guideline, which ultimately makes us unprepared to respond to sudden challenges, elusive from any calculations and projections. The collapse of the Soviet Union occurred suddenly as lightning, completely changing the landscape of history. Non-polarity, which seems to come, may become a needed respite, a period of possibility of full value formation of the new model of the world order - for it is impossible to deny that the paradigmatic shift, followed by the demolition of numerous structures, will not be able to quickly create in all areas of Political  all the necessary conditions for the accession of the multipolar order. Non-polarity, Interregnum in the XXI century - are the funeral of the retired Caesar and the preparation for the enthronement of the new rulers (in the plural), that is rise of the poles, power centers.

Non-polarity is a "decapitation" of the U.S., but at the same time it can be called the attempt of the hegemon to maintain its influence through self-dispersion, dissolution. Under these circumstances it is strictly necessary to prevent delays, getting stuck in post-liberal environment and humility with a "coherent non-polarity." New actors must challenge the postmodern "non- directedness of changes" now and knowingly take absolute responsibility for strategic decisions and actions in the field of political practice. The leading research associate of the New America Foundation, Parag Khanna, analyzing the current situation and the precarious position of the U.S., discusses a critical role of diplomacy towards which the focus should be shifted . For improvement of the global diplomatic structure is laid the responsibility of the strengthening of U.S. hegemony . However, he does not take into account the fact that the diplomatic language is undergoing  a significant reformatting in the context of  paradigmatic shift to multipolar model, and this process is irreversible. Now we have to discuss  the dialogue of civilizations. The dialogue is built on a completely different level, which is beyond the rules of the dialogue between national states (i.e., outside the imposed Western discourse), with the U.S. having the unltimate decision-making power . Unless we understand that the battle for the world domination is not between civilizations, but a single (western) civilization with all the "other" ones, which are offered only two options: 1) to be on the side of this civilization, 2) or to be against it, defending the right for their own independence and uniqueness - we are not able to form a new diplomatic language for civilizational dialogue. And this should be understood, above all, by the elite of civilization, responsible, according to Alexander Dugin, for the conduct of the dialogue. If all the "others" agree with the unipolar project, our battle is lost, but if they make a radically different choice, we are waiting for  the "rise of the rest" (Fareed Zakaria). We should note that the world-famous British political scientist Paul Kennedy expresses his concerns about the emergence of the ideological differences between the U.S. and Europe, due to opposition to one of the projects of the world order - unipolar or multipolar. In the current environment we should not just rely on the increased conflict between Europe and America, but prepare the situation of split and division of the former from the hegemonic influence of the latter . Here Russia has a special role.

However, we must admit, that during the last decades, Russia increasingly moved away from its original purpose - to be a bridge between East and West. Interregnum can be our chance to recover, a chance for Russia to become and be. The theory of a multipolar world can be considered to be the starting point of the end of the unipolar era and of entry into the "post-American" period, a feature of which will be the presence of several poles (the subjects of inter-civilizational dialogue) and the certain elimination of an identity crisis, because in a multipolar world identity acquires a civilizational character. Today our dialogue with Europe is a dialogue of "big spaces"; in the new system of international relations GROSSRAUM becomes an operational concept of multipolarity. Alexander Dugin offers the "FOUR-polar" or "quadri-polar" model of the world, which consists of four world zones.

In the first zone, under the full control of the United States, there are two or three "big spaces." We get two "big spaces" by combining the U.S. and Canada - on the one hand, and Latin America - on the other. According to Alexander Dugin, three "big spaces" can emerge when "we shall divide those Latin American countries that are sufficiently well integrated with the U.S. and are completely under their control, and those that tend to create their own geo-political zone, challenging the U.S."..

The second zone is the area of Euro-Africa with the European Union as Its undoubted pole . Here appear  three "big spaces": the European Union, the black  Africa and the Arab GROSSRAUM.

The third zone is Eurasia with Russia (Heartland ) as its pole. Meanwhile, Prof. Dugin indicates, there are also a number of regional centers of power, namely Turkey (if it chooses the Eurasian path), Iran, Pakistan and India. Thus, the Eurasian zone consists of several "great spaces": Russia and CIS countries are the Russian-Eurasian GROSSRAUM. Three "great spaces" are also Turkey, Iran, India and Pakistan.

 The fourth zone - is the Pacific region. Its pole can become either China (which is a "big space") or Japan (potential GROSSRAUM, having all the essential factors - economic, geopolitical, technological, etc.- for its recovery:).

Justifying the basic guidelines for practical action to build a multipolar world, Professor Dugin focuses on the following directions:

1. Strategic reorganization of Heartland.

This implies the geopolitical activity of "middle earth" and the implementation of integration projects aimed at strengthening of the multipolar model.

2. Changes in the minds of the political elite of Russia.

Mainly he focuses on acquiring geopolitical thinking, as well as the high level of competence in the field of social science, sociology, and history. "The elite of Russia should understand themselves as the elite of Heartland, should think in Eurasian categories, not just on a national scale, herewith being clearly aware of the non-applicability of the atlanticist and globalist scenario to Russia" - writes A. Dugin. We cannot speak of any awakening of elite, until it makes a conscious choice towards Eurasianism, rejecting blind attempts to play up anti-Russian scenarios of Atlantist strategists.

3. The model of building relations between Russia and the United States.

With the understanding of destructive U.S. policies aimed at dismantling Russia for the absolute control of the whole Eurasia, these relationships become irreversibly hostile. We need to undertake drastic actions in order to prevent the NATO presence in the Eurasian "big space" and weakening of Heartland.

4. The model of building relations with Europe.

This model involves a strategic partnership with countries, adhering to the policy of the continental tradition - France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Here it is appropriate to talk about the project of axis "Paris-Berlin-Moscow". Another situation is deployed with countries of "New Europe", as well as England – that are oriented against Russia and have a tendency to adapt to the requirements of Washington.

5. The project "Great Eastern Europe."

This project includes the Slavs (Slovaks, Czechs, Poles, Bulgarians, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Bosnians, Macedonians, Serbs-Muslims), Orthodox (Macedonians, Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks and Romanians). Prof. Dugin says that Hungarians are the only people who do not fall into the "Orthodox" category and at the same time they cannot be called the "Slavic". Hungarians have a Eurasian-Turanian origin.

6. Heartland and Western CIS countries.

It is about the multi-polar integration of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, which belong to the area of Heartland, a single strategic structure. This political action will prevent the risk of entry of Belarus and Ukraine into NATO. Special attention is given to Moldova, whose integration with Romania, which is a part of NATO, seems to be impossible until the implementation of the project of the "Great Eastern Europe."

7. Eurasian Middle East and the role of Turkey.

Prof. Dugin mentions the American project the «Greater Middle East Project» concerning the Middle East. It implies the democratization and modernization of Middle Eastern societies, and strengthening of the military presence of the U.S. and NATO. Guided by conflicting interests, the strategy of Heartland in this direction should include political actions directed towards Turkey’s exit from NATO and the creation of the axis "Moscow - Ankara." Furthermore, the project of axis "Moscow - Tehran" should be taken with the utmost attention. According to Alexander Dugin, Iran is a "strategic space that automatically solves the problem of converting Heartland into a force in the global world." Neither Russia nor Iran should allow the implementation of the scenario, laid in the project of the "Greater Central Asia” (Greater Central Asia Partnership). Its launch would inevitably lead to the emergence of the "sanitary cordon", which would hardly separate Russia from Iran. In addition, having included such countries as Georgia, Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, this cordon would make those countries controlled by American influence. The union of Russia and Iran, of course, will solve yet another fundamental problem, namely, it will open the "anaconda’s terret", depriving American strategists of any possibility of preventing marine operations of Russia.

 The strategy of Heartland should include projects of integration of Russia, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan into a single economic and customs space. In turn, the relationship with Pakistan should be built in strict accordance with the strategy of displacement of U.S. forces from this area. Alexander Dugin points to the need for a new model of relations with Afghanistan's Pashtun majority.

8. Axis "Moscow-Delhi."

Relationships with politically neutral "big space" of India should be directed towards achieving partnership. The main objective of this axis is to deter attempts of Washington to deploy its dominance in the South Asian region.

9. Russian-Chinese relations.

Prof. Dugin focuses on two difficult issues such as:

- Demographic spread of Chinese in sparsely populated areas of Siberia,

- China's influence in Central Asia.

It is necessary to build a balanced relationship with China, focusing on the fundamental point of strategic contact – support of the idea of the multipolar world.

10. Russian - Japanese relations.

Prof. Dugin indicates the need for the release of Japan from the American influence and the support of Japan as a sovereign regional power. Here it is appropriate to talk about  the project of axis "Moscow - Tokyo" as an integral part of Asian politics of Eurasia. "The alliance with Japan is vital - says Alexander Dugin, in his work "The bases of Geopolitics" – the Moscow-Tokyo axis, contrary to the Moscow - Beijing axis is an important and perspective, providing such prospects for continental empire-building, that will finally make Eurasia geopolitically completed, at the same time extremely weakening the Atlantist empire of the West, if not destroying it finally".

11. The geopolitics of the Arctic zone.

The following countries tend to control this zone: USA, Canada, Norway, Denmark and Russia. All of these countries (except Russia) are NATO members. Conquering territories in the polar region, and joining the race to develop large deposits of minerals, to its future plans Russia included the creation of a widescale system of communication and monitoring in the Arctic. Russia claims the polar area with size of 1.2 million square kilometers, with the incoming North Pole. In 2011 a brave move of the Russian researchers who had planted a Russian flag on the seabed of the Arctic Ocean  has been highly publicized by American media.

There is no doubt that we enter into a battle for the fundamental changes of the rules of political discourse, carrying out the task of undermining the basic principles of Western hegemony. The implementation of the multi-polar project, contrary to the considerations of skeptical Western political scientists, depends on the political course which Russia will adhere. The choice towards Eurasianism shows the approaching readiness to take the next step in building a new world order.

Natella Speranskaya

samedi, 05 janvier 2013

War of the Worlds

War of the Worlds


Jure Vujić's new book War of the Worlds – Euroasianism versus Atlantism ( Zagreb, Croatia )

On Thursday, December 20, 2012, the promotion of Jure Vujić's book War of the Worlds – Euroasianism versus Atlantism (with a foreword by Dr. Robert Steuckers) took place at the Cultural Information Centre in Zagreb. With the author the event was also attended by historian Toni Abramović and H.E. DSc Robert Markaryan, the Ambassador of the Russian Federation. The moderator was Petar Bujas.

To date, Jure Vujić has published the books Fragmenti geopolitičke misli (2004) and Intelektualni terorizam (2007) in Croatian and the book “ LA MODERNITÉ À L'ÉPREUVE DE L'IMAGE L'obsession visuelle de l'occident in French. This is the fourth book of the prominent Croatian political scientist and geopolitical expert.
In 1919, Sir Halford John Mackinder published the book on Democratic Ideals and Reality: A Study in the Politics of Reconstruction presenting the thesis statement about the heartland: the power that managed to control Eastern Europe would also dominate Euroasia, and whoever dominated Euroasia should rule the world.
The book 'War of the Worlds – Euroasianism versus Atlantism' is a true and the first synthesis in the Croatian language that elaborates on the idea of Euroasia or the heartland as the key geostrategic area in which opposed geopolitical and economic interests come to play. The author approached the subject as a topical metapolitical, philosophical and cultural conceptual matrix that represents a real alternative to Atlantism. The rivalry relation between Atlantism and Euroasianism is symbolically represented by the illustration of Behemoth, the mythical monster of the land, and sea monster Leviathan.

The Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the Republic of Croatia, His Excellency Robert Markaryan, conveyed to the audience the thought of Vladimir Putin that 'whoever has no feeling for the disintegration of the Soviet Union has no heart, and whoever believes it will come together again has no brain.' He also mentioned that Vujić's book was pioneer work in this area and a great scientific contribution to the development of Russian-Croatian relations.

Historian Toni Abramović noted that Europe and Russia are parts of one and the same body, the so-called Big Island or Euroasia. Croatia shares more than just its Slavic roots with Russia. Juraj Križanić (17th c.) played an important role in the creation of the  'Memorandum of Peter the Great'. Croatia is geographically and politically situated at the divide between two global interests, and its future should be perceived as identical to the future of Eurasia.

jeudi, 29 novembre 2012



Sommario del numero XXVIII (4-2012) d'Eurasia - Rivista di studi geopolitici



Lo strumento fondamentalista

“Il vero problema per l’Occidente non è il fondamentalismo islamico, ma l’Islam in quanto tale”. Questa frase, che Samuel Huntington colloca in chiusura del lungo capitolo del suo Scontro delle civiltà intitolato “L’Islam e l’Occidente”1, merita di essere letta con un’attenzione maggiore di quella che ad essa è stata riservata finora.

Secondo l’ideologo statunitense, l’Islam in quanto tale è un nemico strategico dell’Occidente, poiché è il suo antagonista in un conflitto di fondo, che non nasce tanto da controversie territoriali, quanto da un fondamentale ed esistenziale confronto tra difesa e rifiuto di “diritti umani”, “democrazia” e “valori laici”. Scrive infatti Huntington: “Fino a quando l’Islam resterà l’Islam (e tale resterà) e l’Occidente resterà l’Occidente (cosa meno sicura) il conflitto di fondo tra due grandi civiltà e stili di vita continuerà a caratterizzare in futuro i reciproci rapporti”2.

Ma la frase riportata all’inizio non si limita a designare il nemico strategico; da essa è anche possibile dedurre l’indicazione di un alleato tattico: il fondamentalismo islamico. È vero che nelle pagine dello Scontro delle civiltà l’idea di utilizzare il fondamentalismo islamico contro l’Islam non si trova formulata in una forma più esplicita; tuttavia nel 1996, allorché Huntington pubblicò The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, una pratica di questo genere era già stata inaugurata.

“È un dato di fatto – scrive un ex ambasciatore arabo accreditato negli Stati Uniti e in Gran Bretagna – che gli Stati Uniti abbiano stipulato delle alleanze coi Fratelli Musulmani per buttar fuori i Sovietici dall’Afghanistan; e che, da allora, non abbiano cessato di far la corte alla corrente islamista, favorendone la propagazione nei paesi d’obbedienza islamica. Seguendo le orme del loro grande alleato americano, la maggior parte degli Stati occidentali ha adottato, nei confronti della nebulosa integralista, un atteggiamento che va dalla benevola neutralità alla deliberata connivenza”3.

L’uso tattico del cosiddetto integralismo o fondamentalismo islamico da parte occidentale non ebbe inizio però nell’Afghanistan del 1979, quando – come ricorda in From the Shadows l’ex direttore della CIA Robert Gates – già sei mesi prima dell’intervento sovietico i servizi speciali statunitensi cominciarono ad aiutare i guerriglieri afghani.

Esso risale agli anni Cinquanta e Sessanta, allorché Gran Bretagna e Stati Uniti, individuato nell’Egitto nasseriano il principale ostacolo all’egemonia occidentale nel Mediterraneo, fornirono ai Fratelli Musulmani un sostegno discreto ma accertato. È emblematico il caso di un genero del fondatore del movimento, Sa’id Ramadan, che “prese parte alla creazione di un importante centro islamico a Monaco in Germania, intorno al quale si costituì una federazione ad ampio raggio”4. Sa’id Ramadan, che ricevette finanziamenti e istruzioni dall’agente della CIA Bob Dreher, nel 1961 espose il proprio progetto d’azione ad Arthur Schlesinger Jr., consigliere del neoeletto presidente John F. Kennedy. “Quando il nemico è armato di un’ideologia totalitaria e dispone di reggimenti di fedeli devoti, – scriveva Ramadan – coloro che sono schierati su posizioni politiche opposte devono contrastarlo sul piano dell’azione popolare e l’essenza della loro tattica deve consistere in una fede contraria e in una devozione contraria. Solo delle forze popolari, genuinamente coinvolte e genuinamente reagenti per conto proprio, possono far fronte alla minaccia d’infiltrazione del comunismo”5.

L’uso strumentale dei movimenti islamisti funzionali alla strategia atlantica non terminò con il ritiro dell’Armata Rossa dall’Afghanistan. Il patrocinio fornito dall’Amministrazione Clinton al separatismo bosniaco ed a quello kosovaro, l’appoggio statunitense e britannico al terrorismo wahhabita nel Caucaso, il sostegno ufficiale di Brzezinski ai movimenti fondamentalisti armati in Asia centrale, gl’interventi a favore delle bande sovversive in Libia ed in Siria sono gli episodi successivi di una guerra contro l’Eurasia in cui gli USA e i loro alleati si avvalgono della collaborazione islamista.

Il fondatore di An-Nahda, Rachid Ghannouchi, che nel 1991 ricevette gli elogi del governo di George Bush per l’efficace ruolo da lui svolto nella mediazione tra le fazioni afghane antisovietiche, ha cercato di giustificare il collaborazionismo islamista abbozzando un quadro pressoché idilliaco delle relazioni tra gli USA e il mondo islamico. A un giornalista del “Figaro” che gli chiedeva se gli americani gli sembrassero più concilianti degli Europei il dirigente islamista tunisino ha risposto di sì, perché “non esiste un passato coloniale tra i paesi musulmani e l’America; niente Crociate, niente guerra, niente storia”; ed alla rievocazione della lotta comune di americani e islamisti contro il nemico bolscevico ha aggiunto la menzione del contributo inglese6.

La “nobile tradizione salafita”

L’islamismo rappresentato da Rachid Ghannouchi, scrive un orientalista, è quello che “si richiama alla nobile tradizione salafita di Muhammad ‘Abduh e che ha avuto una versione più moderna nei Fratelli Musulmani”7.

Ritornare al puro Islam dei “pii antenati” (as-salaf as-sâlihîn), facendo piazza pulita della tradizione scaturita dal Corano e dalla Sunna nel corso dei secoli: è questo il programma della corrente riformista che ha i suoi capostipiti nel persiano Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani (1838-1897) e nei suoi discepoli, i più importanti dei quali furono l’egiziano Muhammad ‘Abduh (1849-1905) e il siriano Muhammad Rashid Rida (1865-1935).

Al-Afghani, che nel 1883 fondò l’Associazione dei Salafiyya, nel 1878 era stato iniziato alla massoneria in una loggia di rito scozzese del Cairo. Egli fece entrare nell’organizzazione liberomuratoria gli intellettuali del suo entourage, tra cui Muhammad ‘Abduh, il quale, dopo aver ricoperto una serie di altissime cariche, il 3 giugno 1899 diventò Muftì dell’Egitto col beneplacito degl’Inglesi.

“Sono i naturali alleati del riformatore occidentale, meritano tutto l’incoraggiamento e tutto il sostegno che può esser dato loro”8: questo l’esplicito riconoscimento del ruolo di Muhammad ‘Abduh e dell’indiano Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan (1817-1889) che venne dato da Lord Cromer (1841-1917), uno dei principali architetti dell’imperialismo britannico nel mondo musulmano. Infatti, mentre Ahmad Khan asseriva che “il dominio britannico in India è la cosa più bella che il mondo abbia mai visto”9 ed affermava in una fatwa che “non era lecito ribellarsi agli inglesi fintantoché questi rispettavano la religione islamica e consentivano ai musulmani di praticare il loro culto”10, Muhammad ‘Abduh trasmetteva all’ambiente musulmano le idee razionaliste e scientiste dell’Occidente contemporaneo. ‘Abduh sosteneva che nella civiltà moderna non c’è nulla che contrasti col vero Islam (identificava i ginn con i microbi ed era convinto che la teoria evoluzionista di Darwin fosse contenuta nel Corano), donde la necessità di rivedere e correggere la dottrina tradizionale sottoponendola al giudizio della ragione e accogliendo gli apporti scientifici e culturali del pensiero moderno.

Dopo ‘Abduh, capofila della corrente salafita fu Rashid Rida, che in seguito alla scomparsa del califfato ottomano progettò la creazione di un “partito islamico progressista”11 in grado di creare un nuovo califfato. Nel 1897 Rashid Rida aveva fondato la rivista “Al-Manar”, la quale, diffusa in tutto il mondo arabo ed anche altrove, dopo la sua morte verrà pubblicata per cinque anni da un altro esponente del riformismo islamico: Hasan al-Banna (1906-1949), il fondatore dell’organizzazione dei Fratelli Musulmani.

Ma, mentre Rashid Rida teorizzava la nascita di un nuovo Stato islamico destinato a governare la ummah, nella penisola araba prendeva forma il Regno Arabo Saudita, in cui vigeva un’altra dottrina riformista: quella wahhabita.

La setta wahhabita

La setta wahhabita trae il proprio nome dal patronimico di Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792), un arabo del Nagd di scuola hanbalita che si entusiasmò ben presto per gli scritti di un giurista letteralista vissuto quattro secoli prima in Siria e in Egitto, Taqi ad-din Ahmad ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328). Sostenitore di ottuse interpretazioni antropomorfiche delle immagini contenute nel linguaggio coranico, animato da un vero e proprio odium theologicum nei confronti del sufismo, accusato più volte di eterodossia, Ibn Taymiyya ben merita la definizione di “padre del movimento salafita attraverso i secoli”12 datagli da Henry Corbin. Seguendo le sue orme, Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab e i suoi partigiani bollarono come manifestazioni di politeismo (shirk) la fede nell’intercessione dei profeti e dei santi e, in genere, tutti quegli atti che, a loro giudizio, equivalessero a ritenere partecipe dell’onnipotenza e del volere divino un essere umano o un’altra creatura, cosicché considerarono politeista (mushrik), con tutte le conseguenze del caso, anche il pio musulmano trovato ad invocare il Profeta Muhammad o a pregare vicino alla tomba di un santo. I wahhabiti attaccarono le città sante dell’Islam sciita, saccheggiandone i santuari; impadronitisi nel 1803-1804 di Mecca e di Medina, demolirono i monumenti sepolcrali dei santi e dei martiri e profanarono perfino la tomba del Profeta; misero al bando le organizzazioni iniziatiche e i loro riti; abolirono la celebrazione del genetliaco del Profeta; taglieggiarono i pellegrini e sospesero il Pellegrinaggio alla Casa di Dio; emanarono le proibizioni più strampalate.

Sconfitti dall’esercito che il sovrano egiziano aveva inviato contro di loro dietro esortazione della Sublime Porta, i wahhabiti si divisero tra le due dinastie rivali dei Sa’ud e dei Rashid e per un secolo impegnarono le loro energie nelle lotte intestine che insanguinarono la penisola araba, finché Ibn Sa’ud (‘Abd al-’Aziz ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahman Al Faysal Al Su’ud, 1882-1953) risollevò le sorti della setta. Patrocinato dalla Gran Bretagna, che, unico Stato al mondo, nel 1915 instaurò relazioni ufficiali con lui esercitando un “quasi protettorato”13 sul Sultanato del Nagd, Ibn Sa’ud riuscì ad occupare Mecca nel 1924 e Medina nel 1925. Diventò così “Re del Higiaz e del Nagd e sue dipendenze”, secondo il titolo che nel 1927 gli venne riconosciuto nel Trattato di Gedda del 20 maggio 1927, stipulato con la prima potenza europea che riconobbe la nuova formazione statale wahhabita: la Gran Bretagna.

“Le sue vittorie – scrisse uno dei tanti orientalisti che hanno cantato le sue lodi – lo han reso il sovrano più potente d’Arabia. I suoi domini toccano l’Iràq, la Palestina, la Siria, il Mar Rosso e il Golfo Persico. La sua personalità di rilievo si è affermata con la creazione degli Ikhwàn o Fratelli: una confraternita di Wahhabiti attivisti che l’inglese Philby ha chiamato ‘una nuova massoneria’”14.

Si tratta di Harry St. John Bridger Philby (1885-1960), l’organizzatore della rivolta araba antiottomana del 1915, il quale “aveva occupato alla corte di Ibn Saud il posto del deceduto Shakespeare”15, per citare l’espressione iperbolica di un altro orientalista di quell’epoca. Fu lui a caldeggiare presso Winston Churchill, Giorgio V, il barone Rothschild e Chaim Weizmann il progetto di una monarchia saudita che, usurpando la custodia dei Luoghi Santi tradizionalmente assegnata alla dinastia hascemita, unificasse la penisola araba e controllasse per conto dell’Inghilterra la via marittima Suez-Aden-Mumbay.

Con la fine del secondo conflitto mondiale, durante il quale l’Arabia Saudita mantenne una neutralità filoinglese, al patrocinio britannico si sarebbe aggiunto e poi sostituito quello nordamericano. In tal senso, un evento anticipatore e simbolico fu l’incontro che ebbe luogo il 1 marzo 1945 sul Canale di Suez, a bordo della Quincy, tra il presidente Roosevelt e il sovrano wahhabita; il quale, come ricordava orgogliosamente un arabista statunitense, “è sempre stato un grande ammiratore dell’America, che antepone anche all’Inghilterra”16. Infatti già nel 1933 la monarchia saudita aveva dato in concessione alla Standard Oil Company of California il monopolio dello sfruttamento petrolifero, mentre nel 1934 la compagnia americana Saoudi Arabian Mining Syndicate aveva ottenuto il monopolio della ricerca e dell’estrazione dell’oro.

I Fratelli Musulmani

Usurpata la custodia dei Luoghi Santi ed acquisito il prestigio connesso a tale ruolo, la famiglia dei Sa’ud avverte l’esigenza di disporre di una “internazionale” che le consenta di estendere la propria egemonia su buona parte della comunità musulmana, al fine di contrastare la diffusione del panarabismo nasseriano, del nazionalsocialismo baathista e – dopo la rivoluzione islamica del 1978 in Iran – dell’influenza sciita. L’organizzazione dei Fratelli Musulmani mette a disposizione della politica di Riyad una rete organizzativa che trarrà alimento dai cospicui finanziamenti sauditi. “Dopo il 1973, grazie all’aumento dei redditi provenienti dal petrolio, i mezzi economici non mancano; verranno investiti soprattutto nelle zone in cui un Islam poco ‘consolidato’ potrebbe aprire la porta all’influenza iraniana, in particolare l’Africa e le comunità musulmane emigrate in Occidente”17.

D’altronde la sinergia tra la monarchia wahhabita e il movimento fondato nel 1928 dall’egiziano Hassan al-Banna (1906-1949) si basa su un terreno dottrinale sostanzialmente comune, poiché i Fratelli Musulmani sono gli “eredi diretti, anche se non sempre rigorosamente fedeli, della salafiyyah di Muhammad ‘Abduh”18 e in quanto tali recano inscritta fin dalla nascita nel loro DNA la tendenza ad accettare, sia pure con tutte le necessarie riserve, la moderna civiltà occidentale. Tariq Ramadan, nipote di Hassan al-Banna ed esponente dell’attuale intelligencija musulmana riformista, così interpreta il pensiero del fondatore dell’organizzazione: “Come tutti i riformisti che l’hanno preceduto, Hassan al-Banna non ha mai demonizzato l’Occidente. (…) L’Occidente ha permesso all’umanità di fare grandi passi in avanti e ciò è avvenuto a partire dal Rinascimento, quando è iniziato un vasto processo di secolarizzazione (‘che è stato un apporto positivo’, tenuto conto della specificità della religione cristiana e dell’istituzione clericale)”19. L’intellettuale riformista ricorda che il nonno, nella sua attività di maestro di scuola, si ispirava alle più recenti teorie pedagogiche occidentali e riporta da un suo scritto un brano eloquente: “Dobbiamo ispirarci alle scuole occidentali, ai loro programmi (…) Dobbiamo anche prendere dalle scuole occidentali e dai loro programmi il costante interesse all’educazione moderna e il loro modo di affrontare le esigenze e la preparazione all’apprendimento, fondate su metodi saldi tratti da studi sulla personalità e la naturalità del bambino  (…) Dobbiamo approfittare di tutto ciò, senza provare alcuna vergogna: la scienza è un diritto di tutti (…)”20.

Con la cosiddetta “Primavera araba”, si è manifestata in maniera ufficiale la disponibilità dei Fratelli Musulmani ad accogliere quei capisaldi ideologici della cultura politica occidentale che Huntington indicava come termini fondamentali di contrasto con l’Islam. In Libia, in Tunisia, in Egitto i Fratelli hanno goduto del patrocinio statunitense.

Il partito egiziano Libertà e Giustizia, costituito il 30 aprile 2011 per iniziativa della Fratellanza e da essa controllato, si richiama ai “diritti umani”, propugna la democrazia, appoggia una gestione capitalistica dell’economia, non è contrario ad accettare prestiti dal Fondo Monetario Internazionale. Il suo presidente Muhammad Morsi (n. 1951), oggi presidente dell’Egitto, ha studiato negli Stati Uniti, dove ha anche lavorato come assistente universitario alla California State University; due dei suoi cinque figli sono cittadini statunitensi. Il nuovo presidente ha subito dichiarato che l’Egitto rispetterà tutti i trattati stipulati con altri paesi (quindi anche con Israele); ha compiuto in Arabia Saudita la sua prima visita ufficiale e ha dichiarato che intende rafforzare le relazioni con Riyad; ha dichiarato che è un “dovere etico” sostenere il movimento armato di opposizione che combatte contro il governo di Damasco.

Se la tesi di Huntington aveva bisogno di una dimostrazione, i Fratelli Musulmani l’hanno fornita.


1. Samuel P. Huntington, Lo scontro delle civiltà e il nuovo ordine mondiale, Garzanti, Milano 2000, p. 319.

2. Ibidem, p. 310.

3. Rédha Malek, Tradition et révolution. L’enjeu de la modernité en Algérie et dans l’Islam, ANEP, Rouiba (Algeria) 2001, p. 218.

4. Stefano Allievi e Brigitte Maréchal, I Fratelli Musulmani in Europa. L’influenza e il peso di una minoranza attiva, in: I Fratelli Musulmani nel mondo contemporaneo, a cura di M. Campanini e K. Mezran, UTET, Torino 2010, p. 219.

5. “When the enemy is armed with a totalitarian ideology and served by regiments of devoted believers, those with opposing policies must compete at the popular level of action and the essence of their tactics must be counter- faith and counter-devotion. Only popular forces, genuinely involved and genuinely reacting on their own behalf, can meet the infiltrating threat of Communism” (http://www.american-buddha.com/lit.johnsonamosqueinmunich.12.htm)

6. “- Les Américains vous semblent-ils plus conciliants que les Européens? – A l’égard de l’islam, oui. Il n’y a pas de passé colonial entre les pays musulmans et l’Amérique, pas de croisades; pas de guerre, pas d’histoire… – Et vous aviez un ennemi commun: le communisme athée, qui a poussé les Américains à vous soutenir… – Sans doute, mais la Grande-Bretagne de Margaret Thatcher était aussi anticommuniste…” (Tunisie: un leader islamiste veut rentrer, 22/01/2011; http://plus.lefigaro.fr/article/tunisie-un-leader-islamiste-veut-rentrer-20110122-380767/commentaires).

7. Massimo Campanini, Il pensiero islamico contemporaneo, Il Mulino, Bologna 2005, p. 137.

8. Cit. in: Maryam Jameelah, Islam and Modernism, Mohammad Yusuf Khan, Srinagar-Lahore 1975, p. 153.

9. Cit. in: Tariq Ramadan, Il riformismo islamico. Un secolo di rinnovamento musulmano, Città Aperta Edizioni, Troina (En) 2004, p. 65.

10. Massimo Campanini, Il pensiero islamico contemporaneo, cit., p. 23.

11. Cit. in: Tariq Ramadan, op. cit., p. 143.

12. Henry Corbin, Storia della filosofia islamica, Adelphi, Milano 1989, p. 126.

13. Carlo Alfonso Nallino, Raccolta di scritti editi e inediti, Vol. I L’Arabia Sa’udiana, Istituto per l’Oriente, Roma 1939, p. 151.

14. Henri Lammens, L’Islàm. Credenze e istituzioni, Laterza, Bari 1948, p. 158.

15. Giulio Germanus, Sulle orme di Maometto, vol. I, Garzanti, Milano 1946, p. 142.

16. John Van Ess, Incontro con gli Arabi, Garzanti, Milano 1948, p. 108.

17. Alain Chouet, L’association des Frères Musulmans, http://alain.chouet.free.fr/documents/fmuz2.htm. Sulla presenza dei Fratelli Musulmani in Occidente, cfr. Karim Mezran, La Fratellanza musulmana negli Stati Uniti, in: I Fratelli Musulmani nel mondo contemporaneo, cit., pp. 169-196; Stefano Allievi e Brigitte Maréchal, I Fratelli Musulmani in Europa. L’influenza e il peso di una minoranza attiva, ibidem, pp. 197-240.

18. Massimo Campanini, I Fratelli Musulmani nella seconda guerra mondiale: politica e ideologia, “Nuova rivista storica”, a. LXXVIII, fasc. 3, sett.-dic. 1994, p. 625.

19. Tariq Ramadan, op. cit., pp. 350-351.

20. Hassan al-Banna, Hal nusir fi madrasatina wara’ al-gharb, “Al-fath”, 19 sett. 1929, cit. in: Tariq Ramadan, op. cit., p. 352.


dimanche, 25 novembre 2012

Die Kurden – Volk ohne Staat


„Die Kurden – Volk ohne Staat“ von Gunther Deschner

Herbig, Munchen 2003, 349 Seiten, 24,90 Euro, ISBN 3-7766-2358-6

Von Hans Wagner
EM – Ein Buch von wahrhaft brennender Aktualität! - Der Krieg, den die USA in den Irak getragen haben, wurde von ihnen nach gängiger Lesart gewonnen. Carl von Clausewitz, der geniale Kriegstheoretiker, würde hier sofort vehement widersprechen. Er würde sagen: Die USA haben ihren Krieg erst dann gewonnen, wenn sie ihre politischen Ziele erreicht haben. Doch davon sind sie meilenweit entfernt. Daß sie auch nicht Frieden schaffen können, zeigt die Situation im Spätherbst 2003 Tag für Tag. Frieden herrscht in der Region Naher Osten allerdings seit Jahrzehnten nicht mehr. Gewalt gehört hier zum Alltag. Die Ursachen sind vielfältig: der Streit um die reichen Ölfelder, die von den einstigen Kolonialmächten England und Frankreich willkürlich gezogenen Grenzen, die widerstreitenden Interessen der verfeindeten Nachbarn und die Einmischung auswärtiger Mächte, insbesondere der USA und Großbritanniens.

Wenn die Kurden im Nahen Osten ins Rampenlicht traten, lag stets Krieg in der Luft

In der Region lebt ein 30-Millionen-Volk ohne eigenen Staat: die Kurden. Das Bergvolk, das seit Jahrtausenden zwischen Mesopotamien und Kleinasien siedelte, drohte oft in seiner Geschichte in Vergessenheit zu geraten – wenn es aber ins Rampenlicht trat, lag stets Krieg in der Luft. Das war so zu Zeiten der Perser, der Kreuzritter, der Mongolen und der Osmanen. Und auch in diesem Jahr ist es nicht anders, nachdem die USA in den Irak einmarschiert sind und dort den Krieg entfesselt haben.

Kurdistan, das Territorium, das die Kurden als Staatsgebiet beanspruchen und das mehrheitlich von ihnen bewohnt wird, ist heute zwischen der Türkei und Syrien, Aserbaidschan, Iran und Irak aufgeteilt. Der jüngste amerikanische Aufmarsch am Golf, der Krieg gegen den Irak, hat die Kurden im Norden des Landes auch in Deutschland wieder in die Schlagzeilen gebracht. Die Darstellung des Schicksals dieses Volkes durch Günther Deschner liefert alle Hintergrundinformationen, die zum Verständnis des ungelösten Problems nötig sind. Der Autor kennt die maßgeblichen kurdischen Politiker und militärischen Führer der vergangenen 30 Jahre persönlich. Kurdistan hat er mehrfach bereist, seine Kompetenz durch Reportagen und Sachbücher belegt.

Die Kurden sind eines der ältesten Kulturvölker der Erde

Die Kurden sind eines der ältesten Kulturvölker der Erde. Ihre Herkunft liegt weitgehend im Dunkel der Geschichte verborgen. Sie beginnt nach grober Schätzung am Ende des zweiten Jahrtausends vor Chr. mit der Einwanderung indogermanischer Arier in das Gebiet des heutigen Irans. Die kurdische Geschichte ist geprägt von einer glanzvollen frühen Vergangenheit, von tiefer Zerrissenheit, von Leid und Unterdrückung. All dies wird in dem Buch lebendig. (Siehe auch EM 02-03 DIE KURDEN).

In Vergangenheit wie Gegenwart waren die Kurden, so der Autor, stets nur Figuren auf dem Schachbrett anderer. Ihre Kultur konnten sie, allem politischen Wechselspiel zum Trotz, zwar über Jahrhunderte behaupten, ihre staatliche Souveränität allerdings nie über einen nennenswerten Zeitraum hinaus sichern. Verträge, die ihnen Eigenständigkeit versprachen, wurden gebrochen, ihre Interessen stets verraten. Die Liste derer, die das Volk der Kurden benutzte, ist lang: In den letzten Jahrzehnten waren es vor allem die Iraker, Iraner, Syrer und Türken, Briten, Franzosen, Russen und – gleich mehrfach – die Amerikaner.

Ob die Kurden jemals ihren eigenen Staat bekommen werden, ist zweifelhaft. Das Dilemma, in dem eines der Länder mit starker kurdischer Bevölkerung steckt, nämlich die Türkei, schildert Deschner ausführlich: Ankara will unbedingt Mitglied der Europäischen Union werden. Dem stand bislang die diskriminierende Behandlung der größten ethnischen Minderheit des Landes, der Kurden, entgegen. Zwar würden jetzt Zugeständnisse gemacht, vor allem was die bislang unterdrückte Sprache angeht. Aber gleichzeitig versucht die türkische Republik, eine kurdische Autonomie oder gar einen kurdischen Staat im Nordirak zu verhindern, weil er dem Unabhängigkeitsstreben der Kurden im eigenen Land nach der Zerschlagung der PKK wieder Auftrieb geben dürfte. Ein selbständiges Kurdistan im Irak würde, zumal, wenn es über Einnahmen aus den Ölfeldern des Nordens verfügen könnte, als Angriff auf die türkische Souveränität verstanden - so Deschners Einschätzung. Die mögliche Rückführung von Kurden, die unter Saddam Hussein aus dem Norden vertrieben wurden, belaste schon jetzt die traditionell guten Beziehungen der Türkei zu den USA. Prüfstein sei die 3000 Jahre alte Stadt Kirkuk, das „kurdische Jerusalem“, das unter Saddam entschlossen arabisiert wurde und das nun die nordirakischen Kurden zu ihrer Hauptstadt machen wollen.

Daß die Kurdenfrage in der internationalen Politik noch lange eine Rolle spielen wird, daran läßt der Autor keinen Zweifel. Ihre Komplexität und Sprengkraft wird durch Deschners sachlich fundierte, spannend geschriebene Darstellung deutlich. Er schildert in seinem Buch die politische Aktualität und das historische Schicksal gleichermaßen. Außerdem liefert er ein Bild dieses faszinierenden Landes, das sich vom biblischen Berg Ararat bis zum Persischen Golf, von Euphrat und Tigris bis zum Hochland des Irans erstreckt.

Ein Personenregister am Schluß des Buches erleichtert es, sich in der aufregenden Geschichte dieses Volkes zurechtzufinden, von den mythischen Gestalten ihrer Anfänge bis zum heutigen Kurdenführer Talabani.

00:05 Publié dans Eurasisme, Livre | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : livre, kurdes, proche orient | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

lundi, 05 novembre 2012

Horseback Riding and Bronze Age Pastoralism in the Eurasian Steppes

Horseback Riding and Bronze Age Pastoralism in the Eurasian Steppes

jeudi, 01 novembre 2012

Indo-European Dispersals and the Eurasian Steppe with J.P. Mallory

Indo-European Dispersals and the Eurasian Steppe with J.P. Mallory

jeudi, 25 octobre 2012

The Pakistan-Russia Relationship: Geopolitical Shift in South and Central Asia?


The Pakistan-Russia Relationship: Geopolitical Shift in South and Central Asia?

The two countries have quietly been building a mutual relationship for the last few years through bilateral as well as multilateral contacts at the highest levels. Pakistan’s status as an observer state in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) has provided it with an important opportunity to have interaction with the top Russian leadership.

In June 2009, President Asif Ali Zardari participated in the SCO Summit in Yaketerinburg and met the then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The Russian leader was reported to have expressed a strong desire to develop closer relations with Pakistan in all important areas, including defence, investment and energy.

The establishment of close contacts between the top leadership of Pakistan and Russia and the two sides readiness to open a new chapter in their relationship is not only in the interests of the two countries, it will also serve the interests of peace, security and regional integration in two of the world’  s important regions of Central Asia and South Asia.

* *

Despite being geographically contiguous, Pakistan and Russia had remained politically distant from each other during the last six decades. The framework of the Cold War and the East-West confrontation defined the relations between the two countries during that period.

Another factor that obstructed the development of close and friendly relations between Pakistan and Russia was the latter’s insistence on looking at South Asia only through Indian eyes, ignoring Pakistan’s vital national security concerns. But the post-Cold War transformation of global politics and fast changing geo-political situation in the region following 9/11 have created new and strong imperatives for the two to come closer and enter into productive bilateral cooperation in the political, economic and security areas.

This reality was manifestly recognised in the statements by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar and visiting Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at a joint press talk in Islamabad earlier this month. “We are longing for better ties with Pakistan,” said Mr Lavrov; while Ms Khar termed the current millennium as “the millennium of (Pakistan’s) relations with Russia.” The visit of the Russian foreign minister has brought the relationship of the two countries to a new and historic threshold.

Pakistan has achieved significant diplomatic success by securing the Russian endorsement of its position on the peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan. The Russian foreign minister, while talking to the media in Islamabad, had categorically said that his country was against any solution of the Afghanistan problem that is imposed from outside and is not Afghan-owned and Afghan-driven. Instead, Russia would back an indigenous peace and reconciliation process owned and led by the people of Afghanistan. Similarly, the Russian condemnation of drone attacks has strengthened Pakistan’s hands in ensuring the country’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Russian position on Afghanistan as articulated by Foreign Minister Lavrov during his recent visit to Pakistan is clear evidence of the greater geo-strategic convergence between Pakistan and Russia on regional issues.

The two countries have quietly been building a mutual relationship for the last few years through bilateral as well as multilateral contacts at the highest levels. Pakistan’s status as an observer state in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) has provided it with an important opportunity to have interaction with the top Russian leadership.

With the induction of a democratic government in Pakistan following the 2008 elections, the process gained momentum and the two sides took important initiatives to promote bilateral trade, economic cooperation and regional connectivity through multilateral frameworks. In June 2009, President Asif Ali Zardari participated in the SCO Summit in Yaketerinburg and met the then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The Russian leader was reported to have expressed a strong desire to develop closer relations with Pakistan in all important areas, including defence, investment and energy. According to some sources, Pakistan and Russia were contemplating entering into a commercial defence agreement enabling Pakistan to purchase Russian arms and weapons.

There is vast potential for the growth of bilateral cooperation between Pakistan and Russia in a wide range of areas. Since the two sides have shown a keen desire to explore new areas and strengthen already existing cooperation in multiple fields, the coming years if not months are certain to witness an expansion of cooperation between the two countries. The areas of energy, regional connectivity, infrastructure and trade are going to be the focus of these endeavours.

However, while discussing the future prospects of Pakistan-Russia cooperation in economic and other non-political areas, the political and strategic fallout of the newly-found Russia-Pakistan friendship should also be taken into consideration, particularly by Pakistan, which has to date followed a foreign policy based on a narrow regional and global perspective.

Russia, which is a successor state to a former superpower, has its own worldview. For example, despite the establishment of a strategic partnership between India and the United States symbolised by their deal on civil nuclear cooperation, and robust Sino-India trade and economic relations, Moscow still values New Delhi as a close friend and Russian relations with Pakistan will not be at the cost of the former’s relations with India. As a big stakeholder in peace and tranquillity in South Asia, the growth of the Pakistan-Russia relationship will be a further incentive for Pakistan to pursue peace and normalisation with its eastern neighbour.

The Russians have their own perspective on issues relating to militancy, terrorism and regional peace and security. They are concerned about the prospects of Afghanistan again coming under the rule of the Taliban. Although, as the statement of the Russian foreign minister in Islamabad indicated, the Russians are opposed to the permanent military presence of the United States in Afghanistan; they are frightened on the prospects of NATO failure in Afghanistan as that would lead to serious anarchy and chaos in the country. This is why they are helping ISAF in Afghanistan by allowing their supplies through Russian territory. The Russians are also very worried about the security and law and order situation in Pakistan, particularly, the presence of a large number of foreign militants from Central Asia and Chechnya. During the meeting on the sidelines of the SCO summit at Yaketerinburg in June 2009 between President Zardari and President Medvedev, the latter was reported to have called for the elimination of safe havens of terrorists in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

The establishment of close contacts between the top leadership of Pakistan and Russia and the two sides’ readiness to open a new chapter in their relationship is not only in the interests of the two countries, it will also serve the interests of peace, security and regional integration in two of the world’s important regions of Central Asia and South Asia.

The writer is a professor of International Relations at Sargodha University

lundi, 15 octobre 2012

Une nouvelle doctrine américaine : contenir l’Eurasie par le chaos


Une nouvelle doctrine américaine : contenir l’Eurasie par le chaos


Le magazine texan Stratfor que nous citons, et auquel nous renvoyons, The Emerging Doctrine of the United States | Stratfor est un thermomètre de la température américaine et vise surtout à préparer l’opinion à distinguer entre les intérêts apparents et réels des Etats-Unis, à court et à long terme, ; il n’est donc pas destiné à un très vaste public, ni non plus formellement confidentiel, mais répond aux questions des élites déconcertées par le tapage médiatique « à usage de l’Américain moyen »

« Au cours de la fin de semaine dernière, des rumeurs ont commencé à émerger que l’opposition syrienne permettrait  à des  éléments  du « régime d’Assad » (sic)  à rester en Syrie et de participer au nouveau gouvernement. …  Ce qui se passe en Syrie est importante pour une nouvelle doctrine étrangère émergente aux États-Unis – une doctrine selon laquelle  les États-Unis ne prennent pas la responsabilité principale des événements, mais qui permet  aux crises régionales de se déployer jusqu’à ce qu’un nouvel équilibre régional soit  atteint. »

Le magazine simplifie volontairement, par souci de pédagogie la formule géopolitique U.S, en insistant sur  ses « intérêts fondamentaux » », à savoir e que assure la base de la prospérité américaine : « cela se résume à l’atténuation des menaces contre les Etats-Unis par le contrôle des mers  en empêchant l’émergence d’une puissance eurasienne qui serait en mesure de mobiliser des ressources à cette fin. Cette nouvelle doctrine consiste « à empêcher le développement d’une substantielle puissance nucléaire intercontinentale qui pourrait menacer les Etats-Unis, au cas où un pays ne serait pas découragé par la puissance américaine pour un motif quelconque. »

Dans cette perspective de maintien de supériorité « l’intérêt américain pour ce qui se passe dans le Pacifique est compréhensible .Mais même là les Etats-Unis, du moins pour l’instant, laissent les forces régionales s’engager dans une lutte qui n’a pas encore affecté l’équilibre régional de la puissance des Alliés américains, et les mandataires de cette puissance, comprenant les Philippines, le Viêt-Nam et le Japon ont été joué aux échec des les mers de cette région »  –sous entendu contre la Chine, et l’on notera que le Viêt-Nam est dans la sphère politique antichinoise depuis sa dernière lutte frontalière, au mépris des sacrifices nationaux antérieurs !- »sans une imosition directe de la puissance navale américaine, même si une telle perspective », conclut Stratfor Global Intelligence, « semble possible » !

Viennent maintenant les leçons que les Américains auraient tiré des derniers engagements ! la campagne d’Irak et la résistance irakienne ont conduit au retrait des forces US et l’iran y aurait gagné une plus grande puissance et un sentiment de sécurité.

La campagne libyenne est présentée –avec une certaine hypocrisie- comme une initiative française et aurait été  plus difficile, voire un échec, sans le soutien de l’aviation US.

La guerre syrienne, naturellement justifiée par l’influence croissante de l’Iran, et visant moins un Etat que ses relations étrangères avec l’Iran, la Russie et la Chine amène à  préciser cette nouvelle politique ; le conflit est régional, les Alliés des Américains sont chargés de l’entretenir, même sans arriver à une solution radicale, et l’auteur Friedmann raconte qu’il a exposé ceci à ses interlocuteurs d’Asie centrale qui espéraient voir un engagement plus net des forces US !

Les conséquences en sont une poursuite indéfinie de la lutte intestine en Syrie et une pression continue sur l’Iran, dans laquelle l’arme économique prime sur tout affrontement utopique militaire.  Ce qu’il importe est de bien lire la conclusion de l’analyse, qui montre que les Etats-Unis sont  eux-mêmes dirigés par une force occulte qui veut l’affrontement général en négligeant les embrasements locaux.
Il s’agit de tester la force de la puissance émergente russo-chinoise !

«  Cela a forcé la fois le régime syrien et les rebelles de reconnaître l’improbabilité d’une victoire militaire pure et simple. Tant le soutien de l’Iran au régime et les diverses sources de soutien à l’opposition syrienne se sont révélés  indécis. Les rumeurs d’un compromis politique émergent en conséquence.

Dans le même temps, les États-Unis ne sont pas prêts à s’engager dans une guerre avec l’Iran, ni prêts  à souscrire à l’attaque israélienne en l’accompagnant de leur soutien avec le soutien militaire . Les USA utilisent  un moyen efficace de pression – des sanctions – qui semblent  avoir eu un certain effet par  la dépréciation rapide de la monnaie iranienne . Mais les Etats-Unis ne cherchent pas à résoudre la question iranienne, il n’est pas prêt à assumer la responsabilité principale, sauf si l’Iran devient une menace pour les intérêts fondamentaux des États-Unis. Il se contente de laisser les événements se dérouler et à n’agir que s’ il n’y a pas d’autre choix

Les Etats-Unis ne sont pas prêts à intervenir par la force militaire conventionnelle.

Cela ne signifie pas que les États-Unis se désengagent  de la scène mondiale. Ils contrôlent  les océans du monde et génèrent  près d’un quart du PNB mondial du produit intérieur. Alors que le désengagement est impossible, l’ engagement contrôlé, basé sur une compréhension réaliste de l’intérêt national, est possible.

Cela va bouleverser  le système international, en particulier celui des alliés américains. Il créera également des contraintes aux États-Unis à la fois de la gauche politique, qui se veut une politique étrangère humanitaire, et le droit politique, qui définit l’intérêt national au sens large. Mais les contraintes de la dernière décennie pèsent  lourdement sur les Etats-Unis et vont donc changer la façon dont le monde fonctionne.

Le point important est que personne ne décide cette nouvelle doctrine. Il émerge de la réalité à laquelle les  Etats-Unis sont confrontés. C’est la force des  de doctrines qui se font jour. Elles se manifestent d’abord et sont annoncés quand tout le monde se rend compte que c’est comme ça que les choses fonctionnent. »

Une fois cette leçon de la Stratfor bien lue, une question se pose : qui dirige la politique US, l’intérêt national capitaliste-come partout, avec ses limites et ses confrontations  ou une politique impériale qui prend les Etats-Unis pour écran et vise à non pas bâtir un ordre, mais régler un désordre général, la maintenir par sa théorie du chaos minimum, abattre un adversaire fort, plutôt qu’imposer la puissance qu’elle n’a pas ? A cet égard, une alliance avec les USA est un chèque en blanc donné à un inconnu !

Pierre Dortiguier

samedi, 13 octobre 2012

Russland zwischen Souveränität und Abhängigkeit


Russland zwischen Souveränität und Abhängigkeit

Fjodor Lukjanow für RIA Novosti




In dieser Zeit haben Russland und der Rest der Welt einen tiefgreifenden Wandel durchlebt.

Diese Wandlungen lassen sich schwer zusammenfassen, aber eines ist offensichtlich: Seit dem Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts verschwimmen die Grenzen zwischen den Staaten.

Den Regierungen fällt es zunehmend schwerer, die Prozesse um den Zustand ihres Landes unmittelbar zu kontrollieren. Russland ist da keine Ausnahme. In Russland ist dieser Trend sogar besonders deutlich zu sehen.

Russland und der Rest der Welt

Die stetig zunehmende Abhängigkeit von äußeren Faktoren kam nicht überraschend. Das Auseinanderfallen der Sowjetunion begann bereits in den 1960er-Jahren. Damals machte sich das Land wegen der Erschließung neuer Gas- und Ölvorkommen in Sibirien und deren Exports nach Westeuropa von der Konjunktur des internationalen Rohstoffmarktes abhängig. Der Öl- und Gasexport sowie die Einnahmen wuchsen kontinuierlich, aber auch die Situation auf dem Weltmarkt wirkte sich auf die Sowjetunion aus.

Bis in die 1980er-Jahre profitierte das Land vom permanenten Anstieg der Rohstoffpreise. Dann aber begann die Rezession, die für die UdSSR fast zum Verhängnis wurde.

Andererseits ging der Kreml, der seinen Einfluss in Europa stärken wollte, ein politisches Spiel im Rahmen des Helsinki-Prozesses ein. Am Ende erreichte Moskau sein Ziel: Die bestehenden Grenzen wurden anerkannt. Es musste sich jedoch dem kostspieligen Entwicklungsprogramm für die Dritte Welt anschließen, was später eine wichtige Rolle für die Wandlungen spielen sollte, die zum Zerfall der Sowjetunion geführt haben.

Im Grunde hatte die sowjetische Führung selbst die Voraussetzungen für diese Reformen geschaffen: „Frische Luft“ kam endlich durch den Eisernen Vorhang.

Mit den Folgen der Abhängigkeit vom Rohstoffexport und des „Imports“ der Sehnsucht nach Freiheit musste sich Michail Gorbatschow auseinandersetzen. Das Ergebnis ist allen bekannt. Der Einfluss des Westens hat die Erosion der Sowjetunion beschleunigt, aber nicht verursacht. Die Sowjetunion wurde das Opfer der eigenen Unfähigkeit, die Situation in den Griff zu bekommen.

Boris Jelzin kam an die Macht, als Russland sich bereits geöffnet und als Teil der Welt etabliert hatte. Dies geschah jedoch, weil Chaos nach dem Zerfall der Sowjetunion herrschte, und der äußere Einfluss sich in dieser Situation als gegenläufig und widerspruchsvoll erwies. 

Aber selbst damals, als der russische Staat den Anschein erweckte, nahezu handlungsunfähig zu sein, behielt er die Kontrolle über seine wichtigsten Funktionen und Prozesse innerhalb des Landes.

Vernetzte Welt

Um die Jahrhundertwende wurden die Staatsgrenzen noch durchlässiger. In seiner ersten Amtszeit als Präsident ging es Putin vor allem darum, Russland aus der Misere zu holen, während die Situation in der Welt stabil zu sein schien. Jahre später sollte sich jedoch alles ändern. 

Russland erstarkte, wenngleich die Methoden nicht unumstritten waren. In der Welt begannen dagegen destruktive Prozesse, die sich aber auch auf die Lage in Russland auswirkten.

Die Globalisierung, die ursprünglich in der Wirtschaft begann, weitete sich allmählich auf andere Gebiete aus. Einzelne Staaten verloren die Möglichkeit, sich gegen äußere Einflüsse abzusichern.

Innere Faktoren der Instabilität verschmelzen sofort mit den äußeren, mit der Reaktion der Großmächte bzw. mit deren Interessen, mit der Einflusskraft der ideologischen Dogmen usw.

Verantwortungsvolle Staatsoberhäupter müssen angesichts der weltweiten Turbulenzen einen Mittelweg zwischen dem eigenen Konservatismus und der gesellschaftspolitischen Entwicklung im eigenen Land finden. Übertreibungen könnten dazu führen, dass sie die Kontrolle verlieren.

Die Politiker blicken in eine ungewisse Zukunft und müssen deshalb in der Lage sein, wenigstens kurzfristige Entwicklungen zu erkennen.

Der hippokratische Grundsatz „Primum non nocere“ scheint der einzig vernünftige Weg zu sein. Jegliche Aktivitäten, harte Maßnahmen könnten die Welt ins Wanken bringen. Die Politiker müssen heute vor allem in der Lage sein, schnell auf  Ereignisse zu reagieren.

Selbstzerstörerende Welt

Putin ist in seiner dritten Präsidentenamtszeit ein erfahrener Politiker, der die Perspektiven der Welt eher skeptisch sieht.

Früher hatte Putin die Unfähigkeit bzw. Weigerung des Westens kritisiert, Russland als gleichberechtigten Partner zu akzeptieren. Zudem warf er dem Westen vor, Russlands Interessen verletzen zu wollen.

Mittlerweile rätselt er darüber, warum der Westen sich selbst zerstört und die ohnehin ernsthaften Probleme noch mehr zuspitzt. 

Die Ereignisse in der Welt, der Mangel an Vernunft lassen ihn offenbar an der Zweckmäßigkeit und Möglichkeit der eigenen Schritte gegenüber dem Westen zweifeln. Sein Credo ist: Auf innere oder äußere Impulse reagieren!

Wenn man genau weiß, wie eine Herausforderung aussieht und woher sie kommt, sind Antworten leichter zu finden. Wichtig sind nicht konkrete Verhaltensstrategien, sondern das eigene Potenzial und die Anzahl der Instrumente, die zum richtigen Zeitpunkt angewendet werden müssen.

Souveränität über alles

Ein wichtiges Thema für Putin ist die Unantastbarkeit der Souveränität Russlands. Dieses Denken kennzeichnet seine Vorgehensweise. Er ist überzeugt, dass Souveränität die letzte Stütze eines mehr oder weniger soliden Systems ist. Ohne Souveränität geht der letzte Faktor verloren, der das wachsende Chaos strukturieren kann.

Das seit dem 18. Jahrhundert existierende Westfälische Staatensystem bestimmte die Kooperationsprinzipien, die manches Mal hart, dafür aber klar und verständlich waren. Dieses Modell stütze sich auf souveräne Staaten, die als Struktureinheiten dienten. Wenn diese Elemente plötzlich verschwinden, stellt sich die Frage, worauf sich diese Konstruktion überhaupt stützen könnte. Denn eine konzeptuelle Alternative für Souveränität gibt es nicht.

In letzter Zeit redet Putin gerne von der „Soft Power“ – der russischen und anti-russischen.

Die jüngsten umstrittenen russischen Gesetzesänderungen sind  nachvollziehbar: Russland muss sich gegen den äußeren Einfluss zur Wehr setzen. Putin sieht sich offenbar von den traurigen Erfahrungen der Sowjetunion gewarnt: Damals konnte der Staat den attraktiven Ideen und Argumenten von außerhalb nicht widerstehen und fiel letztendlich auseinander.

Russlands Abhängigkeit von der internationalen Marktkonjunktur ist nach wie vor ein Problem. Ideologische und intellektuelle Einflüsse von außerhalb abzuwehren ist die eine Sache. Eine andere Sache ist aber, dass Putin jetzt eine eigene Idee vorschlagen muss.

Dazu ist Russland jedoch noch nicht bereit. Es entsteht aber der Eindruck, dass ein solcher Versuch in absehbarer Zeit unternommen wird. Wie dies in der unberechenbaren Welt funktionieren wird, steht aber in den Sternen.

Zum Verfasser: Fjodor Lukjanow ist der Chefredakteur der Zeitschrift "Russia in Global Affairs"

Die Meinung des Verfassers muss nicht mit der von RIA Novosti übereinstimmen.


mardi, 09 octobre 2012

A. Dugin, C. Preve e M. Fini, presentano "Eurasia" a Milano

A. Dugin, C. Preve e M. Fini, presentano "Eurasia" a Milano

1 + 2


samedi, 06 octobre 2012

Salafismo e CIA: destabilizzare la Federazione Russa?


Salafismo e CIA: destabilizzare la Federazione Russa?

Parte I: la Siria arriva nel Caucaso russo
Il 28 agosto Sheikh Said Afandi, noto leader spirituale della Repubblica autonoma russa del Daghestan, veniva assassinato. Un’attentatrice suicida jihadista era riuscita ad entrare in casa sua e a far esplodere un ordigno esplosivo. L’obiettivo dell’omicidio era stato accuratamente selezionato. Sheikh Afandi, 75enne leader musulmano Sufi, aveva svolto un ruolo critico nel tentativo di giungere ad una riconciliazione in Daghestan, tra i salafiti jihadisti sunniti ed altre fazioni, molti dei quali, in Daghestan, si considerano seguaci Sufi. Senza una sostituzione della sua statura morale e del suo ampio rispetto, le autorità temono un focolaio di guerra settaria nella piccola repubblica autonoma russa. [1]

La polizia ha riferito che l’assassino era una donna di etnia russa convertitasi all’Islam e legata alla rivolta fondamentalista islamica salafita contro la Russia ed i governi regionali fedeli a Mosca, nelle repubbliche autonome e in tutta l’instabile regione musulmana del Caucaso settentrionale. Le popolazioni musulmane in questa regione della Russia e nell’ex Unione Sovietica, tra cui Uzbekistan e Kirghizistan, e nella provincia cinese dello Xinjiang, sono oggetto di varie operazioni di intelligence degli Stati Uniti e della NATO dalla fine della Guerra Fredda nel 1990. Washington vede nella manipolazione dei gruppi musulmani il veicolo per indurre un caos incontrollabile nella Russia e nell’Asia centrale. Attuato dalle stesse organizzazioni impegnate nel creare caos e distruzione in Siria contro il governo di Bashar al-Assad. In un certo senso, come i servizi di sicurezza russi hanno capito chiaramente, se non riescono a fermare l’insurrezione jihadista in Siria, essa si rivolgerà in patria attraverso il Caucaso. I recenti omicidi dei leader moderati Sufi e di altri musulmani del Caucaso, fanno apparentemente parte di ciò che sta diventando sempre più chiaro come, forse, la più pericolosa operazione di intelligence degli Stati Uniti, che sempre opera a livello mondiale con il fondamentalismo islamico. In precedenza, i servizi segreti statunitensi e alleati avevano giocato a tira e molla con le organizzazioni religiose o settarie in tale o tal altro paese. Ciò che rende la situazione particolarmente pericolosa, in particolare dopo la decisione di Washington di scatenare gli sconvolgimenti della malnominata primavera araba, che hanno avuto inizio alla fine del 2010 in Tunisia, diffondendo come un incendio in tutto il mondo islamico, dall’Afghanistan in Asia centrale al Marocco, è l’ondata incalcolabile di uccisioni, odi, distruzione di intere culture che Washington ha scatenato in nome di quel sogno sfuggente chiamato “democrazia”. Utilizzando presunti gruppi salafiti di al-Qaida, sauditi o wahhabiti, o i discepoli del movimento turco di Fethullah Gülen, per incendiare l’odio religioso nell’Islam e contro le altre fedi, che potrebbe richiedere decenni per essere estinto. E che infine potrebbe facilmente sfociare in una nuova guerra mondiale.

La minaccia del fondamentalismo in Caucaso
Dopo lo scioglimento dell’URSS, i mujahidin radicali afghani, islamisti dall’Arabia Saudita, da Turchia, Pakistan e altri paesi islamici, dilagarono nelle regioni musulmane dell’ex Unione Sovietica. Uno dei meglio organizzati di questi gruppi era il movimento di Fethullah Gülen, leader di una rete globale di scuole islamiche e che risulta avere un’influenza importante sulla politica di Erdogan, del partito AKP della Turchia. Gülen si era affrettato a creare The International Daghestan-Turkey College nel Daghestan. Durante i giorni caotici del crollo sovietico, il Ministero della Giustizia della Federazione Russa aveva ufficialmente registrato e autorizzato la libera attività di una serie di fondazioni e organizzazioni islamiche. Tra queste, la Lega del Mondo Islamico, l’Assemblea Mondiale della Gioventù Musulmana, la sospetta fondazione saudita ‘Ibrahim ben Abd al-Aziz al-Ibrahim‘, vicina ad al-Qaida. La lista nera comprendeva anche la fondazione saudita al-Haramein, che sarebbe legata ad al-Qaida, e l’IHH [2], un’organizzazione turca vietata in Germania, che avrebbero raccolto fondi per i combattenti jihadisti in Bosnia, Cecenia e Afghanistan, e accusata dall’intelligence francese di avere legami con al-Qaida. [3]

Molti di questi enti di beneficenza erano coperture dei fondamentalisti salafiti e del loro ordine del giorno speciale. Molti islamisti stranieri in Cecenia e Daghestan erano coinvolti nei disordini regionali e nelle guerre civili, quindi le autorità russe revocarono il permesso per le attività alla maggior parte delle scuole e delle istituzioni islamiche. In tutto il Caucaso del Nord, al momento della guerra Cecena alla fine degli anni ’90, vi erano più di due dozzine di istituti islamici, circa 200 madrase e numerose maktabas (scuole di studio coraniche) presenti in quasi tutte le moschee. L’International Daghestan-Turkey College era stato costretto a chiudere i battenti in Daghestan. Il Collegio era gestito dall’organizzazione di Fethullah Gülen. [4] Al culmine della repressione della diffusione dell’insegnamento salafita in Russia, alla fine degli anni ’90, ci fu un esodo di centinaia di giovani del Daghestan e di studenti musulmani Ceceni in Turchia, Arabia Saudita, Pakistan e in altri luoghi del Medio Oriente, dove avrebbero ricevuto una formazione presso il movimento di Gülen e varie organizzazioni finanziate dai sauditi, tra cui quelle salafite. [5] Si ritiene che gli studenti formati in Russia dai sostenitori di Gülen o dai centri salafiti sauditi e di altri fondamentalisti, siano stati rimandati in Daghestan e nel Caucaso del Nord per diffondere il loro radicalismo islamico. Entro il 2005 la situazione nel Caucaso era così influenzata da questo intervento salafita, che il salafita ceceno Doku Umarov, citato dal Consiglio di sicurezza dell’ONU per i collegamenti con al-Qaida [6], aveva dichiarato unilateralmente la creazione di ciò che chiamava ‘Emirato del Caucaso’, annunciando che aveva intenzione di creare uno stato islamico basato sulla sharia, comprendente l’intera regione del Caucaso del Nord, tra cui il Daghestan. Modestamente si proclamò emiro dell’Emirato del Caucaso. [7]

Parte II: il salafismo in guerra con la tradizione Sufi
Il salafismo, noto in Arabia Saudita come wahhabismo, è un ceppo fondamentalista dell’Islam che ha attirato l’attenzione del mondo e divenne famoso nel marzo 2001, poco prima degli attacchi dell’11 settembre. Fu allora che il governo salafita dei taliban in Afghanistan, distrusse volontariamente le storiche gigantesche statue del Buddha di Bamiyan, sulla Via della Seta, risalenti al 6° secolo. I leader salafiti taliban vietarono come “anti-islamico” anche tutte le forme di immagini, musica e sport, tra cui la televisione, in conformità con ciò che consideravano la stretta interpretazione della Sharia. Fonti afgane riferirono che l’ordine di distruggere i Buddha proveniva dal jihadista wahhabita saudita Usama bin Ladin, che alla fine convinse il Mullah Omar, leader supremo dei taliban all’epoca, ad attuarlo. [8] Mentre i Sufi incorporano il culto dei santi e le preghiere cerimoniali nella loro pratica, i salafiti condannano come idolatria qualsiasi forma di culto non tradizionale. Chiedono inoltre l’istituzione del governo politico islamico e una sharia rigorosa. Il Sufismo è la culla del grande patrimonio spirituale e musicale dell’Islam, secondo gli studiosi islamici, fornisce una dimensione interiore e mistica, o psico-spirituale, all’Islam, che risale a secoli indietro. Uno studioso Sufi ha descritto il nucleo del Sufismo: “Mentre tutti i musulmani credono di essere sul sentiero di Dio e di avvicinarsi a Dio, in Paradiso, dopo la morte e il ‘Giudizio Universale’; i Sufi credono anche che sia possibile avvicinarsi a Dio e vivere questa vicinanza, mentre si è vivi. Inoltre, il raggiungimento della conoscenza viene ottenuta con una tale intimità con Dio, affermano i Sufi, che è il vero scopo della creazione. Qui parlano del qudsi hadith, in cui Dio afferma, ‘Ero un tesoro nascosto e ho apprezzato il fatto che io sia conosciuto, così ho creato la creazione, al fine di essere conosciuto.’ Quindi, per i Sufi c’è già uno slancio, una continua attrazione esercitata nei loro cuori da Dio, trascinando, con l’amore, verso Dio“. [9]

La corrente mistica del sufismo islamico e la sua aspirazione ad avvicinarsi a Dio, è in netto contrasto con la corrente salafita jihadista o wahhabita, che è armata con armi mortali, predica la falsa dottrina della jihad, e un senso perverso del martirio, impegnandosi in innumerevoli atti di violenza. Non c’è da stupirsi che le vittime della jihad salafita siano per lo più le altre forme pacifiche dell’Islam, tra cui soprattutto i Sufi. L’autorevole 75enne Afandi aveva pubblicamente denunciato il fondamentalismo islamico salafita. Il suo omicidio fece seguito a un attacco coordinato del 19 luglio, contro due alti mufti nella Repubblica del Tatarstan russa, sul Volga. Entrambe le vittime erano capi religiosi riconosciuti dallo Stato che avevano attaccato l’Islam radicale. Quest’ultima serie di omicidi apre un nuovo fronte nella guerra salafita contro la Russia, attacca in particolare i leader sufi musulmani moderati. Se il Daghestan sprofondi o meno in una guerra civile religiosa, che poi si diffonda in tutto il Caucaso russo geopoliticamente sensibile, non è ancora certo. Ciò che è quasi certo è che gli stessi circoli che alimentano violenza e terrore in Siria contro il regime del presidente alawita Bashar al-Assad, sono dietro l’uccisione dello sceicco Afandi, così come degli atti di terrorismo o dei disordini nel Caucaso musulmano in Russia. In modo assai reale, rappresenta uno scenario da incubo per la Russia, una “Siria che arrivi in Russia.” Dimostrando drammaticamente perché Putin ha compiuto uno sforzo così determinato nel fermare la discesa nell’inferno omicida della Siria.

Salafismo e CIA
L’esistenza del cosiddetto marchio jihadista salafita dell’Islam in Daghestan è piuttosto recente. È stato anche deliberatamente importato. Il salafismo è a volte chiamato anche col vecchio nome saudita di wahhabismo. Il wahhabismo era originariamente una forma minoritaria beduina di fede originaria dell’Islam, dominante in Arabia Saudita dal 1700. Irfan al-Alawi e Stephen Schwartz del Centro per il pluralismo islamico danno la seguente descrizione delle condizioni saudite sotto il rigido marchio wahhabita dell’Islam: “Le donne che vivono sotto il governo saudita devono indossare l’abaya, il mantello totale del corpo, e il niqab, il velo sul viso, hanno scarse opportunità di istruzione e di carriera, gli è fatto divieto di guidare veicoli, di contatti sociali con uomini che non siano parenti, e tutte le attività personali devono essere sorvegliate, anche aprire i conti bancari, da un familiare di sesso maschile o da un “custode“. Queste regole wahhabite vengono applicate dal mutawiyin, o milizia morale, conosciuta anche come “polizia religiosa”, ufficialmente designata dalla Commissione per la Promozione della virtù e la prevenzione del vizio (CPVPV), che pattuglia le città saudite, armata di bastoni rivestiti in pelle, liberamente utilizzata contro presunti ribelli. Compiono raid nelle case alla ricerca di alcol e droghe, e molestano i musulmani non-wahhabiti e i credenti in altre fedi“. [10] E’ ampiamente noto che l’oscenamente opulenta e la non così tanto moralmente elevata famiglia reale saudita abbia stretto un accordo faustiano con i leader wahhabiti. L’accordo, presumibilmente, rende i wahhabiti liberi di esportare il propria fanatica forma d’Islam alle popolazioni islamiche del mondo, in cambio di lasciare la famiglia reale saudita al potere. [11] Vi sono, tuttavia, altri oscuri e sporchi cucchiai che agitano lo stufato wahabita-salafita saudita.

Poco conosciuto è il fatto che l’attuale forma aggressiva di wahhabismo saudita, sia in realtà una sorta di fusione tra salafiti jihadisti importati dalla Fratellanza musulmana, in Egitto, e i fondamentalisti wahhabiti sauditi. Importanti membri salafiti della Fratellanza musulmana egiziana furono introdotti dalla CIA nel regno saudita, negli anni ’50, con una complessa serie di eventi, quando Nasser usò la mano pesante contro i Fratelli musulmani, in seguito ad un tentativo di assassinio. Negli anni ’60, l’afflusso in Arabia Saudita di membri egiziani dei Fratelli musulmani in fuga dalla repressione nasseriana, aveva occupato molte importanti cattedre nelle scuole religiose saudite. Tra gli studenti vi era un facoltoso giovane saudita, Usama bin Ladin. [12] Durante il Terzo Reich, la Germania di Hitler aveva sostenuto i Fratelli musulmani come arma contro gli inglesi in Egitto e in altre parti del Medio Oriente. Marc Erikson descrive le radici naziste della Fratellanza musulmana egiziana così: “…Mentre il fascismo italiano e tedesco cercavano una maggiore presenza in Medio Oriente negli anni ’30 e ’40, per contrastare il controllo degli inglesi e dei francesi, una stretta collaborazione tra gli agenti fascisti e leader islamici ebbe inizio. Durante la Rivolta Araba del 1936-1939, l’ammiraglio Wilhelm Canaris, capo dell’intelligence militare tedesca, aveva inviato agenti e denaro per sostenere la rivolta palestinese contro gli inglesi, così come il fondatore dei Fratelli musulmani e “guida suprema”, Hassan al-Banna. Un individuo chiave nel legame fascista-islamista tra i nazisti e al-Banna fu il Gran Mufti di Gerusalemme, Haj Amin el-Husseini.” [13] Dopo la sconfitta della Germania, l’intelligence inglese si mosse per assumere il controllo della Fratellanza musulmana. In ultima analisi, per ragioni finanziarie e di altro tipo, gli inglesi decisero di consegnare le loro attività con i Fratelli musulmani ai loro colleghi della CIA, negli anni ’50. [14]

Secondo l’ex cacciatore di nazisti del Dipartimento di Giustizia degli Stati Uniti, John Loftus, “nel corso degli anni ’50, la CIA evacuò i nazisti dei Fratelli musulmani in Arabia Saudita. Ora, quando arrivarono in Arabia Saudita, alcuni dei protagonisti dei Fratelli musulmani, come il dottor Abdullah Azzam, divennero insegnanti nelle madrasse, le scuole religiose. E unirono le dottrine del nazismo con questo strano culto islamico, il wahhabismo”. [15] “Tutti pensano che l’Islam sia una religione fanatica, ma non lo è“, continua Loftus. “Pensano che l’Islam, la versione saudita dell’Islam, sia tipica, ma non lo è. Il culto wahhabita è stato condannato come eresia più di 60 volte dalle nazioni musulmane. Ma quando i sauditi divennero ricchi, comprarono un grande silenzio. Si tratta di un culto molto duro. Il wahhabismo è praticato solo dai taliban e dall’Arabia Saudita, per quanto sia estremo. Non ha davvero nulla a che fare con l’Islam. L’Islam è una religione molto pacifica e tollerante. Ha sempre avuto buoni rapporti con gli ebrei, nei primi mille anni della sua esistenza“.[16] Loftus ha individuato il significato di quello che oggi sta emergendo dall’ombra, consegnando l’Egitto al Presidente Morsi dei Fratelli musulmani, e il cosiddetto Consiglio nazionale siriano, in realtà dominato dai Fratelli musulmani e pubblicamente guidato dal più “politicamente corretto” o presentabile degli artisti del calibro di Bassma Kodmani. Kodmani, portavoce per gli Affari esteri del CNS, è stata due volte ospite al raduno dell’élite del Bilderberg, più recentemente a Chantilly, in Virginia, all’inizio di quest’anno. [17]

La caratteristica più bizzarra e allarmante dei cambi di regime finanziati dagli USA, avviati nel 2010, e che hanno portato alla distruzione del regime arabo laico di Hosni Mubarak in Egitto, di Muhammar Gheddafi in Libia e del regime laico del presidente Ben Ali in Tunisia, e che hanno portato alla distruzione selvaggia in tutto il Medio Oriente, in particolare negli ultimi diciotto mesi in Siria, è l’emergente modalità di presa di potere dei rappresentanti salafiti della torbida Fratellanza musulmana. Secondo fonti informate, i Fratelli musulmani, islamici sunniti finanziati dai sauditi, domina i membri del Consiglio nazionale siriano in esilio, sostenuti dalla Segretaria del Dipartimento di Stato USA, Clinton e dalla Francia di Hollande. La Fratellanza musulmana siriana è legata, non a caso, alla Fratellanza musulmana egiziana del presidente Mohammed Morsi, che di recente, alla riunione dei Paesi Non Allineati in Iran, aveva chiesto apertamente la rimozione di Assad dalla Siria, un passo logico affinché i suoi Fratelli musulmani in Siria, presenti nel Consiglio Nazionale, prendano le redini del potere. I sauditi dicono anche di aver finanziato l’ascesa al potere in Tunisia del governo islamista del partito Ennahda, [18] e sono documentati i finanziamenti della Fratellanza musulmana, che domina il Consiglio nazionale siriano contrario al presidente Bashar al-Assad. [19]

Parte III: il regno del terrore salafita di Morsi
Indicativo del vero programma attuale della Fratellanza musulmana e dei jihadisti collegati, è il fatto che una volta che avranno il potere, faranno cadere il velo della moderazione e della riconciliazione, e riveleranno le loro radici violentemente intolleranti. Questo è visibile in Egitto oggi, con il  presidente dei Fratelli musulmani Mohammed Morsi. Non vengono trasmessi dai principali media occidentali, fino ad oggi, gli allarmanti rapporti diretti delle organizzazioni missionarie cristiane in Egitto, secondo cui i Fratelli musulmani di Morsi hanno già cominciato a far cadere il velo della “moderazione e conciliazione“, mostrando i loro colore da brutali salafiti totalitari, similmente a quanto fecero in Iran le forze radicali della Sharia di Khomeini, dopo aver preso il controllo nel 1979-81.

In una lettera diffusa dalla missione Christian Aid (CAM), un missionario cristiano egiziano ha scritto che la Fratellanza musulmana di Morsi “ha annunciato che avrebbe distrutto il paese, se Morsi non avesse vinto, ma hanno anche detto che si vendicheranno di tutti coloro che hanno votato per [il suo avversario Ahmed] Shafiq, soprattutto i cristiani, in quanto sono sicuri che abbiamo votato per Shafiq. Ieri hanno cominciato uccidendo due credenti ad al- Sharqiya, a causa di ciò“, ha aggiunto il missionario, parlando in condizione di anonimato. [20] La presente relazione è stata pubblicata poche settimane dopo che la TV di Stato egiziana (sotto il controllo di Morsi) ha mostrato le immagini del spaventoso video di un convertito dall’islam al cristianesimo ucciso da musulmani. Il filmato ha mostrato un giovane costretto da uomini mascherati con un coltello alla gola. Mentre si sente un uomo cantare preghiere musulmane in arabo, che per lo più condannavano il cristianesimo, un altro che teneva il coltello alla gola del convertito cristiano cominciava a decapitarlo, lentamente, tra grida di “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah è grande”), secondo le trascrizioni. Nella lettera, il missionario egiziano aggiungeva che, “subito dopo che Morsi ha vinto, ai cristiani in Egitto è stato impedito con la forza di andare in chiesa.” Molti musulmani, la lettera affermava, “hanno cominciato a dire alle donne, in strada, che dovevano indossare l’abbigliamento islamico compreso di copricapo. Si comportano come se avessero il controllo del paese, e lo hanno, ora“. [21]

Già nel 2011 i seguaci salafiti di Morsi hanno cominciato ad attaccare e a distruggere le moschee Sufi in tutto l’Egitto. Secondo l’autorevole quotidiano al-Masry al-Youm (l’Egiziano oggi), 16 moschee storiche di Alessandria appartenenti ad ordini Sufi, sono state contrassegnati per essere distrutte dai cosiddetti “salafiti”. Alessandria dispone di 40 moschee associate ai Sufi, ed è la sede di 36 gruppi Sufi. Mezzo milione di Sufi vive in città, su un totale di quattro milioni di persone. L’aggressione contro i Sufi in Egitto, include un raid contro la moschea più illustre di Alessandria, che prende il nome, e alloggia, la tomba del 13° secolo del Sufi Al-Mursi Abul Abbas. [22] In particolare, il cosiddetto regime “democraticamente eletto” in Libia, dopo il rovesciamento nel 2011 di Muammar Gheddafi, grazie alle bombe della NATO, è stato anch’esso zelante nel distruggere le moschee e i luoghi di culto Sufi. Ad agosto di quest’anno, la Direttrice Generale dell’UNESCO, Irina Bokova, ha espresso “grave preoccupazione” per la distruzione da parte dei jihadisti, dei siti islamici Sufi a Zliten, Misurata e Tripoli, e ha invitato gli autori a “cessare immediatamente le distruzioni“. [23] In fondo, dietro le quinte, il governo libico è dominato da jihadisti e dai seguaci dei Fratelli musulmani, come in Tunisia e in Egitto. [24]

Il cocktail esplosivo di violenze insito nel permettere l’ascesa al potere degli islamisti salafiti in tutto il Medio Oriente, è abbastanza chiaro; simbolicamente la notte dell’11 settembre scorso, una folla di sostenitori arrabbiati del gruppo salafita fanatico Ansar al-Sharia, assassinava l’ambasciatore degli Stati Uniti in Libia e tre diplomatici statunitensi, bruciando il consolato statunitense a Bengasi, in segno di protesta per la pubblicazione su YouTube di un film di un regista statunitense, che mostra il profeta Maometto indulgere in affari sessuali multipli e mettere in dubbio il suo ruolo di messaggero di Dio. Ironia della sorte, l’ambasciatore degli Stati Uniti aveva avuto un ruolo chiave nel rovesciare Gheddafi aprendo la porta alla conquista salafita della Libia. Allo stesso tempo, folle inferocite di migliaia di salafiti circondavano l’ambasciata statunitense a Cairo, in segno di protesta per il film degli Stati Uniti. [25] Ansar al-Sharia (Partigiani della “legge islamica” in arabo) sarebbe una derivazione di al-Qaida e reclama una presenza  in tutto il Medio Oriente, dallo Yemen alla Tunisia, Iraq, Egitto e Libia. Ansar al-Sharia afferma di voler riprodurre il modello ristretto di sharia o legge islamica abbracciato dai taliban in Afghanistan, e dallo Stato islamico dell’Iraq, un gruppo militante ombrello che comprende al-Qaida in Iraq. Il nucleo del gruppo sono dei jihadisti che provengono da uno “stato islamico”, sia  l’Afghanistan di metà degli anni ’90, o i jihadisti in Iraq, dopo l’invasione degli USA nel 2003. [26]

La detonazione deliberata, oggi, di un nuovo ciclo di terrore fondamentalista jihadista salafita nelle regioni musulmane del Caucaso russo, ha origini squisitamente politiche, in tempo per esercitare la massima pressione interna sul governo della Russia di Vladimir Putin. Putin e il governo russo sono i sostenitori più forti ed essenziali del governo siriano di Bashar al-Assad, e per la Russia il mantenimento della sola base navale del Mediterraneo della Russia, nel porto di Tartus in Siria, è di vitale importanza strategica. Allo stesso tempo, il messaggio subdolo di Obama a Medvedev di attendere la rielezione di Obama per valutare l’intenzione degli Stati Uniti nei confronti della Russia, e il recente commento criptico di Putin, secondo cui un compromesso con il ri-eletto presidente Obama potrebbe essere possibile, ma non con un Romney presidente, [27] indicano che la tattica di Washington con Mosca del “bastone e carota” o del poliziotto buono – poliziotto cattivo, potrebbe tentare la Russia a sacrificare le principali alleanze geopolitiche, forse anche la speciale e recente stretta alleanza geopolitica con la Cina. [28] Se ciò accadesse, il mondo potrebbe assistere al “reset” nelle relazioni USA-Russia, con conseguenze catastrofiche per la pace nel mondo.

*F. William Engdahl è l’autore di Full Spectrum Dominance: la democrazia totalitaria del Nuovo Ordine Mondiale

[1] Dan Peleschuk, Sheikh Murdered Over Religious Split Say Analysts, RIA Novosti, 30 Agsto 2012.

[2] Mairbek  Vatchagaev, The Kremlin’s War on Islamic Education in the North Caucasus, North Caucasus Analysis Volume: 7 Issue: 34
[3] Iason Athanasiadis, Targeted by Israeli raid: Who is the IHH?, The Christian Science Monitor, 1 Giugno 2010.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Mairbek Vatchagaev, op. cit.
[6] UN Security Council, QI.U.290.11. DOKU KHAMATOVICH UMAROV, 10 Marzo 2011. La dichiarazione delle Nazioni Unite recita: “Doku Umarov Khamatovich è stato inserito il 10 marzo 2011 ai sensi del paragrafo 2 della risoluzione 1904 (2009) come associati ad al-Qaida, Usama bin Ladin o ai taliban per “aver partecipato al finanziamento, pianificazione, facilitazione, preparazione o esecuzione di atti o attività di, in collaborazione con, nel nome di, per conto di o a sostegno, reclutamento, rifornimento, vendita o trasferimento di armi e materiale bellico” e “altri atti o attività di sostegno” al Gruppo della Jihad islamica (QE.I.119.05), al Movimento islamico dell’Uzbekistan (QE.I.10.01), al Battaglione ricognizione e sabotaggio dei Martiri ceceni Riyadus-Salikhin (RSRSBCM) (QE.R.100.03) e all’Emarat Kavkaz (QE.E.131.11).”
[7] Tom Jones, Czech NGO rejects Russian reports of link to alleged Islamist terrorists al-Qaeda, 10 Maggio 2011.
[8] The Times of India, Laden ordered Bamyan Buddha destruction, The Times of India, 28 Marzo 2006.
[9] Dr. Alan Godlas, Sufism — Sufis — Sufi Orders
[10] Irfan Al-Alawi and Stephen Schwartz, Wahhabi Internal Contradictions as Saudi Arabia Seeks Wider Gulf Leadership, Center for Islamic Pluralism, 21 Maggio 2012.
[11] Irfan Al-Alawi and Stephen Schwartz, Wahhabi Internal Contradictions as Saudi Arabia Seeks Wider Gulf Leadership, 21 Maggio 2012.
[12] Robert Duncan, Islamic Terrorisms Links to Nazi Fascism, AINA, 5 Luglio 2007.
[13] Marc Erikson, Islamism, fascism and terrorism (Part 2), AsiaTimes.Online, 8 Novembre 2002.
[14] Ibid.
[15] John Loftus, The Muslim Brotherhood, Nazis and Al-Qaeda, Jewish Community News, 11 Ottobre 2006
[16] Ibid.
[17] Charlie Skelton, The Syrian opposition: who’s doing the talking?: The media have been too passive when it comes to Syrian opposition sources, without scrutinising their backgrounds and their political connections. Time for a closer look…, London Guardian, 12 Luglio 2012.
[18] Aidan Lewis, Profile: Tunisia’s Ennahda Party, BBC News, 25 Ottobre 2011.
[19] Hassan Hassan, Syrians are torn between a despotic regime and a stagnant opposition: The Muslim Brotherhood’s perceived monopoly over the Syrian National Council has created an opposition stalemate, The Guardian, UK, 23 Agosto 2012.
[20] Stefan J. Bos, Egypt Christians Killed After Election of Morsi, Bosnewslife, 30 Giugno 2012.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Irfan Al-Alawi, Egyptian Muslim Fundamentalists Attack Sufis, Guardian Online [London], 11 Aprile 2011
[23] Yafiah Katherine Randall, UNESCO urges Libya to stop destruction of Sufi sites, 31 Agosto 2012, Sufi News and Sufism World Report.
[24] Jamie Dettmer, Libya elections: Muslim Brotherhood set to lead government, 5 Luglio 2012, The Telegraph, London.
[25] Luke Harding, Chris Stephen, US ambassador to Libya, killed in Benghazi attack: Ambassador and three other American embassy staff killed after Islamist militants fired rockets at their car, say Libyan officials, London Guardian, 12 Settembre 2012.
[26] Murad Batal al-Shishani, Profile: Ansar al-Sharia in Yemen, 8 Marzo 2012 .
[27] David M. Herszenhorn, Putin Says Missile Deal Is More Likely With Obama, The New York Times, 6 Settembre 2012. Secondo un’intervista che Putin ha dato alla TV statale di Mosca RT, riferisce Herszenhorn, “Putin ha detto di ritenere che se Obama viene rieletto a novembre, un compromesso potrebbe essere raggiunto sulla questione controversa dei piani statunitensi sul  sistema di difesa antimissile in Europa, che la Russia fortemente contrasta. D’altra parte, Putin ha detto, se il signor Romney diventa presidente, Mosca dovrà temere che il sistema missilistico che è, nonostante le assicurazioni statunitensi, diretto in realtà contro la Russia, quasi certamente diventerà una realtà. “E’ possibile trovare una soluzione al problema, se l’attuale presidente Obama viene rieletto per un secondo mandato? In teoria, sì“, ha detto Putin, secondo la trascrizione ufficiale pubblicato sul sito Web del Cremlino. “Ma questo non è solo il presidente Obama. Per quanto ne so, il suo desiderio di trovare una soluzione è abbastanza sincero“, ha proseguito Putin. “L’ho incontrato di recente a margine del vertice del G-20 a Los Cabos, in Messico, dove abbiamo avuto la possibilità di parlare. E anche se abbiamo parlato per lo più della Siria, potevo ancora fare un bilancio della mia controparte. La mia sensazione è che è un uomo molto onesto, e che vuole sinceramente fare molti cambiamenti positivi. Ma può farlo? Saranno in grado di farglielo fare?”
[28] M.K. Bhadrakumar, Calling the China-Russia split isn’t heresy, Asia Times, 5 Settembre 2012.

Traduzione di Alessandro Lattanzio - SitoAurora

vendredi, 05 octobre 2012

Verso una “relazione” Russia-Pakistan in sfida a Washington

Verso una “relazione” Russia-Pakistan in sfida a Washington

Si assiste ad un nuovo inizio dei legami Pakistan-Russia con la prevista visita del presidente russo Vladimir Putin, citata dei media del Pakistan per i primi di ottobre; la prima visita di un presidente russo in Pakistan. Una cosa considerata improbabile, in passato, potrebbe presto diventare una realtà con le due parti che si battono per un nuovo inizio nei rapporti bilaterali. Anche se i media statali russi hanno messo in dubbio la visita di Putin, è ovvio che anche se la visita venisse annullata, un altro funzionario di alto livello, come il ministro degli Esteri, si recherà in visita in Pakistan.

La visita, rivolta principalmente alla conferenza quadrilaterale sull’Afghanistan di Islamabad, porterebbe anche a un faccia a faccia con il presidente del Pakistan. È stato riferito dai funzionari del ministero degli Esteri russo, che i due stati firmeranno anche un MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) multiplo per lo sviluppo e gli investimenti nei settori dell’acciaio e dell’energia del Pakistan. Il presidente Asif Ali Zardari, che ha incontrato una delegazione di alto livello russa in Pakistan, all’inizio di settembre, guidata dal ministro dello sport russo, ha espresso il suo desiderio di cooperazione con Mosca nei settori succitati. [i]
Storicamente, la Russia e il Pakistan non hanno mai goduto di prolungati fruttuosi legami. Anche dopo la nascita del Pakistan, Liaqat Ali Khan, primo ministro del Pakistan, aveva preferito visitare gli Stati Uniti, anche se fu invitato per primo dal governo sovietico. Le relazioni videro il loro culmine solo durante il governo di Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, quando durante la sua visita, nel 1974 [ii], il governo sovietico decise di costruire l’Acciaieria del Pakistan a proprie spese, aiutandolo anche nel settore dell’energia nucleare. Poi con  il regime di Zia-ul-Haq, l’amministrazione Carter degli Stati Uniti, l’Arabia Saudita e il generale Zia collaborarono, con l’aiuto dei partiti di destra, per formare i mujaheddin contro i sovietici in Afghanistan [iii].

Tenendo a mente il contesto attuale della situazione politica del Pakistan, gli ultimi sviluppi hanno  la massima importanza per il paese.

Attualmente, gli Stati Uniti e i loro alleati hanno aumentato la pressione sul Pakistan per strapparne il supporto alla politica di Washington di rafforzamento della propria influenza nella regione, nonostante l’apparente contraddizione con gli interessi nazionali del Pakistan. Insieme a ciò, gli Stati Uniti stanno perdendo la loro influenza nella regione a causa del crescente sentimento anti-USA. È per questo che una maggiore cooperazione a livello bilaterale e nel quadro della Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), aiuterà a affrontare le questioni politiche ed economiche del Pakistan. Questo, a sua volta, offrirà nuove opportunità a Islamabad per una politica estera più indipendente e una minore dipendenza economica dagli Stati Uniti e dalle istituzioni finanziarie internazionali, apparentemente controllate dagli Stati Uniti [iv]. L’attuale politica di Washington nella guerra in Afghanistan, sembra essere volta a diminuire l’impatto di Islamabad nel paese e sul processo di pace, e a rafforzare il ruolo dell’India nella soluzione della crisi [v]. Non sorprende che i funzionari di Kabul abbiano anche mostrato un atteggiamento ostile nei confronti del Pakistan, che si riflette in regolari accuse nei confronti della dirigenza pakistana di sostenere la rete haqqani e le organizzazioni estremiste che operano in Pakistan [vi] [vii] [viii].

Con l’attuale dipendenza finanziaria e strategica, il Pakistan può agire solo come semplice spettatore contro le politiche e le pretese degli Stati Uniti. Solo aumentando la cooperazione con la Cina e la Russia nell’approccio regionale che affronti la questione afgana e garantisca la stabilità del paese, aiuterà il Pakistan a tutelare i propri interessi nazionali. E’ ovvio che i legami positivi con la Russia non solo rafforzeranno strategicamente il Pakistan, ma saranno anche una buona occasione per superare i problemi energetici del paese, stimolando anche gli scambi e la cooperazione regionali. Nel quadro della cooperazione militare, il Maresciallo dell’Aria Tahir Rafiq Butt, ha visitato Mosca ad agosto, e ha definito la sua visita uno sviluppo significativo verso una maggiore cooperazione con la Russia nel settore della difesa, in particolare nella difesa aerea. Inoltre, è stato segnalato che all’inizio di settembre il capo dell’esercito del Pakistan, Generale Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani, è stato in visita a Mosca per un incontro ad alto livello con il suo omologo russo. Questa visita potrebbe essere di enorme importanza, in quanto punta verso una svolta politica importante. Un portavoce del ministero degli Esteri di Islamabad, in condizioni di anonimato, ha detto: “Abbiamo voltato una nuova pagina nelle nostre relazioni con la Russia. Si tratta di un grande cambiamento.” [ix]
Il Pakistan è un membro attivo della comunità internazionale nella lotta al terrorismo e alla criminalità transfrontaliera. Tenendo conto di questo significato speciale e la pubblicità negativa raccolta dai media mondiali, anche dopo aver fatto tutti gli sforzi e sacrifici possibili, sarebbe utile ampliare la cooperazione con i paesi della SCO, in particolare Russia e Cina. Tale cooperazione può esservi anche in settori quali la prevenzione e la mitigazione dei rischi naturali e tecnologici, la gestione delle emergenze, la formazione e lo sviluppo di esperti locali – dove la Russia ha una vasta esperienza – in materia di risorse scientifiche e tecniche assieme alle risorse umane e finanziarie. L’attuale ripresa nei rapporti può essere utilizzata per sviluppare una cooperazione economica a lungo termine con la Russia.

Mosca ha espresso interesse a partecipare alla costruzione del TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India, Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline), al programma energetico CASA-1000 (Commercio ed Energia per la Regione Asia Centrale – Asia Meridionale) e all’Acciaieria del Pakistan [x]. A questo proposito, Islamabad potrebbe elaborare proposte per la partecipazione di Mosca nella realizzazione di grandi progetti infrastrutturali del paese, portando a uno sviluppo positivo delle relazioni bilaterali. Il Pakistan gode di un grande vantaggio strategico, è un ponte e corridoio per diverse regioni. Questo lo rende, anche per la Russia, un luogo attraente per materializzare la sua profondità strategica. Pertanto, gli sviluppi in corso tra Mosca e Islamabad, le visite ad alto livello e il possibile ruolo del Pakistan nella SCO, le indicazioni per una grande alleanza Sud ed Est asiatica, nella forma dello SCO e di un asse del partenariato Cina-Russia-Pakistan-Iran, possono portare a presagi positivi non solo per la regione, ma anche per il continente asiatico nel suo complesso.

[i] [ii] [iii] [iv] [v] [vi] [vii] [viii] [ix] [x]

Copyright © 2012 Global Research

Traduzione di Alessandro Lattanzio - SitoAurora

mardi, 25 septembre 2012

Global Blitzkrieg: West's Terror Battalions Eye Russia Next

Global Blitzkrieg: West's Terror Battalions Eye Russia Next

Reuters lays groundwork for Western support of Al Qaeda terrorists in Russia's Caucasus region.
by Tony Cartalucci 

August 31, 2012 - With the US openly supporting, arming, and literally "cheering" for Al Qaeda in Syria, it should be no surprise that their support for Al Qaeda's other operations is now slowly revealing itself. For decades, brutal terrorist campaigns have been carried out in Russia by Al Qaeda's Caucasus Mountains faction, constituting the backbone of the so-called "Chechen rebels."

Image: Must be seen to believe - screenshot of FP's article literally titled, "Two Cheers for Syrian Islamists." The writer, Gary Gambill, comes from the Middle East Forum which regular features the warmongering rants of Neo-Cons like Daniel Pipes and Islamophobia-propagandist Robert Spencer. With the West now embracing "Islamists" (Al Qaeda), it has now begun selling the terrorists' cause in Russia's Caucasus region.  


While there was a time the US feigned solidarity with the Russian government as it fought listed Al Qaeda affiliates carrying out attacks across the Caucasus Mountains in Russia's southern region, as well as attacks across the country including in Moscow itself, research reveals that the United States has been covertly backing these terrorists all along. Just as the US created, funded, armed, and directed Al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan during the 1980's, they are to this day funding, arming, and directing Al Qaeda from Libya, to Syria, and in Russia.

US is Attempting to Undermine and Overrun the Russian Political Order

The US State Department has been recently exposed interfering heavily in Russian politics. From funding so-called "independent" election monitor GOLOS, who sought to write off recent elections as "stolen," to street protests led by US-funded opposition members who have been caught literally filing into the US embassy in Moscow, the US is clearly attempting to undermine and overrun the current political order in Russia. The recent "Pussy Riot" publicity stunt has also been arranged by US-funded opposition as well as fully leveraged by these organizations, their foreign sponsors, and the Western media.

While these so-called "soft-power" options are running their course, a more sinister plot is being prepared - one involving the resurgence of terrorism in Russia's Caucasus region, and sure to spill over into the rest of Russia. It is now revealed that many of the propaganda fronts acting as clearinghouses for the Chechen militants were in fact US subsidized.

Corporate Media Laying Groundwork for Renewed Terrorism

Just like in Syria, where foreign terrorists are fallaciously portrayed as indigenous, justified "pro-democracy" "freedom fighters," a similar narrative is being spun to whitewash terrorists operating in Russia's Caucasus Mountains. In Reuters' recent report, "Insight: Brutality, anger fuel jihad in Russia's Caucasus," readers are barraged by outright lies regarding the genesis and underlying cause of violence in the region.

Reading like a US State Department press release, we are told that Chechens are "sick of official corruption" and want change "like that seen in last year's Egyptian revolution." Reuters fails to acknowledge that "last year's revolution" has sprung this year's Muslim Brotherhood tyranny, already curbing civil liberties and muzzling criticism in the press at home, while supporting Wall Street and London adventures abroad

Like in Syria, where we are constantly reassured that the revolution "mostly" rejects the sectarian extremism that is demonstrably charging the violence, Reuters attempts to claim that while the violence in Russia seems "religious," most people reject the "Shairia law" that will inevitably be imposed by Al Qaeda. 

Likewise, we are introduced to Doku Umarov, who Reuters claims "leads an underground movement to create an Emirate across the Caucasus region." Reuters fails to mention that Umarov is listed by the United Nations as an associate of Al Qaeda. According to the UN:

Doku Umarov was directly involved in organizing a number of major terrorist acts: the capture of residential areas of the Vedenski and Urus-Martanovski districts of the Chechen Republic the Russian Federation (August 2002); the kidnapping of staff from the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Chechen Republic (December 2002); and the bombings of the building housing the Department of the Russian Federal Security Service for the Republic of Ingushetia, in the city of Magas, and of two railway trains in Kislovodsk (September 2003). He was one of the main organizers of the raid on Ingushetia by militants on 22 June 2004, the sortie into Grozny on 21 August 2004, the hostage-taking in Beslan of 1-3 September 2004 and the terrorist attacks in Moscow metro stations on 29 March 2010.
Umarov, and the terrorists under his command, leading the so called "Jihad" Reuters is attempting to whitewash and spin, are unequivocally terrorists associated with Al Qaeda, and in no way "freedom fighters" - their cause and methods by no means justified in any manner.

Image: "Russia's Bin Laden," Doku Umarov led terrorist death squads in Chechnya during the 1990's up until 2011 when the UN finally listed him as an Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. At one point, Umarov even declared himself "Emir of the Russian North Caucasus." His propaganda clearinghouse, the Kavkaz Center, was funded by the US State Department, as well as several supporting fronts including the National Endowment for Democracy-funded Russian-Chechen Friendship Society. The former currently supports US efforts to overthrow the Syrian government. The latter organization is currently backing the US State Department's recent PR ploy, "Pussy Riot." 
Reuters does concede that Chechnya's Muslim faith has been transformed from traditional practices to Saudi-perverted teaching spread from madrases both abroad and now springing up across the Caucasus Mountains over the last 20 years. Coincidentally, Saudi Arabia had created as a joint effort with the US, Al Qaeda over the past 30 years. It is young men passing through these madrases, teaching this perverted revision of Islam, that keep the ranks topped off of the West's foreign legion, Al Qaeda.  

Reuters claims efforts by former-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to rebuild the region and relax measures put in place to rein in sectarian extremism were widely praised. The recent violence flaring up in the Caucasus region is explained by Reuters as the result of Vladimir Putin returning to the Russian presidency - and more specifically the result of Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov "crushing all dissent." However, this sophomoric excuse ignores the fact that Kadyrov was actually president throughout Medvedev's "progressive" term in office, and assumes that readers are simplistic enough to believe President Putin's 4 months in office is long enough to so drastically upturn Chechnya's political landscape, that it would spur people to already take up arms and suicide-bombing belts.

Reuters attempts to sell the idea that armed militants are rising up against the government, and the idea it attempts to leave readers with is that people are turning to terrorism for a lack of a better alternative. Paradoxically, Reuters writes in the same report that these terrorists are also targeting indigenous Muslim sects, because, Reuters claims, they are "state-backed." In reality, this Al Qaeda led militancy is attempting to carve out the entire Caucasus region by either indoctrinating or killing off the local inhabitants - which is in essence a form of US-Saudi-backed imperialism on par with anything the rebels accuse Russia of.

The Joining US State Department-funded Opposition with US-Saudi-armed Terrorists

In reality, the West is opposed to President Putin's return to office. The West is also opposed to providing him with the stability to advance Russia socially, economically, and geopolitically outside the Wall Street-London consensus. Therefore, it has been determined that foreign-armed and directed mercenary militancy, a much more realistic explanation for the sudden surge in violence, will be used to ensure President Putin rules over a destabilized nation instead.

The tool of choice, as it has been since the 1980's in Afghanistan, are US-Saudi-funded terrorists indoctrinated with sectarian extremism, armed to the teeth, and unleashed to spread regression and destruction against all targets of Western foreign policy.

While US-backed opposition groups attempt to lay the groundwork for demonizing President Putin and the current Russian political order in Moscow, Washington is working diligently to raise a militant threat that can throw off balance Russia's superior security apparatus in a very similar fashion prescribed by US policy makers in Brookings Institution's "Which Path to Persia?" report in regards to Iran.

Providing Russia with a sizable militant threat inside its borders also blunts Russia's ability to thwart the West's hegemonic campaigns elsewhere - such as in Syria, against Iran, and throughout Central Asia. Ideally, linking the militancy to US-backed protesters in Moscow, and portraying it as a singular "political uprising" as it has done in Syria is the ultimate goal, opening the door for wider covert operations to be carried out across the entire country, as well as justification for sanctions and other punitive measures to be taken.

The trick left to professional propagandists like Reuters, CNN, BBC, and others, is to somehow mesh the US State Department's stable of proxies in Moscow with the militancy in Chechnya. By adopting the same language and alleged causes of  fighting "corruption" and  "oppression," already the media is attempting to entwine both movements, even though the two are in no way related aside from their foreign backing.

Clearing a Path for the Hordes: From Libya to the Caucasus Mountains.

The creation of a united front against Iran was the immediate goal of the Arab Spring. It has left the Arab World in disarray and has outright toppled nationalist governments, replacing them with pliable Western proxies. Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt are run by direct proxies of US foreign policy, while Syria, Lebanon, and Iran are left fighting foreign terrorists fueled by emerging sectarian extremist governments across the region.

Image: AQIM from northern Mali, LIFG from Libya, Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt, and with support from Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar, Turkey, and others - all are converging on Syria (in black), and then Iran. Should Syria or Iran, or both fall to Western-backed terrorist brigades, and if the West manages to use Kurds across Turkey and northern Iraq to create a conduit (in red), a path will be cleared into Russia's restive Caucasus Mountains and onto Moscow itself.  Nations standing in the way of this horde, including Turkey and Georgia, risk being carved up or drawn into protracted, costly conflict. Other nations at grave risk from Western-backed terrorism include Algeria, Pakistan, and China.

Libya has become a safe-haven for Al Qaeda, a nation-sized terrorist encampment funneling NATO weapons, cash, and trained fighters to the borders of the West's enemies. Syria is facing what is essentially a military invasion led by Libyan terrorists, facilitated by NATO, specifically Turkey, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), specifically Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Should Syria or Iran, or both collapse, and the West succeeds in carving out a Kurdish region controlled by militants armed and loyal to its cause, militants from across the Arab World can be trained from Mali and Libya, to Syria and Kurdistan, with weapons and supplies from everywhere in between being directed together, up through the Caucasus Mountains and into Russia.

Turkey of course would be the big loser, being carved up and added as part of Kurdistan to form part of the conduit - a gambit current Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is both aware of and maliciously indifferent to - to the perceived benefit of his own advancement within the Wall Street-London elite, and to the collective detriment of Turkey and its foreseeable future.  

While it seems unfathomable that such a gambit can be conceived let alone executed, it should be remembered that the Arab Spring and the subsequent violent subversion of Syria was planned as far back as 2007-2008, with the indirect consequence of undermining Iran as the ultimate objective. That this itself is part of a grander strategy originating from machinations hatched as far back as 1991, orchestrated by US policy makers who compare geopolitics and the world map to a "Grand Chessboard," is fairly easy to comprehend.

There is no better way to control the vast resources, geography, and populations of Eurasia and beyond than granting everything from North Africa, the Middle East, and Eurasia to ignorant, indoctrinated, medieval zealots led by duplicitous co-conspirators who will wheel-and-deal with the corporate-financiers of the West while keeping their own populations in fear and darkness - simultaneously, perpetuating Al Qaeda throughout the developing world allows the West to impose draconian repressive measures at home, stifling true political and economic independence and self-determination across their own populations.

The result is global hegemony uncontested both at home and abroad, with a world population subjected to the machinations and whims of a scientific dictatorship rooted in Hilterian eugenics and Malthusian ideology.

vendredi, 21 septembre 2012

An interview with Daniele Scalea

An interview with Daniele Scalea

An interview with Daniele Scalea, scientific secretary of the Italian Institute of Geopolitics (IsAG), co-editor-in-chief of the Italian journal Geopolitica.

GRA : Western media confidently say that the fall of the current Syrian regime is inevitable. In your opinion, how well founded this prediction is, and is there some political power that can bring order to this situation?

D.S.: I think that the Syrian regime has so far shown a stunning solidity. There was a period in which Syrian army lost a substantial part of national territory, but it has managed to reconquer it; there was then a surprise attack to Damascus (similar to the surprise attack against Tripoli which toppled Gaddafi), but the government has regained control of the city; there were some important defections among the power establishment, but the latter remain so far close and gathered around Bashar al-Assad. So, I don't think that a violent overthrow of Syrian government is imminent nor probable, except for the case of a foreign invasion.

Thus who can bring order to this situation is a NATO-led invasion (which would obviously create an order favorable to US hegemony, which could also be a "disorder", i.e. a sectarian division of Syria) or a peaceful negotiated agreement between involved great powers, which would put an end to foreign interference that is feeding the civil war in Syria.

GRA: How likely is a forceful U.S. intervention in the Syrian conflict and attempt to violently overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad (or the U.S. will keep a distance and will not dare to risk)? Under circumstances of such a possibility, what consequences it will bring to America itself?

D.S.: I hold really unlikely a direct armed intervention of US in the Syrian conflict, i.e. an intervention further that the arming of rebels (which is probably already underway). New US strategy provide for the use of proxy countries in war - especially in the Near East, since US focus is shifting towards Far East - with at most a limited direct contribution. Lybian war is the model: France, UK, Italy and Qatar were in the frontline, while US remained on the second row. In the Syrian case proxy roles is assumed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. It is so more probable an intervention by those countries. But I believe it is unlikely too. In fact, such an action would risk to bring in the conflict also Iran, and then US would be obliged to intervene in first person. That is a dream scenario for Israel, and also for a part of US establishment, but I guess that the main part of Washington rulers - and especially Obama and his entourage - want to avoid it.

GRA: How do you assess Russia's position in this issue? Is Russia able to compromise, yielding to the wiles of the West (for example, the proposal of Hillary Clinton to establish demilitarized zone), despite the fact, that Russia has already received a very difficult experience in the situation in Libya?

D.S.: Russian position has been very balanced and sane: Moscow condemns violence on both sides, works for a negotiated and peaceful solution of the crisis, and doesn't appear willing to surrender to NATO one more time, as was in Lybian case last year. A big problem would emerge in the event - for me very unlikely but not impossible - of a NATO-led or NATO-inspired foreign armed intervention in Syria. What would be Russian response? She would be ready to react? And also if morally ready, she would have the capacity for a strong power projection in the Near East? Or, as in 2003 with the US invasion of Iraq despite Russian opposition, would might make right?

GRA : How, in your opinion, will deploy the situation after the overthrow of Bashar Assad? According to the information, disseminated through the media, there are already dozens of catastrophic scenarios.

D.S.: A forced overthrow of Bashar al-Assad would very probably entail a period of futher domestic turmoil or a foreign occupation of Syria. Subject should change if al-Assad resign in the frame of a negotiated peaceful solution of the crisis.

GRA : One possible scenario is the territorial division of Syria into three parts. Chagry Erhan, Director of the Center of Strategic Research of the European peoples, believes that the Baath regime, that is being removed from power, will try to create a new state on the basis of belonging to a madhhab through Latakia-Tartus, what can lead to a decision of destruction or assimilation of the Sunni population. In addition, such a step (creation of a new state) can undertake also Kurds. And here raises a difficult question - how to prevent the partition of the country? Erhan believes that once the government will intervene in the process by violent means, this will lead to more bloodshed. How likely do you think, this scenario is?

D.S.: I don't hold likely the very creation of a new Alawi state in Syria, whereas is probable that a violent overthrow of the current regime could create a situation of civilian and sectarian war in the country. Resistance by Syrian government and armed forces have created an ideal scenario for a negotiated solution of the crisis. Negotiation should be bring domestically, between Baathist rulers and mainly Islamist opponents, and internationally between US and Russia, Turkey-Egypt-GCC and Iran.




jeudi, 20 septembre 2012

Allemagne/Russie: alliance eurasiatique!




Allemagne/Russie: alliance eurasiatique!


La rigidité, qui caractérise les rapports que Berlin vient d’instaurer avec l’Europe (suite à la crise grecque), ne correspond nullement au dynamisme dont l’Allemagne fait preuve en se rapprochant de la Chine, de la Russie et de l’Inde, trois Etats qui forment les principaux piliers de soutien de l’ensemble désormais dénommé BRICS. La visite d’Angela Merkel à la Nouvelle Delhi en mai 2011 est venue sceller la collaboration avec l’Inde, surtout dans le domaine de la haute technologie. Les échanges entre l’Allemagne et la Chine en 2011 s’élevaient, en chiffres, à 144 milliards de dollars et seront sans nul doute doublés d’ici 2015, année où on les estime d’ores et déjà à quelque 280 milliards. Ces chiffres permettront à l’Allemagne de se hisser sur le podium des principaux pays exportateurs de biens et de services vers la Chine et de dépasser les Etats-Unis. Berlin resserrera ispso facto ses rapports stratégiques avec la Chine. En avril 2012, le premier ministre chinois Wen Jibao s’est rendu à Wolfsburg, la ville-mère de l’entreprise automobile Volkswagen, dans le but de sceller un accord visant à installer une nouvelle usine Volkswagen dans la région du Xinjiang (le “Turkestan” chinois). Les autorités chinoises prévoient, par cet accord, de diminuer le taux élevé de chômage dans cette province, qui a contribué, dans un premier temps, à alimenter les sentiments centriguges de la population indigène.


Cette intensification des rapports avec la Chine constitue la part intégrante et principale d’un processus qui vise le repositionnement de l’économie allemande en direction des marchés émergeants. Selon un rapport établi par l’“European Council on Foreign Relations”, “l’Allemagne tend désormais à se considérer comme une force crédible dans un monde multipolaire, ce qui alimente son ambition de devenir ‘globale’ en tablant sur ses propres forces” (1).


Cet accroissement important des échanges germano-chinois est toutefois dû au rôle joué par la Russie, à laquelle l’Allemagne est liée par le biais d’une alliance stratégique et énergétique de tout premier ordre. Outre la mise en oeuvre du gazoduc “Nord Stream” —qui permet au méthane russe de s’acheminer vers le terminal allemand de Greifswald et d’alimenter ainsi la croissance économique allemande— et la présence de 6000 entreprises allemandes sur le territoire russe, il faut compter le projet d’aménager une ligne ferroviaire moderne capable de transporter 400.000 tonnes de marchandises de la Chine à l’Allemagne, grâce à un accord conclu entre les chemins de fer allemands (Deutsche Bundesbahn) et leurs homologues russes (Rossiyskie Zheleznye Dorogi). Il s’agit là d’une réalisation économique d’importance fondamentale qui garantira des perspectives stratégiques de premier plan. Le but ultime de cet accord se perçoit dans l’émergence d’une nouvelle société mixte, l’“Eurasia Rail Logistics”, par laquelle les chemins de fer allemands sont appelés à s’occuper de la modernisation des lignes russes en fournissant les services d’ingénierie technique —subsidiés par des entreprises comme “Simens”— afin de remplacer des milliers de kilomètres de vielles voies binaires par des parcours de haute vitesse. Cette modernisation concerne surtout le “Transsibérien” —le “pont eurasiatique” par antonomase— dont on doit la construction, commencée en 1890 et terminée en 1916, à la volonté de ce grand premier ministre russe que fut Sergueï Witte, qui voulait relier par fer tous les points de l’immense espace couvert par l’Empire russe. Le “Transsibérien”, dont le trajet dépasse les 9000 km, demeure la plus longue voie ferrée du monde. Il relie le port russe de Vladivostok à Moscou. Le tracé qui reliera Moscou au port hollandais de Rotterdam allongera le trajet Pacifique/Atlantique de quelque 3000 km. Il sera construit ultérieurement. Les problèmes de manutention et la vitesse maximale réduite constituent les deux facteurs qui avaient, jusqu’ici, limité considérablement les potentialités de ce formidable corridor eurasiatique. L’intervention de la Deutsche Bundesbahn renverse la situation. La modernisation des structures du Transsibérien par les chemins de fer allemands a permis, en janvier 2008, de transporter par voie ferrée des marchandises par le “Beijing-Hamburg Container Express”, connecté au Transsibérien au point de jonction russe d’Oulan Oudé. Ces marchandises sont arrivées à destination en l’espace de quinze jours alors que le transport par mer demande le double de temps au minimum. Cet “exprès” a parcouru plus de 10.000 km, en passant par la Mongolie, la Russie, la Biélorussie et la Pologne.






De cette façon, la Russie aura la possibilité de moderniser ses propres voies de communication stratégiques, en apprenant des Allemands comment construire des chemins de fer à haute vitesse et à géer le trafic par ordinateurs. Ils revendront ensuite cette technologie allemande à des pays asiatiques comme l’Iran et l’Inde. L’Allemagne a ainsi obtenu l’accès direct à la Chine, à travers l’immense territoire russe. La Deutsche Bundesbahn, grâce à cette formidable projection vers l’Est, pourra diffuser dans toute l’Eurasie les critères stabilisés par l’UE et consignés dans le “Trans-European Transport Network” (TEN), un projet visant à favoriser les trafics en provenance d’Europe et en direction de l’Extrême-Orient et, à l’inverse, à transporter des matières premières vers les industries européennes. Le projet TEN, pour lequel on prévoit des crédits de 400 milliards d’euro, n’envisage pas seulement de construire des voies de chemin de fer mais aussi de faciliter la construction de routes et d’autres “corridors transcontinentaux”. L’Allemagne cherche donc à se redonner du “Lebensraum”, de l’“espace vital”, en reprenant sa politique traditionnelle de “Drang nach Osten” (de “poussée vers l’Est”) et, par la même occasion, en créant une série de corridors stratégiques qui partent de l’Ouest vers l’Est. Le concept d’“espace vital” avait été élaboré par le géopolitologue allemand Karl Ernst Haushofer, bien avant qu’il ne fut exploité et détourné de son sens par les Nazis). Il suffit de jeter un coup d’oeil sur une carte géographique pour constater que la “poussée vers l’Est” est la voie traditionnelle de l’expansion allemande. Seul l’Est est capable de rapporter des bénéfices énormes, que ce soit sur le plan politique ou sur le plan économique, non seulement à la métropole allemande mais aussi à tous les pays impliqués, tout simplement parce qu’elle permet d’accélérer l’inéluctable intégration économique de la Russie, riche en matières premières, et de l’Allemagne, qui dispose d’une industrie très importante et d’un savoir-faire technologique enviable. C’est justement pour empêcher l’émergence d’un aussi formidable bloc économique intégré, qui assurerait l’hégémonie germano-russe sur l’ensemble de l’Eurasie, que les Etats-Unis ont déclenché l’attaque contre la Serbie de Slobodan Milosevic. En 1999, les premières cibles détruites par les bombardiers de l’OTAN ont été les ponts sur le Danube et sur la Save parce que l’objectif principal était de barrer la route au trafic fluvial allemand (comme nous avons déjà eu l’occasion de le démontrer) en direction du Sud-Est de l’Europe (et donc de la Méditerranée orientale).


Les prémices de la formation d’un bloc hégémonique continental similaire se sont manifestés dès 1989, suite à l’écroulement du Mur de Berlin. L’Allemagne s’est alors réunifiée sous la houlette du Chancelier Helmut Kohl et, surtout, d’un homme très habile, le Président de la “Deutsche Bank”, Alfred Herrhausen. “D’ici dix ans, affirmait Herrhausen, l’Allemagne de l’Est deviendra le complexe technologiquement le plus avancé de l’Europe et, en même temps, le tremplin qui permettra de lancer notre économie vers l’Est, de manière telle que la Pologne, la Hongrie, la Tchécoslovaquie et aussi la Bulgarie joueront, à leur tour, un rôle essentiel dans le développement européen” (2). En conformité avec cet objectif, Herrhausen entendait supprimer la dette “inter-entreprises”, fait comptable qui pesait sur l’industrie ex-communiste (en 1994, cette dette s’élevait à 200 milliards de marks), en considérant que cette dette, précisément, était un atout entre les mains de la Banque Mondiale et du FMI qui, tous deux, s’opposaient, de manière irréductible, à tout assainissement du secteur industriel hérité par l’Allemagne suite à la réunification. Le Président de la Deutsche Bank soutenait, entre autres choses, le projet, jugé nécessaire, de construire des voies ferrées rapides menant à Moscou. C’est là exactement le type de projet que les puissances maritimes —l’Angleterre d’abord, les Etats-Unis ensuite— ont toujours rejeté. Herrhausen se distinguait en proposant une vision nouvelle et innovante des rapports internationaux et proposait de redimensionner le rôle de l’Allemagne qui, selon sa conception, devrait fonctionner comme un “pont” entre l’Est et l’Ouest et comme le moteur d’une reconversion industrielle et d’un développement nouveau dans une Europe soustraite au contrôle de la Banque Mondiale et du FMI.






Tandis qu’il se décarcassait pour mettre ses plans en oeuvre, Herrhausen dénonçait ceux qui le critiquaient outrageusement (3), quand il exposait ses vues et demandait à la Banque Mondiale et au FMI d’épargner aux pays ex-communistes la “thérapie de choc” préconisée par un Jeffrey Sachs; il demandait, en insistant beaucoup, que soit accordé à ces pays un moratoire sur leurs dettes pendant quelques années, de manière à ce qu’ils puissent exploiter leurs propres ressources pour la reconstruction plutôt que payer immédiatement aux banquiers, dès l’exercice suivant, une part de leurs dettes, ou les intérêts dus. Malgré l’hostilité de la BM et du FMI, Herrhausen réussit à trouver bon accueil partout en Europe pour ses idées et projets; en l’espace de quelques petites années, la traduction de ses plans dans les réalités européennes et euro-russes aurait pu s’avérer suffisante pour faire décoller ses grands projets. Le plus important de ceux-ci fut la création, à Varsovie, d’une banque pour le développement, destinée à financer la reconstruction et l’intégration de l’Europe centrale et orientale à l’Europe occidentale. Le 1 décembre 1989, avec une ponctualité effrayante, un engin explosif —équipé d’un système d’amorçage sophistiqué fonctionnant au laser— fait sauter l’automobile blindée dans laquelle Herrhausen se déplaçait. La responsabilité de l’attentat a été attribuée au groupe terroriste communiste de la “Rote Armee Fraktion” (RAF), après une enquête des plus superficielles.


Immédiatement après la disparition tragique de Herrhausen, un économiste mieux noté, comme Detlev Karsten Rohwedder, a cherché à poursuivre le sillon ouvert par son malheureux prédécesseur. Rohwedder était le chef de la “Treuhandanstalt”, un holding public qui regroupe toutes les industries d’Etat de l’ex-République Démocratique Allemande (DDR/RDA), après une belle carrière déjà, où il avait préparé et géré en personne le plan d’assainissement et la réorganisation du colosse chimique et pharmaceutique Hoechst AG. Rohwedder affirmait: “A partir du moment où un libéralisme de marché de type doctrinaire ne fonctionne plus, il faut néanmoins privilégier une politique publique d’assainissement dans le cadre plus général des privatisations” (4). C’était là la politique contraire de celle réclamée par le FMI et la Banque Mondiale. Rohwedder avait l’intention de favoriser les investissements publics pour remettre en état de marche et pour moderniser le vieil appareil industriel hérité de la RDA, afin que “la population d’Allemagne de l’Est puisse dépasser au plus vite sa condition d’infériorité matérielle” (5). Cet économiste, relativement inconnu, projettait de transférer le contrôle de la “Treuhandanstalt” du ministère des finances à celui de l’économie, de façon à ce que le holding devienne l’organe central d’un dirigisme allemand rénové. Le 12 avril 1991, un ou plusieurs assassins stipendiés prennent Rohwedder pour cible, tirent trois coups de fusil à visée infra-rouge qui fracasent une fenêtre de sa maison à Düsseldorf, la fenêtre de la pièce où il se trouvait, et le tuent. La RAF revendique la responsabilité de l’attentat, ce qui démontre, une fois de plus, quelle est la véritable fonction de tout “terrorisme extrémiste”. La menace que représentait des personnalités comme Herrhausen et Rohwedder est dénoncée, de manière très précise, par un Henry Kissinger, d’après qui: “Si les deux puissances que sont l’Allemagne et la Russie s’intègrent économiquement, en tissant des liens plus étroits entre elles, alors surviendra le péril que peut représenter leur hégémonie” (6). Le rapprochement actuel entre l’Allemagne et la Russie est dû essentiellement, aujourd’hui, aux efforts de Vladimir Poutine: c’est lui qui met tout en oeuvre pour que les plans d’intégration, pensés par Herrhausen et Rohwedder, reçoivent une nouvelle chance. La situation actuelle montre que l’Allemagne a reconsidéré de manière radicale son positionnement stratégique, en se repprochant des nouveaux centres de gravité de la planète, soit les centres que représente le BRICS, qui sont en train de faire basculer l’axe de la croissance mondiale de l’Atlantique en direction des Océans Indien et Pacifique, tout en ouvrant des perspectives nouvelles et profondément révolutionnaires pour le continent européen tout entier.


Si l’Allemagne parvient à bétonner solidement sa tentative d’entraîner l’Europe dans le sillage de Berlin, le péril, que pointait Zbigniew Brzezinski dans ses admonestations aux Etats-Unis, risquerait bien de prendre forme. Brzezinski: “Pour tout dire en des termes qui rappellent l’ère la plus brutale des empires antiques, les trois grands impératifs de la géostratégie impériale des Etats-Unis sont d’empêcher la collusion entre les vassaux et de les maintenir dans la dépendance (en ce qui concerne leur défense), de garder des tributaires faibles qu’il faut protéger et d’empêcher les barbares de s’unir” (7). Une “union des barbares” est justement en train de se forger et elle pourrait apporter une certaine discontinuité dans les scénarios du futur...



Article paru sur le site: http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/

URL: http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/germania-russia-l’alleanza-eurasiatica/16549/print/ - Mis en ligne le 26 juillet 2012.



(1)   Corriere della Sera, 24 avril 2012.

(2)   Il Tempo, 30 novembre 2009.

(3)   Ibid.

(4)   Frankfurter Allgemeiner Zeitung, 30 mars 1991.

(5)   Ibid.

(6)   Welt am Sonntag, 1 mars 1992.

(7)   Zbigniew Brzezinski, Le grand échiquier.

Unthinking Liberalism: A. Dugin’s The Fourth Political Theory

Unthinking Liberalism:
Alexander Dugin’s The Fourth Political Theory


Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

Alexander Dugin
The Fourth Political Theory, London: Arktos, 2012

Arktos recently published what we can only hope will be the first of many more English translations of Alexander Dugin’s work. Head of the sociology department in Moscow State University, and a leading Eurasianist with ties to the Russian military, this man is, today, influencing official Kremlin policy.

The Fourth Political Theory is a thoroughly refreshing monograph, combining clarity of analysis, philosophical rigor, and intellectual creativity. It is Dugin’s attempt to sort through the confusion of modern political theory and establish the foundations for a political philosophy that will decisively challenge the dominant liberal paradigm. It is not, however, a new complete political theory, but rather the beginning of a project. The name is provisional, the theory under construction. Dugin sees this not as the work of one man, but, because difficult, a collective heroic effort.

The book first sets out the historical topology of modern political theories. In Dugin’s account, liberalism, the oldest and most stable ideology, was in modernity the first political theory. Marxism, a critique of liberalism via capitalism, was the second. Fascism/National Socialism, a critique of both liberalism and Marxism, was the third. Dugin says that Fascism/National Socialism was defeated by Marxism (1945), that Marxism was defeated by liberalism (1989), leaving liberalism triumphant and therefore free to expand around the globe.

According to Dugin, the triumph of liberalism has been so definitive, in fact, that in the West it has ceased to be political, or ideological, and become a taken-for-granted practice. Westerners think in liberal terms by default, assuming that no sane, rational, educated person could think differently, accusing dissenters of being ideological, without realizing that their own assumptions have ideological origins.

The definitive triumph of liberalism has also meant that it is now so fully identified with modernity that it is difficult to separate the two, whereas control of modernity was once contested by political theory number one against political theories two and three. The advent of postmodernity, however, has marked the complete exhaustion of liberalism. It has nothing new to say, so it is reduced endlessly to recycle and reiterate itself.

Looking to identify what may be useful to salvage, Dugin proceeds to break down each of the three ideologies into its component parts. In the process of doing so, he detoxifies the two discredited critiques of liberalism, which is necessary to be able to cannibalize them. His analysis of liberalism follows Alain de Benoist. Because it is crucial, I will avail myself of de Benoist’s insights and infuse some of my own in Dugin’s explication of liberalism.

Dugin says that liberalism’s historical subject is the individual. The idea behind liberalism was to “liberate” the individual from everything that was external to him (faith, tradition, authority). Out of this springs the rest: when you get rid of the transcendent, you end up with a world that is entirely rational and material. Happiness then becomes a question of material increase. This leads to productivism and economism, which, when the individual is paramount, demands capitalism. When you get rid of the transcendent, you also eliminate hierarchy: all men become equal. If all men are equal, then what applies to one must apply to all, which means universalism. Similarly, if all men are equal, then all deserve an equal slice of the pie, so full democracy, with universal suffrage, becomes the ideal form of government. Liberalism has since developed flavors, and the idea of liberation acquires two competing meanings: “freedom from,” which in America is embodied by libertarians and the Tea Party; and “freedom to,” embodied by Democrats.

Marxism’s historical subject is class. Marxism is concerned chiefly with critiquing the inequities arising from capitalism. Otherwise, it shares with liberalism an ethos of liberation, a materialist worldview, and an egalitarian morality.

Fascism’s historical subject is the state, and National Socialism’s race. Both critique Marxism’s and liberalism’s materialist worldview and egalitarian morality. Hence, the simultaneous application of hierarchy and socialism.

With all the parts laid out on the table, Dugin then selects what he finds useful and discards the rest. Unsurprisingly, Dugin finds nothing useful in liberalism. The idea is to unthink it, after all.

Spread out across several chapters, Dugin provides a typology of the different factions in the modern political landscape—e.g., fundamental conservatism (traditionalism), Left-wing conservatism (Strasserism, National Bolshevism, Niekisch), conservative revolution (Spengler, Jünger, Schmitt, Niekisch), New Left, National Communism, etc. It is essential that readers understand these so that they may easily recognize them, because doing so will clarify much and help them avoid the errors arising from opaque, confused, contradictory, or misleading labels.

Liberal conservatism is a key category in this typology. It may sound contradictory on the surface, because in colloquial discourse mainstream politics is about the opposition of liberals vs. conservatives. Yet, and as I have repeatedly stated, when one examines their fundamentals, so-called “conservatives” (a misleading label), even palaeoconservatives (another misleading label), are all ideologically liberals, only they wish to conserve liberalism, or go a little slower, or take a few steps back. Hence, the alternative designation for this type: “status-quo conservative.”

Another key category is National Communism. This is, according to Dugin, a unique phenomenon, and enjoys a healthy life in Latin America, suggesting it will be around for some time to come. Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez are contemporary practitioners of National Communism.

Setting out the suggested foundations of a fourth political ideology takes up the rest of Dugin’s book. Besides elements salvaged from earlier critiques of liberalism, Dugin also looks at the debris that in the philosophical contest for modernity was left in the periphery. These are the ideas for which none of the ideologies of modernity have had any use. For Dugin this is essential to an outsider, counter-propositional political theory. He does not state this in as many words, but it should be obvious that if we are to unthink liberalism, then liberalism should find its nemesis unthinkable.

But the process of construction begins, of course, with ontology. Dugin refers to Heidegger’s Dasein. Working from this concept he would like the fourth political theory to conceptualize the world as a pluriverse, with different peoples who have different moralities and even different conceptions of time. In other words, in the fourth political theory the idea of a universal history would be absurd, because time is conceived differently in different cultures—nothing is ahistorical or universal; everything is bound and specific. This would imply a morality of difference, something I have proposed as counter-propositional to the liberal morality of equality. In the last consequence, for Dugin there needs to be also a peculiar ontology of the future. The parts of The Fourth Political Theory dealing with these topics are the most challenging, requiring some grounding in philosophy, but, unsurprisingly, they are also where the pioneering work is being done.

Also pioneering, and presumably more difficult still, is Dugin’s call to “attack the individual.” By this he means, obviously, destabilizing the taken-for-granted construct that comprises the minimum social unit in liberalism—the discrete social atom that acts on the basis of rational self-interest, a construct that should be distinguished from “a man” or “a woman” or “a human.” Dugin makes some suggestions, but these seem nebulous and not very persuasive at this stage. Also, this seems quite a logical necessity within the framework of this project, but Dugin’s seeds will find barren soil in the West, where the individual is almost sacrosanct and where individualism results from what is possibly an evolved bias in Northern European societies, where this trait may have been more adaptive than elsewhere. A cataclysmic event may be required to open up the way for a redefinition of what it is to be a person. Evidently the idea is that the fourth political theory conceptualizes a man not as an “individual” but as something else, presumably as part of a collectivity. This is probably a very Russian way of looking at things.

The foregoing may all seem highly abstract, and I suspect practically minded readers will not take to it. It is hard to see how the abstract theorizing will satisfy the pragmatic Anglo-Saxon, who is suspicious of philosophy generally. (Jonathan Bowden was an oddity in this regard.) Yet there are real-world implications to the theory, and in Dugin’s work the geopolitical dimension must never be kept out of sight.

For Dugin, triumphant liberalism is embodied by Americanism; the United States, through its origins as an Enlightenment project, and through its superpower status in the twentieth and twenty-first century, is the global driver of liberal practice. As such, with the defeat of Marxism, it has created, and sought to perpetuate, a unipolar world defined by American, or Atlanticist, liberal hegemony. Russia has a long anti-Western, anti-liberal tradition, and for Dugin this planetary liberal hegemony is the enemy. Dugin would like the world to be multipolar, with Atlanticism counterbalanced by Eurasianism, and maybe other “isms.” In geopolitics, the need for a fourth political theory arises from a need to keep liberalism permanently challenged, confined to its native hemisphere, and, in a word, out of Russia.

While this dimension exists, and while there may be a certain anti-Americanism in Dugin’s work, Americans should not dismiss this book out of hand, because it is not anti-America. As Michael O’Meara has pointed out in relation to Yockey’s anti-Americanism, Americanism and America, or Americans, are different things and stand often in opposition. Engaging with this kind of oppositional thinking is, then, necessary for Americans. And the reason is this: liberalism served America well for two hundred years, but ideologies have a life-cycle like everything else, and liberalism has by now become hypertrophic and hypertelic; it is, in other words, killing America and, in particular, the European-descended presence in America.

If European-descended Americans are to save themselves, and to continue having a presence in the North American continent, rather than being subsumed by liberal egalitarianism and the consequent economic bankruptcy, Hispanization, and Africanization, the American identity, so tied up with liberalism because of the philosophical bases of its founding documents, would need to be re-imagined. Though admittedly difficult, the modern American identity must be understood as one that is possible out of many. Sources for a re-imagined identity may be found in the archaic substratum permeating the parts of American heritage that preceded systematic liberalism (the early colonial period) as well as in the parts that were, at least for a time, beyond it (the frontier and the Wild West). In other words, the most mystical and also the least “civilized” parts of American history. Yet even this may be problematic, since they were products of late “Faustian” civilization. A descent into barbarism may be in the cards. Only time will tell.

For Westerners in general, Dugin’s project may well prove too radical, even at this late stage in the game—contemplating it would seem first to necessitate a decisive rupture. Unless/until that happens, conservative prescriptions calling for a return to a previous state of affairs (in the West), or a closer reading of the founding documents (in America), will remain a feature of Western dissidence. In other words, even the dissidents will remain conservative restorationists of the classical ideas of the center, or the ideas that led to the center. Truly revolutionary thinking—the re-imagining and reinvention of ourselves—will, however, ultimately come from the periphery rather than the center.


Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/09/unthinking-liberalism/

mardi, 18 septembre 2012

Tiberio Graziani: 'US uses Europe as a bridge-head to attack Eurasia'

Tiberio Graziani:

'US uses Europe as a bridge-head

to attack Eurasia'


mardi, 24 juillet 2012

L’itinéraire d’un géopolitologue allemand: Karl Haushofer


Robert Steuckers:
L’itinéraire d’un géopolitologue allemand: Karl Haushofer

Préambule: le texte qui suit est une brève recension du premier des deux épais volumes que le Prof. Hans-Adolf Jacobsen a consacré à Karl Haushofer. Le travail à accomplir pour réexplorer en tous ses recoins l’oeuvre de Karl Haushofer, y compris sa correspondance, est encore immense. Puisse cette modeste contribution servir de base aux étudiants qui voudraient, dans une perspective néo-eurasienne, entamer une lecture des oeuvres de Haushofer et surtout analyser tous les articles parus dans sa “Zeitschrift für Geopolitik”.

Haushofer est né en 1869 dans une famille bien ancrée dans le territoire bavarois. Les archives nous rappellent que le nom apparaît dès 1352, pour désigner une famille paysanne originaire de de la localité de Haushofen. Les ancêtres maternels, eux, sont issus du pays frison dans le nord de l’Allemagne. Orphelin de mère très tôt, dès l’âge de trois ans, le jeune Karl Haushofer sera élevé par ses grands-parents maternels en Bavière dans la région du Chiemsee. Le grand-père Fraas était professeur de médecine vétérinaire à Munich. En évoquant son enfance heureuse, Haushofer, plus tard, prend bien soin de rappeler que les différences de caste étaient inexistantes en Bavière: les enfants de toutes conditions se côtoyaient et se fréquentaient, si bien que les arrogances de classe étaient inexistantes: sa bonhommie et sa gentillesse, proverbiales, sont le fruit de cette convivialité baroque: ses intiatives porteront la marque de ce trait de caractère. Haushofer se destine très tôt à la carrière militaire qu’il entame dès 1887 au 1er Régiment d’Artillerie de campagne de l’armée du Royaume de Bavière.

En mission au Japon

Le 8 août 1896, il épouse Martha Mayer-Doss, une jeune femme très cultivée d’origine séphérade, côté paternel, de souche aristocratique bavaroise, côté maternel. Son esprit logique seront le pendant nécessaire à la fantaisie de son mari, à l’effervescence bouillonnante de son esprit et surtout de son écriture. Elle lui donnera deux fils: Albrecht (1903-1945), qui sera entraîné dans la résistance anti-nazie, et Heinz (1906-?), qui sera un agronome hors ligne. Le grand tournant de la vie de Karl Haushofer, le début véritable de sa carrière de géopolitologue, commence dès son séjour en Asie orientale, plus particulièrement au Japon (de la fin 1908 à l’été 1910), où il sera attaché militaire puis instructeur de l’armée impériale japonaise. Le voyage du couple Haushofer vers l’Empire du Soleil Levant commence à Gênes et passe par Port Saïd, Ceylan, Singapour et Hong Kong. Au cours de ce périple maritime, il aborde l’Inde, voit de loin la chaîne de l’Himalaya et rencontre Lord Kitchener, dont il admire la “créativité défensive” en matière de politique militaire. Lors d’un dîner, début 1909, Lord Kitchener lui déclare “que toute confrontation entre l’Allemagne et la Grande-Bretagne coûterait aux deux puissances leurs positions dans l’Océan Pacifique au profit du Japon et des Etats-Unis”. Haushofer ne cessera de méditer ces paroles de Lord Kitchener. En effet, avant la première guerre mondiale, l’Allemagne a hérité de l’Espagne la domination de la Micronésie qu’elle doit défendre déjà contre les manigances américaines, alors que les Etats-Unis sont maîtres des principales îles stratégiques dans cet immense espace océanique: les Philippines, les Iles Hawaï et Guam. Dès son séjour au Japon, Haushofer devient avant tout un géopolitologue de l’espace pacifique: il admet sans réticence la translatio imperii en Micronésie, où l’Allemagne, à Versailles, doit céder ces îles au Japon; pour Haushofer, c’est logique: l’Allemagne est une “puissance extérieure à l’espace pacifique” tandis que le Japon, lui, est une puissance régionale, ce qui lui donne un droit de domination sur les îles au sud de son archipel métropolitain. Mais toute présence souveraine dans l’espace pacifique donne la maîtrise du monde: Haushofer n’est donc pas exclusivement le penseur d’une géopolitique eurasienne et continentale, ou un exposant érudit d’une géopolitique nationaliste allemande, il est aussi celui qui va élaborer, au fil des années dans les colonnes de la revue “Zeitschrift für Geopolitik”, une thalassopolitique centrée sur l’Océan Pacifique, dont les lecteurs les plus attentifs ne seront pas ses compatriotes allemands ou d’autres Européens mais les Soviétiques de l’agence “Pressgeo” d’Alexander Rados, à laquelle collaborera un certain Arthur Koestler et dont procèdera le fameux espion soviétique Richard Sorge, également lecteur très attentif de la “Zeitschrift für Geopolitik” (ZfG). Dans son journal, Haushofer rappelle les rapports qu’il a eus avec des personnalités soviétiques comme Tchitchérine et Radek-Sobelsohn. L’intermédiaire entre Haushofer et Radek était le Chevalier von Niedermayer, qui avait lancé des expéditions en Perse et en Afghanistan. Niedermayer avait rapporté un jour à Haushofer que Radek lisait son livre “Geopolitik der Pazifischen Ozeans”, qu’il voulait faire traduire. Radek, roublard, ne pouvait faire simplement traduire le travail d’un général bavarois et a eu une “meilleure” idée dans le contexte soviétique de l’époque: fabriquer un plagiat assorti de phraséologie marxiste et intitulé “Tychookeanskaja Probljema”. Toutes les thèses de Haushofer y était reprises, habillées d’oripeaux marxistes. Autre intermédiaire entre Radek et Haushofer: Mylius Dostoïevski, petit-fils de l’auteur des “Frères Karamazov”, qui apportait au géopolitologue allemand des exemplaires de la revue soviétique de politique internationale “Nowy Vostok” (= “Nouveau Monde”), des informations soviétiques sur la Chine et le Japon et des écrits du révolutionnaire indonésien Tan Malakka sur le mouvement en faveur de l’auto-détermination de l’archipel, à l’époque sous domination néerlandaise.

Le séjour en Extrême-Orient lui fait découvrir aussi l’importance de la Mandchourie pour le Japon, qui cherche à la conquérir pour se donner des terres arables sur la rive asiatique qui fait face à l’archipel nippon (l’achat de terres arables, notamment en Afrique, par des puissances comme la Chine ou la Corée du Sud est toujours un problème d’actualité...). Les guerres sino-japonaises, depuis 1895, visent le contrôle de terres d’expansion pour le peuple japonais coincé sur son archipel montagneux aux espaces agricoles insuffisants. Dans les années 30, elles viseront à contrôler la majeure partie des côtes chinoises pour protéger les routes maritimes acheminant le pétrole vers les raffineries nippones, denrée vitale pour l’industrie japonaise en plein développement.

Début d’une carrière universitaire

Le retour en Allemagne de Karl et Martha Haushofer se fait via le Transibérien, trajet qui fera comprendre à Haushofer ce qu’est la dimension continentale à l’heure du chemin de fer qui a réduit les distances entre l’Europe et l’Océan Pacifique. De Kyoto à Munich, le voyage prendra exactement un mois. Le résultat de ce voyage est un premier livre, “Dai Nihon – Grossjapan” (en français: “Le Japon et les Japonais”, avec une préface de l’ethnologue franco-suisse Georges Montandon). Le succès du livre est immédiat. Martha Haushofer contacte alors le Professeur August von Drygalski (Université de Munich) pour que son mari puisse suivre les cours de géographie et passer à terme une thèse de doctorat sur le Japon. Haushofer est, à partir de ce moment-là, à la fois officier d’artillerie et professeur à l’Université. En 1913, grâce à la formidable puissance de travail de son épouse Martha, qui le seconde avec une redoutable efficacité dans tous ses projets, sa thèse est prête. La presse spécialisée se fait l’écho de ses travaux sur l’Empire du Soleil Levant. Sa notoriété est établie. Mais les voix critiques ne manquent pas: sa fébrilité et son enthousiasme, sa tendance à accepter n’importe quelle dépêche venue du Japon sans vérification sourcilleuse du contenu, son rejet explicite des “puissances ploutocratiques” (Angleterre, Etats-Unis) lui joueront quelques tours et nuiront à sa réputation jusqu’à nos jours, où il n’est pas rare de lire encore qu’il a été un “mage” et un “géographe irrationnel”.

Le déclenchement de la première guerre mondiale met un terme (tout provisoire) à ses recherches sur le Japon. Les intérêts de Haushofer se focalisent sur la “géographie défensive” (la “Wehrgeographie”) et sur la “Wehrkunde” (la “science de la défense”). C’est aussi l’époque où Haushofer découvre l’oeuvre du géographe conservateur et germanophile suédois Rudolf Kjellen, auteur d’un ouvrage capital et pionnier en sciences politiques: “L’Etat comme forme de vie” (“Der Staat als Lebensform”). Kjellen avait forgé, dans cet ouvrage, le concept de “géopolitique”. Haushofer le reprend à son compte et devient ainsi, à partir de 1916, un géopolitologue au sens propre du terme. Il complète aussi ses connaissances par la lecture des travaux du géographe allemand Friedrich Ratzel (à qui l’on doit la discipline de l’anthropogéographie); c’est l’époque où il lit aussi les oeuvres des historiens anglais Gibbon (“Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”) et Macaulay, exposant de la vision “Whig” (et non pas conservatrice) de l’histoire anglaise, étant issu de familles quaker et presbytérienne. Les événements de la première guerre mondiale induisent Haushofer à constater que le peuple allemand n’a pas reçu —en dépit de l’excellence de son réseau universitaire, de ses érudits du 19ème siècle et de la fécondité des oeuvres produites dans le sillage de la pensée organique allemande,— de véritable éducation géopolitique et “wehrgeographisch”, contrairement aux Britanniques, dont les collèges et universités ont été à même de communiquer aux élites le “sens de l’Empire”.

Réflexions pendant la première guerre mondiale

Ce n’est qu’à la fin du conflit que la fortune des armes passera dans le camp de l’Entente. Au début de l’année 1918, en dépit de la déclaration de guerre des Etats-Unis de Woodrow Wilson au Reich allemand, Haushofer est encore plus ou moins optimiste et esquisse brièvement ce qui, pour lui, serait une paix idéale: “La Courlande, Riga et la Lituanie devront garder des liens forts avec l’Allemagne; la Pologne devra en garder d’équivalents avec l’Autriche; ensuite, il faudrait une Bulgarie consolidée et agrandie; à l’Ouest, à mon avis, il faudrait le statu quo tout en protégeant les Flamands, mais sans compensation allemande pour la Belgique et évacuation pure et simple de nos colonies et de la Turquie. Dans un tel contexte, la paix apportera la sécurité sur notre flanc oriental et le minimum auquel nous avons droit; il ne faut absolument pas parler de l’Alsace-Lorraine”. L’intervention américaine lui fera écrire dans son journal: “Plutôt mourir européen que pourrir américain”.

Haushofer voulait dégager les “trois grands peuples de l’avenir”, soit les Allemands, les Russes et les Japonais, de l’étranglement que leur préparaient les puissances anglo-saxonnes. Les énergies de l’ “ours russe” devaient être canalisées vers le Sud, vers l’Inde,sans déborder ni à l’Ouest, dans l’espace allemand, ni à l’Est dans l’espace japonais. L’ “impérialisme du dollar” est, pour Haushofer, dès le lendemain de Versailles, le “principal ennemi extérieur”. Face à la nouvelle donne que constitue le pouvoir bolchevique à Moscou, Haushofer est mitigé: il rejette le style et les pratiques bolcheviques mais concède qu’elles ont libéré la Russie (et projettent de libérer demain tous les peuples) de “l’esclavage des banques et du capital”.

En 1919, pendant les troubles qui secouent Munich et qui conduisent à l’émergence d’une République des Conseils en Bavière, Haushofer fait partie des “Einwohnerwehrverbände” (des unités de défense constituées par les habitants de la ville), soit des milices locales destinées à maintenir l’ordre contre les émules de la troïka “conseilliste” et contre les pillards qui profitaient des désordres. Elles grouperont jusqu’à 30.000 hommes en armes dans la capitale bavaroise (et jusqu’à 360.000 hommes dans toute la Bavière). Ces unités seront définitivement dissoutes en 1922.


Les résultats du Traité de Versailles

La fin de la guerre et des troubles en Bavière ramène Haushofer à l’Université, avec une nouvelle thèse sur l’expansion géographique du Japon entre 1854 et 1919. Une chaire est mise à sa disposition en 1919/1920 où les cours suivants sont prodigués à onze étudiants: Asie orientale, Inde, Géographie comparée de l’Allemagne et du Japon, “Wehrgeographie”, Géopolitique, Frontières, Anthropogéographie, Allemands de l’étranger, Urbanisme, Politique Internationale, Les rapports entre géographie, géopolitique et sciences militaires. L’objectif de ces efforts était bien entendu de former une nouvelle élite politique et diplomatique en mesure de provoquer une révision des clauses du Traité de Versailles. Pour Wilson, le principe qui aurait dû régir la future Europe après les hostilités était celui des “nationalités”. Aucune frontière des Etats issus notamment de la dissolution de l’Empire austro-hongrois ne correspondait à ce principe rêvé par le président des Etats-Unis. Dans chacun de ces Etats, constataient Haushofer et les autres exposants de la géopolitique allemande, vivaient des minorités diverses mais aussi des minorités germaniques (dix millions de personnes en tout!), auxquelles on refusait tout contact avec l’Allemagne, comme on refusait aux Autrichiens enclavés, privés de l’industrie tchèque, de la viande et de l’agriculture hongroises et croates et de toute fenêtre maritime de se joindre à la République de Weimar, ce qui était surtout le voeu des socialistes à l’époque (ils furent les premiers, notamment sous l’impulsion de leur leader Viktor Adler, à demander l’Anschluss). L’Allemagne avait perdu son glacis alsacien-lorrain et sa province riche en blé de Posnanie, de façon à rendre la Pologne plus ou moins autarcique sur le plan alimentaire, car elle ne possédait pas de bonnes terres céréalières. La Rhénanie était démilitarisée et aucune frontière du Reich était encore “membrée” pour reprendre, avec Haushofer, la terminologie forgée au 17ème siècle par Richelieu et Vauban. Dans de telles conditions, l’Allemagne ne pouvait plus être “un sujet de l’histoire”.

Redevenir un “sujet de l’histoire”

Pour redevenir un “sujet de l’histoire”, l’Allemagne se devait de reconquérir les sympathies perdues au cours de la première guerre mondiale. Haushofer parvient à exporter son concept, au départ kjellénien, de “géopolitique”, non seulement en Italie et en Espagne, où des instituts de géopolitique voient le jour (pour l’Italie, Haushofer cite les noms suivants dans son journal: Ricciardi, Gentile, Tucci, Gabetti, Roletto et Massi) mais aussi en Chine, au Japon et en Inde. La géopolitique, de facture kjellénienne et haushoférienne, se répand également par dissémination et traduction dans une quantité de revues dans le monde entier. La deuxième initiative qui sera prise, dès 1925, sera la création d’une “Deutsche Akademie”, qui avait pour but premier de s’adresser aux élites germanophones d’Europe (Autriche, Suisse, minorités allemandes, Flandre, Scandinavie, selon le journal tenu par Haushofer). Cette Académie devait compter 100 membres. L’idée vient au départ du légat de Bavière à Paris, le Baron von Ritter qui, en 1923 déjà, préconisait la création d’une institution allemande semblable à l’Institut de France ou même à l’Académie française, afin d’entretenir de bons et fructueux contacts avec l’étranger dans une perspective d’apaisement constructif. Bien que mise sur pied et financée par des organismes privés, la “Deutsche Akademie” ne connaîtra pas le succès que méritait son programme séduisant. Les “Goethe-Institute”, qui représentent l’Allemagne sur le plan culturel aujourd’hui, en sont les héritiers indirects, depuis leur fondation en 1932.

L’objectif des instituts de géopolitique, de la Deutsche Akademie et des “Goethe-Institute” est donc de générer au sein du peuple allemand une sorte d’ “auto-éducation” permanente aux faits géographiques et aux problèmes de la politique internationale. Cette “auto-éducation” ou “Selbsterziehung” repose sur un impératif d’ouverture au monde, exactement comme Karl et Martha Haushofer s’étaient ouverts aux réalités indiennes, asiatiques, pacifiques et sibériennes entre 1908 et 1910, lors de leur mission militaire au Japon. Haushofer explique cette démarche dans un mémorandum rédigé dans sa villa d’Hartschimmelhof en août 1945. La première guerre mondiale, y écrit-il, a éclaté parce que les 70 nations, qui y ont été impliquées, ne possédaient pas les outils intellectuels pour comprendre les actions et les manoeuvres des autres; ensuite, les idéologies dominantes avant 1914 ne percevaient pas la “sacralité de la Terre” (“das Sakrale der Erde”). Des connaissances géographiques et historiques factuelles, couplées à cette intuition tellurique —quasi romantique et mystique à la double façon du “penseur et peintre tellurique” Carl Gustav Carus, au 19ème siècle, et de son héritier Ludwig Klages qui préconise l’attention aux mystères de la Terre dans son discours aux mouvements de jeunesse lors de leur rassemblement de 1913— auraient pu contribuer à une entente générale entre les peuples: l’intuition des ressources de Gaia, renforcée par une “tekhnê” politique adéquate, aurait généré une sagesse générale, partagée par tous les peuples de la Terre. La géopolitique, dans l’optique de Haushofer, quelques semaines après la capitulation de l’Allemagne, aurait pu constituer le moyen d’éviter toute saignée supplémentaire et toute conflagration inutile (cf. Jacobsen, tome I, pp. 258-259).

Une géopolitique révolutionnaire dans les années 20

En dépit de ce mémorandum d’août 1945, qui regrette anticipativement la disparition de toute géopolitique allemande, telle que Haushofer et son équipe l’avaient envisagée, et souligne la dimension “pacifiste”, non au sens usuel du terme mais selon l’adage latin “Si vis pacem, para bellum” et selon l’injonction traditionnelle qui veut que c’est un devoir sacré (“fas”) d’apprendre de l’ennemi, Haushofer a été aussi et surtout —c’est ce que l’on retient de lui aujourd’hui— l’élève rebelle de Sir Halford John Mackinder, l’élève qui inverse les intentions du maître en retenant bien la teneur de ses leçons; pour Mackinder, à partir de son célèbre discours de 1904 au lendemain de l’inauguration du dernier tronçon du Transibérien, la dynamique de l’histoire reposait sur l’opposition atavique et récurrente entre puissances continentales et puissances maritimes (ou thalassocraties). Les puissances littorales du grand continent eurasiatique et africain sont tantôt les alliées des unes tantôt celles des autres. Dans les années 20, où sa géopolitique prend forme et influence les milieux révolutionnaires (dont les cercles que fréquentaient Ernst et Friedrich-Georg Jünger ainsi que la figure originale que fut Friedrich Hielscher, sans oublier les communistes gravitant autour de Radek et de Rados), Haushofer énumère les puissances continentales actives, énonciatrices d’une diplomatie originale et indépendante face au monde occidental anglo-saxon ou français: l’Union Soviétique, la Turquie (après les accords signés entre Mustafa Kemal Atatürk et le nouveau pouvoir soviétique à Moscou), la Perse (après la prise du pouvoir par Reza Khan), l’Afghanistan, le sous-continent indien (dès qu’il deviendra indépendant, ce que l’on croit imminent à l’époque en Allemagne) et la Chine. Il n’y incluait ni l’Allemagne (neutralisée et sortie du club des “sujets de l’histoire”) ni le Japon, puissance thalassocratique qui venait de vaincre la flotte russe à Tsoushima et qui détenait le droit, depuis les accords de Washington de 1922 d’entretenir la troisième flotte du monde (le double de celle de la France!) dans les eaux du Pacifique. Pour “contenir” les puissances de la Terre, constate Haushofer en bon lecteur de Mackinder, les puissances maritimes anglo-saxonnes ont créé un “anneau” de bases et de points d’appui comme Gibraltar, Malte, Chypre, Suez, les bases britanniques du Golfe Persique, l’Inde, Singapour, Hong Kong ainsi que la Nouvelle-Zélande et l’Australie, un cordon d’îles et d’îlots plus isolés (Tokelau, Suvarov, Cook, Pitcairn, Henderson, ...) qui s’étendent jusqu’aux littoraux du cône sud de l’Amérique du Sud. L’Indochine française, l’Insulinde néerlandaise et les quelques points d’appui et comptoirs portugais sont inclus, bon gré mal gré, dans ce dispositif en “anneau”, commandé depuis Londres.

Les Philippines, occupées depuis la guerre hispano-américaine puis philippino-américaine de 1898 à 1911 par les Etats-Unis, en sont le prolongement septentrional. Le Japon refuse de faire partie de ce dispositif qui permet pourtant de contrôler les routes du pétrole acheminé vers l’archipel nippon. L’Empire du Soleil Levant cherche à être une double puissance: 1) continentale avec la Mandchourie et, plus tard, avec ses conquêtes en Chine et avec la satellisation tacite de la Mongolie intérieure, et 2) maritime en contrôlant Formose, la presqu’île coréenne et la Micronésie, anciennement espagnole puis allemande. L’histoire japonaise, après Tsoushima, est marquée par la volonté d’assurer cette double hégémonie continentale et maritime, l’armée de terre et la marine se disputant budgets et priorités.

Un bloc continental défensif

Haushofer souhaite, à cette époque, que le “bloc continental”, soviéto-turco-perso-afghano-chinois, dont il souhaite l’unité stratégique, fasse continuellement pression sur l’ “anneau” de manière à le faire sauter. Cette unité stratégique est une “alliance pression/défense”, un “Druck-Abwehr-Verband”, soit une alliance de facto qui se défend (“Abwehr”) contre la pression (“Druck”) qu’exercent les bases et points d’appui des thalassocraties, contre toutes les tentatives de déploiement des puissances continentales. Haushofer dénonce, dans cette optique, le colonialisme et le racisme, qui en découle, car ces “ismes” bloquent la voie des peuples vers l’émancipation et l’auto-détermination. Dans l’ouvrage collectif “Welt in Gärung” (= “Le monde en effervescence”), Haushofer parle des “gardiens rigides du statu quo” (“starre Hüter des gewesenen Standes”) qui sont les obstacles (“Hemmungen”) à toute paix véritable; ils provoquent des révolutions bouleversantes et des effondrements déstabilisants, des “Umstürze”, au lieu de favoriser des changements radicaux et féconds, des “Umbrüche”. Cette idée le rapproche de Carl Schmitt, quand ce dernier critique avec acuité et véhémence les traités imposés par Washington dans le monde entier, dans le sillage de l’idéologie wilsonienne, et les nouvelles dispositions, en apparence apaisantes et pacifistes, imposées à Versailles puis à Genève dans le cadre de la SdN. Carl Schmitt critiquait, entre autres, et très sévèrement, les démarches américaines visant la destruction définitive du droit des gens classique, le “ius publicum europaeum” (qui disparait entre 1890 et 1918), en visant à ôter aux Etats le droit de faire la guerre (limitée), selon les théories juridiques de Frank B. Kellogg dès la fin des années 20. Il y a tout un travail à faire sur le parallèlisme entre Carl Schmitt et les écoles géopolitiques de son temps.

En dépit du grand capital de sympathie dont bénéficiait le Japon chez Haushofer depuis son séjour à Kyoto, sa géopolitique, dans les années 20, est nettement favorable à la Chine, dont le sort, dit-il, est similaire à celui de l’Allemagne. Elle a dû céder des territoires à ses voisins et sa façade maritime est neutralisée par la pression permanente qui s’exerce depuis toutes les composantes de l’ “anneau”, constitués par les points d’appui étrangers (surtout l’américain aux Philippines). Haushofer, dans ses réflexions sur le destin de la Chine, constate l’hétérogénéité physique de l’ancien espace impérial chinois: le désert de Gobi sépare la vaste zone de peuplement “han” des zones habitées par les peuples turcophones, à l’époque sous influence soviétique. Les montagnes du Tibet sont sous influence britannique depuis les Indes et cette influence constitue l’avancée la plus profonde de l’impérialisme thalassocratique vers l’intérieur des terres eurasiennes, permettant de surcroît de contrôler le “chateau d’eau” tibétain où les principaux fleuves d’Asie prennent leur source (à l’Ouest, l’Indus et le Gange; à l’Est, le Brahmapoutre/Tsangpo, le Salouen, l’Irawadi et le Mékong). La Mandchourie, disputée entre la Russie et le Japon, est toutefois majoritairement peuplée de Chinois et reviendra donc tôt ou tard chinoise.


Sympathie pour la Chine mais soutien au Japon

Haushofer, en dépit de ses sympathies pour la Chine, soutiendra le Japon dès le début de la guerre sino-japonaise (qui débute avec l’incident de Moukden en septembre 1931). Cette option nouvelle vient sans doute du fait que la Chine avait voté plusieurs motions contre l’Allemagne à la SdN, que tous constataient que la Chine était incapable de sortir par ses propres forces de ses misères. Le Japon apparaissait dès lors comme une puissance impériale plus fiable, capable d’apporter un nouvel ordre dans la région, instable depuis les guerres de l’opium et la révolte de Tai-Peh. Haushofer avait suivi la “croissance organique” du Japon mais celui-ci ne cadrait pas avec ses théories, vu sa nature hybride, à la fois continentale depuis sa conquête de la Mandchourie et thalassocratique vu sa supériorité navale dans la région. Très branché sur l’idée mackindérienne d’ “anneau maritime”, Haushofer estime que le Japon demeure une donnée floue sur l’échiquier international. Il a cherché des explications d’ordre “racial”, en faisant appel à des critères “anthropogéographiques” (Ratzel) pour tenter d’expliquer l’imprécision du statut géopolitique et géostratégique du Japon: pour lui, le peuple japonais est originaire, au départ, des îles du Pacifique (des Philippines notamment et sans doute, antérieurement, de l’Insulinde et de la Malaisie) et se sent plus à l’aise dans les îles chaudes et humides que sur le sol sec de la Mandchourie continentale, en dépit de la nécessité pour les Japonais d’avoir à disposition cette zone continentale afin de “respirer”, d’acquérir sur le long terme, ce que Haushofer appelle un “Atemraum”, un espace de respiration pour son trop-plein démographique.

L’Asie orientale est travaillée, ajoute-t-il, par la dynamique de deux “Pan-Ideen”, l’idée panasiatique et l’idée panpacifique. L’idée panasiatique concerne tous les peuples d’Asie, de la Perse au Japon: elle vise l’unité stratégique de tous les Etats asiatiques solidement constitués contre la mainmise occidentale. L’idée panpacifique vise, pour sa part, l’unité de tous les Etats riverains de l’Océan Pacifique (Chine, Japon, Indonésie, Indochine, Philippines, d’une part; Etats-Unis, Mexique, Pérou et Chili, d’autre part). On retrouve la trace de cette idée dans les rapports récents ou actuels entre Etats asiatiques (surtout le Japon) et Etats latino-américains (relations commerciales entre le Mexique et le Japon, Fujimori à la présidence péruvienne, les théories géopolitiques et thalassopolitiques panpacifiques du général chilien Pinochet, etc.). Pour Haushofer, la présence de ces deux idées-forces génère un espace fragilisé (riche en turbulences potentielles, celles qui sont à l’oeuvre actuellement) sur la plage d’intersection où ces idées se télescopent. Soit entre la Chine littorale et les possessions japonaises en face de ces côtes chinoises. Tôt ou tard, pense Haushofer, les Etats-Unis utiliseront l’idée panpacifique pour contenir toute avancée soviétique en direction de la zone océanique du Pacifique ou pour contenir une Chine qui aurait adopté une politique continentaliste et panasiatique. Haushofer manifeste donc sa sympathie à l’égard du panasiatisme. Pour lui, le panasiatisme est “révolutionnaire”, apportera un réel changement de donne, radical et définitif, tandis que le panpacifisme est “évolutionnaire”, et n’apportera que des changements mineurs toujours susceptibles d’être révisés. Le Japon, en maîtrisant le littoral chinois et une bonne frange territoriale de l’arrière-pays puis en s’opposant à toute ingérence occidentale dans la région, opte pour une démarche panasiatique, ce qui explique que Haushofer le soutient dans ses actions en Mandchourie. Puis en fera un élément constitutif de l’alliance qu’il préconisera entre la Mitteleuropa, l’Eurasie (soviétique) et le Japon/Mandchourie orientant ses énergies vers le Sud.


Toutes ces réflexions indiquent que Haushofer fut principalement un géopolitologue spécialisé dans le monde asiatique et pacifique. La lecture de ses travaux sur ces espaces continentaux et maritimes demeure toujours aujourd’hui du plus haut intérêt, vu les frictions actuelles dans la région et l’ingérence américaine qui parie, somme toute, sur une forme actualisée du panpacifisme pour maintenir son hégémonie et contenir une Chine devenue pleinement panasiatique dans la mesure où elle fait partie du “Groupe de Shanghai” (OCS), tout en orientant vers le sud ses ambitions maritimes, heurtant un Vietnam qui s’aligne désormais sur les Etats-Unis, en dépit de la guerre atroce qui y a fait rage il y a quelques décennies. On n’oubliera pas toutefois que Kissinger, en 1970-72, avait parié sur une Chine maoïste continentale (sans grandes ambitions maritimes) pour contenir l’URSS. La Chine a alors eu une dimension “panpacifiste” plutôt que “panasiatique” (comme l’a souligné à sa manière le général et géopolitologue italien Guido Giannettini). Les stratégies demeurent et peuvent s’utiliser de multiples manières, au gré des circonstances et des alliances ponctuelles.


Réflexions sur l’Inde

Reste à méditer, dans le cadre très restreint de cet article, les réflexions de Haushofer sur l’Inde. Si l’Inde devient indépendante, elle cessera automatiquement d’être un élément essentiel de l’ “anneau” pour devenir une pièce maîtresse du dispositif continentaliste/panasiatique. Le sous-continent indien est donc marqué par une certaine ambivalence: il est soit la clef de voûte de la puissance maritime britannique, reposant sur la maîtrise totale de l’Océan Indien; soit l’avant-garde des puissances continentales sur le “rimland” méridional de l’Eurasie et dans la “Mer du Milieu” qu’est précisément l’Océan Indien. Cette ambivalence se retrouve aujourd’hui au premier plan de l’actualité: l’Inde est certes partie prenante dans le défi lancé par le “Groupe de Shanghai” et à l’ONU (où elle ne vote pas en faveur des interventions réclamées par l’hegemon américain) mais elle est sollicitée par ce même hegemon pour participer au “containment” de la Chine, au nom de son vieux conflit avec Beijing pour les hauteurs himalayennes de l’Aksai Chin en marge du Cachemire/Jammu et pour la question des barrages sur le Brahmapoutre et de la maîtrise du Sikkim. Haushofer constatait déjà, bien avant la partition de l’Inde en 1947, suite au départ des Britanniques, que l’opposition séculaire entre Musulmans et Hindous freinera l’accession de l’Inde à l’indépendance et/ou minera son unité territoriale ou sa cohérence sociale. Ensuite, l’Inde comme l’Allemagne (ou l’Europe) de la “Kleinstaaterei”, a été et est encore un espace politiquement morcelé. Le mouvement indépendantiste et unitaire indien est, souligne-t-il, un modèle pour l’Allemagne et l’Europe, dans la mesure, justement, où il veut sauter au-dessus des différences fragmentantes pour redevenir un bloc capable d’être pleinement “sujet de l’histoire”.

Voici donc quelques-unes des idées essentielles véhiculées par la “Zeitschrift für Geopolitik” de Haushofer. Il y a en a eu une quantité d’autres, parfois fluctuantes et contradictoires,  qu’il faudra réexhumer, analyser et commenter en les resituant dans leur contexte. La tâche sera lourde, longue mais passionnante. La géopolitique allemande de Haushofer est plus intéressante à analyser dans les années 20, où elle prend tout son essor, avant l’avènement du national-socialisme, tout comme la mouvance nationale-révolutionnaire, plus ou moins russophile, qui cesse ses activités à partir de 1933 ou les poursuit vaille que vaille dans la clandestinité ou l’exil. Reste aussi à examiner les rapports entre Haushofer et Rudolf Hess, qui ne cesse de tourmenter les esprits. Albrecht Haushofer, secrétaire de la “Deutsche Akademie” et fidèle disciple de ses parents, résume en quelques points les erreurs stratégiques de l’Allemagne dont:
a)    la surestimation de la force de frappe japonaise pour faire fléchir en Asie la résistance des thalassocraties;
b)    la surestimation des phénomènes de crise en France avant les hostilités;
c)    la sous-estimation de la durée temporelle avec laquelle on peut éliminer militairement un problème;
d)    la surestimation des réserves militaires allemandes;
e)    la méconnaissance de la psychologie anglaise, tant celle des masses que celle des dirigeants;
f)    le désintérêt pour l’Amérique.
Albrecht Haushofer, on le sait, sera exécuté d’une balle dans la nuque par la Gestapo à la prison de Berlin-Moabit en 1945. Ses parents, arrêtés par les Américains, questionnés, seront retrouvés pendus à un arbre au fond du jardin de leur villa d’Hartschimmelhof, le 10 mars 1946. Karl Haushofer était malade, déprimé et âgé de 75 ans.

L’Allemagne officielle ne s’est donc jamais inspirée de Haushofer ni sous la République de Weimar ni sous le régime national-socialiste ni sous la Bundesrepublik. Néanmoins bon nombre de collaborateurs de Haushofer ont poursuivi leurs travaux géopolitiques après 1945. Leurs itinéraires, et les fluctuations de ceux-ci devrait pouvoir constituer un objet d’étude. De 1951 à 1956, la ZfG reparaît, exactement sous la même forme qu’au temps de Haushofer. Elle change ensuite de titre pour devenir la “Zeitschrift für deutsches Auslandswissen” (= “Revue allemande pour la connaissance de l’étranger”), publiée sous les auspices d’un “Institut für Geosoziologie und Politik”. Elle paraît sous la houlette d’un disciple de Haushofer, le Dr. Hugo Hassinger. En 1960, le géographe Adolf Grabowsky, qui a également fait ses premières armes aux côtés de Haushofer, publie, en n’escamotant pas le terme “géopolitique”, un ouvrage remarqué, “Raum, Staat und Geschichte – Grundlegung der Geopolitik” (= “Espace, Etat et histoire – Fondation de la géopolitique”). Il préfèrera parler ultérieurement de “Raumkraft” (de “force de l’espace”). Les ouvrages qui ont voulu faire redémarrer une géopolitique allemande dans le nouveau contexte européen sont sans contexte ceux 1) du Baron Heinrich Jordis von Lohausen, dont le livre “Denken in Kontinenten” restera malheureusement confiné aux cercles conservateurs, nationaux et nationaux-conservateurs, “politiquement correct” oblige, bien que Lohausen ne développait aucun discours incendiaire ou provocateur, et 2) du politologue Heinz Brill, “Geopolitik heute”, où l’auteur, professeur à l’Académie militaire de la Bundeswehr, ose, pour la première fois, au départ d’une position officielle au sein de l’Etat allemand, énoncer un programme géopolitique, inspiré des traditions léguées par les héritiers de Haushofer, surtout ceux qui, comme Fochler-Hauke ou Pahl, ont poursuivi une quête d’ordre géopolitique après la mort tragique de leur professeur et de son épouse. A tous d’oeuvrer, désormais, pour exploiter tous les aspects de ces travaux, s’étendant sur près d’un siècle.

Robert Steuckers,
Forest-Flotzenberg, juin 2012.


Hans EBELING, Geopolitik – Karl Haushofer und seine Raumwissenschaft 1919-1945, Akademie Verlag, 1994.
Karl HAUSHOFER, Grenzen in ihrer geographischen und politischen Bedeutung, Kurt Vowinckel Verlag, Berlin-Grunewald, 1927.
Karl HAUSHOFER u. andere, Raumüberwindende Mächte, B.G. Teubner, Leipzig/Berlin, 1934.
Karl HAUSHOFER, Weltpolitik von heute, Verlag Zeitgeschichte, Berlin, 1934.
Karl HAUSHOFER & Gustav FOCHLER-HAUKE, Welt in Gärung – Zeitberichte deutscher Geopolitiker, Verlag von Breitkopf u. Härtel, Leipzig, 1937.
Karl HAUSHOFER, Weltmeere und Weltmächte, Zeitgeschichte-Verlag, Berlin, 1937.
Karl HAUSHOFER, Le Japon et les Japonais, Payot, Paris, 1937 (préface et traduction de Georges Montandon).
Karl HAUSHOFER, De la géopolitique, FAYARD, Paris, 1986 (préface du Prof. Jean Klein; introduction du Prof. H.-A. Jacobsen).
Hans-Adolf JACOBSEN, Karl Haushofer, Leben und Werk, Band 1 & 2, Harald Boldt Verlag, Boppard am Rhein, 1979.
Rudolf KJELLEN, Die Grossmächte vor und nach dem Weltkriege, B. G. Teubner, Leipzig/Berlin, 1930.
Günter MASCHKE, “Frank B. Kellogg siegt am Golf – Völkerrechtgeschichtliche Rückblicke anlässlich des ersten Krieges des Pazifismus”, in Etappe, Nr. 7, Bonn, Oktober 1991.
Emil MAURER, Weltpolitik im Pazifik, Goldmann, Leipzig, 1942.
Armin MOHLER, “Karl Haushofer”, in Criticon, Nr. 56, Nov.-Dez. 1979.
Perry PIERIK, Karl Haushofer en het nationaal-socialisme – Tijd, werk en invloed, Aspekt, Soesterberg, 2006.
Robert STEUCKERS, “Les thèmes de la géopolitique et de l’espace russe dans la vie culturelle berlinoise de 1918 à 1945 – Karl Haushofer, Oskar von Niedermayer & Otto Hoetzsch”, in Nouvelles de Synergies européennes, n°57-58, Forest, août-octobre 2002 [recension de: Karl SCHLÖGEL, Berlin Ostbahnhof Europas – Russen und Deutsche in ihrem Jahrhundert, Siedler, Berlin, 1998].

samedi, 16 juin 2012

Il Mediterraneo tra l’Eurasia e l’Occidente: i sommari

Il Mediterraneo tra l’Eurasia e l’Occidente: i sommari

Il Mediterraneo tra l’Eurasia e l’Occidente: i sommari

È uscito il numero XXVI (2/2012) della rivista di studi geopolitici “Eurasia”, un volume di 264 pagine intitolato:


Ecco di seguito l’elenco degli articoli presenti in questo numero, con un breve sommario per ciascuno di essi.


“Chi controlla il territorio costiero governa l’Eurasia; chi governa l’Eurasia controlla i destini del mondo”. Questa celebre formula, proposta dallo studioso americano Nicholas J. Spykman (1893-1943) in un libro che apparve postumo mentre era in corso il secondo conflitto mondiale, può aiutare a comprendere il significato geopolitico della “primavera araba”. Ricordiamo che secondo Spykman, esponente della scuola realista, gli Stati Uniti dovrebbero concentrare il loro impegno su un’area fondamentale per l’egemonia mondiale: si tratta di quel “territorio costiero” (Rimland) che, come una lunga fascia semicircolare, abbraccia il “territorio centrale” (il mackinderiano Heartland), comprendendo le coste atlantiche dell’Europa, il Mediterraneo, il Vicino e il Medio Oriente, la Penisola Indiana, l’Asia Monsonica, le Filippine, il Giappone. Non appare perciò infondata una lettura della “primavera araba” alla luce dei criteri geostrategici dettati da Spykman, i quali suggeriscono agli Stati Uniti l’esigenza di mantenere in uno stato di disunione e di perenne instabilità il “territorio costiero” – nel quale rientrano anche le sponde meridionali ed orientali del Mediterraneo.


Nella conferenza “La fine della filosofia e il compito del pensiero” Martin Heidegger non esita ad asserire che «la fine della filosofia significa: inizio della civilizzazione mondiale fondata sul pensiero occidentale-europeo».Tuttavia, se da un lato si deve riconoscere nella tecnoscienza il centro ordinatore della nostra epoca, dall’altro è innegabile che l’Occidente non possa non entrare in relazione con culture “diverse”, in grado di “resistergli” sotto il profilo geopolitico, e che esso stesso rechi in sé ciò che lo “contraddice”, vuoi sotto l’aspetto economico e antropologico (Karl Marx e Karl Polanyi), vuoi sotto quello politico e culturale (Carl Schmitt). Non si dovrebbe allora vedere in ciò, tenendo anche conto che “occidentale” ed “europeo” non sono affatto sinonimi, il segno di «un primo incalzante lampeggiare dell’Ereignis», cioè di una “luce” al di là dell’ethos dell’Occidente?


Nel saggio si esaminano essenzialmente i processi istituzionali e l’ingegneria costituzionale che hanno presieduto alla fondazione della Prima Repubblica Libica (1969-1977) e della Jamâhîriyya (1977-2011). Analizziamo la tal forma di governo venuta alla luce nella comunità internazionale: le novità e le differenze rispetto ai tradizionali significati della repubblica nei sensi liberal-democratico “occidentale” che democratico-popolare in adozione nei Paesi marxisti posti sia ad Ovest che in Estremo Oriente. Vediamo le cause che hanno favorito l’emergere della Libia quale primo Paese africano ai vertici del prodotto interno lordo procapite, fino al crollo – auspici le liberalizzazioni economiche – della Jamâhîriyya, il cui soffocamento da parte delle potenze postcolonialiste ha fatto precipitare l’ex Stato maghrebino nel tribalismo, nella violenza e nell’integralismo islamico a tutto vantaggio dell’imperialismo e dello sfruttamento dei popoli.

QUO VADIS, TURCHIA? di Aldo Braccio

C’è una duplice possibilità, un diverso destino che incombe sulla Turchia nel medio e lungo termine: sovranità e indipendenza, ovvero essere parte integrante dell’”asse del male” di occidentale invenzione, o essere “serva (alleata di ferro) della NATO”, in prosecuzione dell’impegno filoatlantico imposto al Paese a partire dal secondo dopoguerra. In altri termini, vi è la possibilità di una Turchia ancorata  a una concezione unipolare del mondo, a guida occidentale e particolarmente a guida statunitense, e quella di un Paese che fa affidamento su una futura, prossima dimensione multipolare del pianeta e cerca di favorirne l’avvento.

TURCHIA E SIRIA di Aldo Braccio

Il dipanarsi delle relazioni storiche fra queste due nazioni – sorte dalla dissoluzione dell’impero ottomano – è significativo della difficoltà di ricostruire uno stabile centro geopolitico nell’area vicinorientale. Le contraddittorie strategie di Ankara sono oggi all’origine di una nuova fase di tensione che non corrisponde agli interessi e alle aspirazioni né dello Stato turco né di quello siriano e che provoca evidente imbarazzo nell’opinione pubblica dei due Paesi.


La campagna di Boicottaggio, Disinvestimento e Sanzioni (BDS) contro le politiche del governo israeliano in Palestina, avviata il 9 luglio 2005, costituisce ad oggi il caso più cruciale e delicato di boicottaggio per fini politici e umanitari: la campagna fu lanciata attraverso un appello della società civile palestinese, sottoscritto poi da numerose altre associazioni, sindacati e personalità di spicco in tutto il mondo, e punta a colpire Israele su vari fronti. Il movimento BDS non tenta di salvaguardare solamente la categoria dei palestinesi nei Territori Occupati, bensì mira al rispetto dei diritti fondamentali dei cittadini arabo-palestinesi di Israele ed, infine, di quelli dei profughi palestinesi, in primis circa il loro diritto al ritorno nelle proprie terre, così come stabilito dalla Risoluzione 194/1948 delle Nazioni Unite. Il grado di incisività della campagna BDS in relazione alla forza politica ed economica di Israele è ancora oggetto di accesi dibattiti.

“TRIPOLI, SUOL DEL DOLORE…” di Alessandra Colla

Dopo una gestazione trentennale, il 29 settembre 1911 le ambizioni colonialistiche del giovane Regno d’Italia sfociano nell’aggressione alla Libia: dichiarata guerra con un pretesto all’Impero ottomano, possessore di quella regione nordafricana, l’Italia si imbarca in un’avventura destinata a segnare irrimediabilmente il corso degli eventi futuri che vedranno protagonista il bacino del Mediterraneo e le terre che vi si affacciano. Sorta di prova generale della guerra 1915-1918, il conflitto italo-turco costituisce da un lato la prima grande campagna di informazione/disinformazione di massa della storia italiana, e dall’altro il terreno ideale per la sperimentazione della nuova tipologia bellica che s’imporrà nel XX secolo: il bombardamento aereo.


Dal 1945 in poi, la Lega degli Stati Arabi ha sospeso due soli Stati membri: la Libia e la Siria, ambedue nel 2011. L’organizzazione araba ha fornito un sostegno all’azione neocolonialista degli USA e dei loro alleati.


L’articolo analizza il fondamento ideologico e culturale dell’attuale politica estera della Turchia. Definita da molti analisti come una politica di stampo neoottomano, questa, fonda le proprie radici negli anni ottanta e nella carismatica figura di Turgut Ozal che per primo cercò di rilanciare le ambizioni turche attraverso un deciso richiamo del glorioso passato imperiale. L’idea che l’odierna Turchia possa rivivere il ruolo centrale degli antichi fasti ottomani è alla base della dottrina e dell’azione politica del Primo Ministro Erdoğan e del suo ideologo Davutoğlu. In un Vicino Oriente in cui regna un clima di generale instabilità la Turchia è quindi sempre più legittimata a proporsi come il Paese guida della regione.


Mentre negli USA e in Europa i canali d’informazione hanno scatenato un clima di entusiasmo per le “primavere arabe”, altrove le reazioni a questi eventi hanno registrato toni contrastanti e umori controversi. Mosca ed Astana avvertono la minaccia di una destabilizzazione che, come auspicato negli USA, potrebbe far saltare le cerniere eurasiatiche comprese tra Egitto e Xinjiang e tra Siria e Tatarstan; Pechino vede nello sconvolgimento del Nordafrica un attacco occidentale all’Unione Africana e ai programmi di sviluppo patrocinati dalla Cina nel Continente Nero.


Il sistema politico iraniano si basa sull’Islam ed in particolare sulla forma sciita, corrente minoritaria per numero di fedeli rispetto all’Islam sunnita. Le istituzioni iraniane quindi sono sottoposte alla tutela di una guida religiosa di alto rango, che ha il compito di intervenire nelle attività dei tre poteri dello Stato (legislativo, esecutico, giudiziario) quando questi si allontanano dai principi islamici. I fondatori della Repubblica Islamica dell’Iran hanno però voluto adattare all’idea tradizionale di Stato islamico i precetti di un moderno sistema costituzionale: questa interessante sfida,che si è concretizzata con la Rivoluzione islamica del 1979, continua oggi ad affascinare gli intellettuali, iraniani e non.

INTRIGO CONTRO LA SIRIA di Alessandro Lattanzio

La Siria è sottoposta a una pressione internazionale, che viene esercitata tramite diversi mezzi: militari, spionistici, terroristici, economici e mediatici. Organizzare una simile operazione ha richiesto molto tempo, grandi risorse ed un’ampia rete internazionale, che comprende sia capi di stato ed ex-ministri, sia docenti, politici e militanti arabi, turchi e occidentali, ovviamente con il necessario sostegno di dissidenti, terroristi e traditori di origine siriana. L’articolo si propone di definire il quadro dell’intrigo contro la Siria.


Se si pensa che fino ad alcuni mesi fa la marina israeliana e quella turca compivano le manovre congiunte sotto l’egida della NATO, si può capire l’ansia di Tel Aviv quando si è saputo che nei radar della flotta turca le navi e gli aerei israeliani non sono più segnalati come «amici» ma come «ostili». Con i suoi ottantacinque milioni di abitanti a schiacciante maggioranza islamica la Turchia è il secondo paese NATO per potenza militare e ha un forte orgoglio nazionale, memore della storia imperiale ottomana.


Gen. Wesley Clark: “… Una decina di giorni dopo l’11 settembre 2011, andai al Pentagono. Un Generale che aveva collaborato con me mi chiamò: ‘Sir, vi devo parlare un secondo … abbiamo preso la decisione di attaccare l’Iraq’. ‘Una guerra contro l’Iraq? E perché?’ ‘Non lo so! Credo che non sanno più che fare’ . ‘Hanno trovato forse qualche prova di legami tra Saddam e Al Qaeda?’ ‘No, No ..” … Tornai a trovarlo qualche settimana dopo, erano cominciati i bombardamenti in Afghanistan. ‘Stiamo ancora preparandoci ad attaccare l’Iraq?’ ‘Ancora peggio, Sir!’. Prese un foglietto dal tavolo e disse: ‘l’ho appena avuto dalla Segreteria della Difesa. E’ un promemoria che illustra un piano per prendere (to take) 7 paesi in 5 anni’ ” “Cominciamo con l’Iraq, poi la Siria e il Libano, la Libia, la Somalia, il Sudan e infine l’Iran” (http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/05/22/general-wesley-clark-revealsplan-invade-iraq-syria-lebanon-lybia-somalia-sudan-iran-22858/)


La strategia statunitense, finalizzata a conseguire il controllo del bordo esterno del continente eurasiatico, ha individuato nell’Iran il segmento centrale di quella fascia islamica che rappresenta il potenziale presidio dell’Eurasia sul versante meridionale. Nell’area che va dall’Asia centrale al Vicino Oriente, l’influenza iraniana è in grado di contrastare la penetrazione occidentale, che ha i suoi attuali veicoli nei movimenti settari appoggiati dalle petromonarchie del Golfo. L’asse Mosca-Teheran può risolvere le contraddizioni esistenti tra la Russia e i musulmani dell’Asia centrale e caucasica, contraddizioni alimentate ed utilizzate dall’Occidente per destabilizzare l’area.


Ma che cosa c’entra la violenza in Siria con la “Primavera araba”, ammesso che di primavera si possa parlare? Nulla. Si tratta, invece, di un attacco ben preparato da Paesi che per anni hanno recitato la parte degli amici di Damasco con l’obiettivo di monitorare la Siria per lanciare al momento opportuno la loro sfida mortale ad una componente fondamentale dell’alleanza tra Iran, Siria e Resistenza libanese, tanto temuta dall’Occidente.

LA PRIMAVERA EGIZIANA DEL 1919 di Lorenzo Salimbeni

Nell’autunno del 1919 l’Egitto, all’epoca sotto protettorato britannico ed ancora unito con il Sudan, fu attraversato da un movimento rivoluzionario che si opponeva al persistere della presenza britannica, nonostante le promesse di piena indipendenza con le quali era stato stimolato il coinvolgimento egiziano nella Prima Guerra Mondiale. Gli insorti ricevettero la solidarietà di Gabriele d’Annunzio e della Lega dei popoli oppressi che stava prendendo corpo nell’ambito dell’impresa che aveva portato il poeta abruzzese a prendere il controllo di Fiume: non mancarono gli abboccamenti fra emissari fiumani ed egiziani, però non vi furono risultati concreti.

STRATEGIA E GEOPOLITICA DELL’AMERICA LATINA, parte seconda, di Miguel Ángel Barrios

Di fronte alle novità geopolitiche di grandezza epocale di cui è apportatore il secolo XX, l’autore si domanda se l’America Latina possa trasmettere un suo specifico contributo ad un mondo multipolare, che affermerà e sottolineerà le differenze, le diversità e le pluralità. Egli ritiene che, perconseguire un tale scopo, sia indispensabile recuperare l’esercizio del pensiero strategico, al fine di riscattarlo e renderlo capace di far fronte alle molteplici sfide della globalizzazione. L’argomentazione si articola dunque in tre parti, tre veri e propri saggi, il primo dei quali (“Approssimazioni teorico-pratiche”) si prefigge di mettere in luce l’importanza del pensiero strategico e dell’azione strategica. L’autore effettua preliminarmente una panoramica storica della strategia, dalla prospettiva in cui prende forma una teoria generale della guerra; quindi egli colloca la strategia, in quanto metodo di ragionamento, nel campo dell’azione sociale.

INTERVISTA AD ALDO COLLEONI, ex Console della Corea del Nord a cura di Marco Bagozzi


INTERVISTA A FRANCO CARDINI a cura di Enrico Galoppini

INTERVISTA A SERGEI MARTYNOV, Ministro degli Affari Esteri della Repubblica di Bielorussia a cura di Stefano Vernole


Alessandro Lattanzio, Songun, Edizioni all’insegna del Veltro, Parma 2012. Recensione di Augusto Marsigliante

Domenico Quirico, Primavera araba. Le rivoluzioni dall’altra parte del mare, Bollati Boringhieri, Torino 2011. Recensione di Claudio Mutti

mercredi, 13 juin 2012

Civilization as political concept

Civilization as political concept

Interview with the leader of the International “Eurasian Movement”, a philosopher, and a  professor at Moscow State University Alexander Dugin

Interviewed by the Global Revolutionary Alliance’s own Natella Speranskaja 

Ex: http://www.granews.info/

- The crisis of identity, with which we faced after the Cold War and the collapse of the communist world, is still relevant. What do you think is capable of lifting us out of this crisis  – a religious revival or creation of a new political ideology? Which of the options are you  inclined to yourself?

- After the collapse of communism came the phase of the “unipolar moment” (as Charles Krauthammer called it). In geopolitics, this meant the victory of unilateralism and Atlanticism, and because the pole was left alone, the West has become a global phenomenon. Accordingly,  the ideology of liberalism (or more accurately, neo-liberalism) is firmly in place crushing the two alternative political theories that existed in the twentieth century – communism and fascism . The Global liberal West has now defined culture, economics, information and technology, and politics. The West’s claims to the universalism of it’s values, the values of Western modernity and the Postmodern era, has reached its climax. 

Problems stemming from the West during the “unipolar moment” has led many to say that this “moment” is over, that he could not yet be a “destiny” of humanity.That is, a “unipolar moment” should be interpreted very broadly – not only geopolitical, but also ideologically, economically, axiologically, civilization wide. The crisis of identity, about which you ask, has scrapped all previous identities – civilizational, historical, national, political, ethnic, religious, cultural, in favor of a universal planetary Western-style identity  – with its concept of individualism, secularism, representative democracy, economic and political liberalism, cosmopolitanism and the ideology of human rights.Instead of a hierarchy of identities, which have traditionally played a large role in sets of collective identities, the “unipolar moment” affirmed a flat one-dimensional identity, with the absolutization of the individual singularity.  One individual = one identity, and any forms of the collective identity (for example, individual as the part of the religious community, nation, ethnic group, race, or even sex) underwent dismantling and overthrow. Hence the hatred of globalists for different kind of “majorities” and protection of minorities, up to the individual.

The Uni-polar Democracy of our moment - this is a democracy, which unambiguously protects the minority before the face of the majority and the individual before face of the group.  This is  the crisis of identity for those of non-Western or non-modern (or even not “postmodern”) societies,since this is where customary models are scrapped and liquidated. The postmodern West with  optimism, on the contrary, asserts individualism and hyper-liberalism in its space and zealously  exports it on the planetary scale.

However, it’s not painless, and has caused at all levels it’s own growing rejection.  The problems, which have  appeared in the West in the course of this “uni-polar moment”, forced many to speak, that this “moment’s” conclusion, has not succeeded in becoming “the fate” of humanity.  This, therefore,  was the cost of the  possibility of passage to some other paradigm…

So, we can think about an alternative  to the “unipolar moment” and, therefore, an alternative to liberalism, Americanism, Atlanticism, Western Postmodernism, globalization, individualism, etc. That is, we can, and I think should,  work out plans and strategies for a “post-uni polar world “, at all levels – the ideological and political, the economic, and religious, and the philosophical and geo-political, the cultural and civilizational, and technology, and value.

In fact, this is what I call multi-polarity. As in the case of uni-polarity it is not only about the political and strategic map of the world, but also the paradigmatic philosophical foundations of the future world order.  We can not exactly say that the “uni-polar moment” has finally been completed. No, it is still continuing, but it faces a growing number of problems. We must put an end to it – eradicate it. This is a global revolution, since the existing domination of the West, liberalism and globalism completely controls the  world oligarchy, financial and political elites.

So they just will not simply  give up their positions. We must prepare for a serious and intense battle.   Multi-polarity will be recaptured by the conquered peoples of the world in combat and it will be able to arise only on the smoking ruins of the global West.  While the West is still dictating his will to the rest, to talk about early multipolarity  – you must first destroy the Western domination on the ground.   Crisis – this is much, but far from all.

- If we accept the thesis of the paradigmatic transition from the current unipolar world order model to a new multi-polar model, where the actors are not nation-states, but  entire civilizations, can it be said that this move would entail a radical change in the very human identity?

- Yes, of course. With the end of the unipolar moment, we are entering a whole new world. And it is not simply a reverse or a step back, but it is a step forward to some unprecedented future, however, different from the digital project of “lonely crowds”, which is reserved for  humanity by globalism. Multi-polar identity will be the complex nonlinear collection of different identities – both individual and collective, that is varied for each civilization (or even inside each civilization).

This is something completely new that  will be created.

And the changes will be radical. We can not exclude that, along with known identities, civilizations, and offering of  new ways … It is possible that one of these new identities will become the identity of “Superman” – in the Nietzschean sense or otherwise (for example, traditionalist) …  In the “open society” of globalism the individual is, on the contrary, closedand strictly self-identical.

The multi-polar world’s anthropological map will be, however, extremely open, although the boundaries of civilizations  will be defined clearly. Man will again re-open the measurement of inner freedom – “freedom for”, in spite of the flat and purely external  liberal freedom – “freedom from” (as John Mill), Which is actually,  not freedom, but its simulacrum, imposed for a more efficient operation of the planetary masses by a small group of global oligarchs.

- Alexander Gelevich Dugin, you are the creator of the theory of a multi-polar world, which laid the foundation from which we can begin a new historical stage. Your book“The theory of a multi-polar world” has been and is being translated into other languages. The transition to a new model of world order means a radical change in the foreign policy of nation-states, and in today’s global economy, in fact, you have created all the prerequisites for the emergence of a new diplomatic language. Of course, this is a challenge of the global hegemony of the West. What do you think will be the reaction of your political opponents when they realize the seriousness of the threat posed?

- As always in the vanguard of  philosophical and ideological ideas, we first have the effect of bewilderment, the desire to silence or marginalize them. Then comes the phase of severe criticism and rejection. Then they begin to consider. Then they become commonplace and a truism. So it was with many of my ideas and concepts in the past 30 years. Traditionalism, geopolitics, Sociology of imagination , Ethnosociology, Conservative Revolution , National Bolshevism, Eurasianism, the Fourth Political Theory, National-structuralism, Russian Schmittianism, the concept of the three paradigms, the eschatological gnosis, New Metaphysics and Radical Theory of the Subject , Conspiracy theories, Russian haydeggerianstvo , a post-modern alternative , and so on – perceived first with hostility, then partially assimilated, and finally became part of mainstream discourse in academia and politics of Russia, and in part, and beyond.

Each of these directions has their fate, but the diagram of their mastering is approximately identical. So it will be also with the theory of a multipolar world   It will be hushed up, and then demonized and fiercely criticized, and then they will begin to look at it closely, and then accepted. But for all this it is necessary to pay for it and to defend it in the fight.  Arthur Rimbaud said that “the spiritual battle as fierce and hard, as the battle of armies.” For this we will have to struggle violently and desperately. As for everything else.

- In the “Theory of a multipolar world,” you write that in the dialogue between civilizations the responsibility is born by the elite of civilization. Do I understand correctly, it should be a “trained” elite, that is, the elite, which has a broad knowledge and capabilities, rather than the present “elite”? Tell me, what is the main difference between these elites?

- Civilizational elite – is a new concept. Thus far  it does not exist. It is a combination of two qualities – deep assimilation of the particular civilizational culture (in the philosophical, religious, value levels) and the presence of a high degree “of drive,” persistently pushing people to the heights of power, prestige and influence. Modern liberalism channels passion exclusively in the area of economics and business, creating a preference for a particular social elevator and it is a particular type of personality (which is an American sociologist Yuri Slezkine called “mercurial type”) .

The Mercurial elite of globalism, “aviakochevniki” mondialist nomadism, sung by Jacques Attali, should be overthrown in favor of radically different types of elites. Each civilization can dominate, and other “worlds”, not only thievish, mercurial shopkeepers and  cosmopolitans.  Islamic elite is clearly another – an example of this we see in today’s Iran, where the policy (Mars) and economics (Mercury) are subject to  spiritual authority, of the Ayatollah (Saturn).

But the “world” is only a metaphor. Different civilizations are based on different codes. The main thing is that the elite must be reflected in the codes themselves, whatever they may be. This is the most important condition. The will to power inherent in any elite, shall be interfaced with the will to knowledge, that is intellectualism and activism in such a multipolar elite should be wedded. Technological efficiency and value (often religious) content should be combined in such an elite. Only such an elite will be able to fully and responsibly participate in the dialogue of civilizations, embodying the principles of their traditions and engaging in interaction with other civilizations of the worlds.

- How can you comment on the hypothesis that the return to a bipolar model is still possible?

- I think not, practically or theoretically. In practice, because today there is no country that is comparable to the basic parameters of the U.S. and the West in general. The U.S. broke away from the rest of the world so that no one on its own can compete with them. Theoretically, only the West now has a claim to universality of its values, whereas previously Marxism was regarded as an alternative. After the collapse of the Soviet Union it became clear that universalism is only  liberal, capitalist. To resist Western imperialism there can only be a coalition of large spaces – not the second pole, but immediately multiple poles, each of them with its own strategic infrastructure and with a particular civilizational, cultural and ideological content.

- How real is the sudden transition to a non-polar model? What are the main disadvantages of this model?

- Passage to a non-polar model, about which leaders are increasingly talking of in the Council on Foreign Relations (Richard Haass, George Soros,etc.), means the replacement of the facade of a uni-polar hegemony, the transition from the domination based on military and strategic power of the United States and NATO (hardware ) to dispersed domination of the West as a whole (software). These are two versions – hard-hegemony and soft-hegemony. But in both cases the West, its civilization, its culture, its philosophy, its technologies, its political and economic institutes and procedures come out as the standard universal model.  Over the long term, this will indicate  the transfer of power to a “world government”, which will be dominated by all  the same Western elites, the global oligarchy. It will then  discard it’s  mask and will act directly on behalf of the transnational forces. In some sense non-polarity is worse than uni-polarity, though, it would seem hard to believe.

Non-polarity itself, and even more sharply and rapidly, will not yet begin. For this, the world must go through the turmoil and trials until a desperate humanity itself cried for the world elite with a prayer for salvation. Prior to that, to weaken the power of the United States, world disasters occur, and war. Non-polar world under the control of a world government, consisting of direct representatives of the global oligarchy,  is expected by many religious circles as the coming “of the kingdom of the Antichrist.”

As for the “shortcomings” of such a model, I believe that it is just  “a great parody of” the sacred world empire, which  Rene Guenon warned of in his work The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times. This will be a global simulacrum.  To recognize these “deficiencies” will  not be so easy, otherwise opposition “to the antichrist” would be too simple a matter, and the depth of his temptation would be insignificant.

The true alternative is a multi-polar world, everything else – evil in the truest sense of the word.

- The “counter-hegemony” by Robert Cox, who you mention in your book aims to expose the existing order in international relations and raise the rebellion against it. To do this, Cox called for the creation of counter-hegemonic bloc, which will include political actors who reject the existing hegemony. Have you developed the Fourth Political Theory as a kind of counter-hegemonic doctrine that could unite the rebels against the hegemony of the West?

- I am convinced that the Fourth Political Theory fits into the logic of building counter-hegemony, which Cox spoke of. By the way, also inthe proximity of critical theory in the MO theory, and multi-polar world is a wonderful text by Alexandra Bovdunova ,voiced at the Conference on the Theory of a multipolar world in Moscow, Moscow State University on 25-26 April 2012 .

4PT is not a complete doctrine, this is still the first steps toward the exit from the conceptual impasse in which we find ourselves in the face of liberalism, today rejected by more and more people around the world, in the collapse of the old anti-liberal political theories – Communism and Fascism. In a sense, the need for 4PT – is a sign of the times, and really can not be disputed by anyone. Another matter, what will be 4PT in its final form. The temptation appears to build it as a syncretic combination of elements of previous anti-liberal doctrines and ideologies …

I am convinced that we should go another way. It is necessary to understand the root of the current hegemony. This coincides with the root of modernity as such, and it grows from the roots of modernity in all three pillars of political theories – liberalism, communism and fascism. To manipulate them to find an alternative to modernity and liberalism, respectively, and of the liberal hegemony of the West, is in my view, pointless. We must move beyond modernity in general, beyond the range of its political actors – individual, class, nation, state, etc.

Therefore 4PT as the basis of a counter-hegemonic planetary front should be constructed quite differently. Like the theory of a multipolar world 4PT operates with a new concept – “civilization”, but 4PT puts special emphasis on the existential aspect of it. Hence the most important, the central thesis of 4PT that its subject is the actor -  Dasein. Every civilization, its Dasein, which means that it describes a specific set of existentials. On their basis, should be raised a new political theory  generalized at the following level into a “multipolar federation Of Dasein” as the concrete structure of counter – hegemony. In other words, the very counter-hegemony must be conceived existentially, as a field of war between the inauthentic globalization (global alienation) and the horizon of authentic  peoples and societies in a multipolar world (the possibility of overcoming the alienation  of civilizations).

- When we talk about cognitive uprising, however first of all, our actions should be aimed at the overthrow of the dictatorship of the West?

- The most important step is the beginning of the systematic preparation of a global revolutionary elite-oriented to multi-polarity 4PT. This elite must perform a critical function – to be a link between the local and global. At the local level we are talking about the masses and the clearest exponents of their local culture (religious leaders, philosophers, etc.). Often, these communities do not have a planetary perspective and simply defend their conservative identity before the onset of toxic globalization and Western imperialism.

Raising the masses and the traditionalist-conservatives  to a realized uprising in the context of a complex union of a counter-hegemonistic block is  extremely difficult. Simple conservatives and their supportive mass, for example, of the Islamic or Orthodox persuasion are unlikely to realize the necessity of  alliances with the Hindus or the Chinese. This will be the play  (and they are already actively playing it) of the globalists and their principle of “divide and conquer!” But the revolutionary elite, which is the elite, even within a particular traditionalist elite of society, should take the , heartfelt deep and deliberate feelings of local identity and correlate it within a total horizon of multi-polarity, and  4PT.

Without the formation of such a elite the revolt against the  post-modern world and the overthrow of the dictatorship of the West will not take place. Every time and everywhere   the West has a problem, he will come to the aid of anti-Western forces, which, however, will be motivated by narrow bills to specific civilizational neighbors – most often, just as anti-Western as they are. So it will be and already is the instrumentalization of globalists of various conservative fundamentalist and nationalist movements. Islamic fundamentalists to help the West is one. European nationalists – is another. So a “unipolar moment” extends not only to exist in itself, but also playing the antagonistic forces against him. The overthrow of the dictatorship of the West will become possible only if this strategy  will be sufficient enough to create or make appear a new counter-hegemonic elite. A initiative like Global Revolutionary Alliance – the unique example of really revolutionary and effective opposition to hegemony.

- You have repeatedly said that Eurasianism is a strategic, philosophical, cultural and civilizational choice. Can we hope that the political course chosen by Vladimir Putin (establishment of a Eurasian Union ) Is the first step towards a multipolar model?

- This is a difficult question. By himself, Putin and, especially, his environment, they act  more out of inertia, without calling into question the legitimacy of the existing planetary status quo. Their goal – to win his and Russia’s  rather appropriate place within the existing world order. But that is the problem: a truly acceptable place for Russia is not and can not exist, because the “uni-polar moment”, as well as the globalists stand for the desovereignization of Russia, eliminating it as an independent civilization, and strategic pole.

This self-destruction seems to suit, Dmitry Medvedev and his entourage (INSOR) for he was ready to reboot and go for almost all of it. Putin clearly understands the situation somewhat differently, and his criteria of “acceptability” is also different. He would most of all psychologically  arrange  a priority partnership with the West while maintaining the sovereignty of Russia. But this is  something  unacceptable under any circumstances to the unipolar globalists -  practically or theoretically.

So Putin is torn between multipolarity, where he leads the orientation of  sovereignty and Atlanticism, where he leads the inertia and the tireless work of a huge network of influence that permeates all of the structure of Russian society. Here’s the dilemma. Putin makes moves in both directions – he proclaims multi-polarity, the Eurasian Union, to protect the sovereignty of Russia, even spoke of the peculiarities of Russian civilization, strengthening vertical power, shows respect (if not more) to Orthodoxy, but on the other hand, surrounds himself with pro-American experts (eg, “Valdai Club”), rebuilds, education and culture under the globalistic Western models, has a liberal economic policy and suffers comprador oligarchs, etc.

The field for maneuver Putin is constantly shrinking. The logic of the circumstances pushes him to a more unambiguous choice. Inside the country this uncertainty of course causes growing hostility, and his legitimacy falls.

Outside the country  the West only increases the pressure on Putin to persuade him towards globalism and the recognition of “unilateralism”, specifically – to cede his post to the Westerner Medvedev. So Putin, while continuing to fluctuate between multipolarity and Westernism, loses ground and support here and there.

The new period of his presidency will be very difficult. We will do everything we can to move it to a multipolar world, the Eurasian Union and 4PT. But we are not alone in Russian politics – against us for influence in Putin’s circles we have an army of liberals, agents of Western influence and the staff of the global oligarchy. For us, though, we have the People and the Truth. But behind them – a global oligarchy, money, lies, and, apparently, the father of lies. Nevertheless, vincit omnia veritas. That I have no doubt.

mardi, 12 juin 2012

Multipolarity as challenge

Multipolarity as challenge

Interview with political analyst Alexander Latsa by N.Speranskaya for GRAnews

Ex: http://www.granews.info/

The collapse of the Soviet Union meant the cancellation of the Yalta system of international relations and the triumph of the single hegemony - the United States, and as a consequence, transformations of the bipolar world order to a unipolar model. Nevertheless, some analysts are still talking about a possible return to a bipolar model. How do you feel about this hypothesis? Is there a likelihood of emergence of a power capable of challenging the global hegemony?

The collapse of the Soviet Union has indeed led directly to an American domination of the world affairs. When Bush father proclaimed the new world order in the sands of Iraq, many (in the Western world) even thought that it would be so forever, that the history of ideas had stopped and that the world would from now on forever be under American domination. 

We can see today that those who thought so were wrong, and it only took a decade for History to take back its rights, leading America into wars that will accelerate its decline, while paradoxically, they were supposed to establish its domination. 

During the same decade, Russia was reborn from its ashes and has once again become a strong regional power, a power that has visions of domination of Eurasia, as Vladimir Putin hammered during his first speech as the elected president on May 7, 2012. 

We hear a lot more about the Russia / America confrontation than at the beginning of this century but these countries will probably never be anymore the main key players in the world of tomorrow, unlike America and the USSR in the world of yesterday. 

Logically, China is today targeted by the American strategists as being a main adversary as it is most likely to become the leading world power during this century, on an economical, financial and demographic level - perhaps even a military one. China should therefore become the biggest competitor of an America in decline, and if nothing is done, the world of tomorrow will be punctuated by the China/America opposition.

Zbigniew Brzezinski openly admits that the U.S. is gradually losing its influence. Here it is possible to apply the concept of "imperial overstretch", introduced by renowned historian Paul Kennedy. Perhaps, America has faced that, what was previously experienced by the Soviet Union. How do you assess the current state of the U.S.?

Zbigniew Brzezinski is getting older and is probably aware of his mistakes, realizing that his outlook for the future world (under an American domination) have not fully come true. I say "not fully” because today the world is still dominated by the American hyper-power. The dollar is still the dominant currency in 2012 and America remains the world's largest economy, although the 2008 crisis seems to have been almost fatal to this financial domination. On the military level, its predominance is also over. Iraq and especially Afghanistan have shown the limits of the American military supremacy. Nobody longer sees America as an invulnerable power as it was the case a decade ago. Curiously though, America just like the USSR chose to die and go to prove their vulnerability to the world in the same location:Afghanistan. I would like to add that this “end of Empire” had already been planned by a French sociologist, Emmanuel Todd, in 2002.

The loss of global influence of the U.S. means no more, no less, as the end of the unipolar world. But here the question arises as - to which model will happen the transition in the nearest future? On the one hand, we have all the prerequisites for the emergence of the multipolar world, on the other – we face the risk of encountering non-polarity, which would mean a real chaos.

In fact, no one knows what direct and indirect consequences the collapse of this superpower may have. Neither do we know if the unilateral post-transition will not be chaotic, nor how this potential chaos will occur. One can really wonder who the future major players will be in a "world of post-American domination."
China and India are likely to become (in that order) the two dominant powers in the Southern Eurasia and in the South East Asia. Russia will likely become the dominant power in Northern and Western Eurasia but it will also probably be a new pole of attraction for the European nations, for cultural, political and religious reasons.

I would also add that if neither China nor Russia nor India have and probably should not have, global ambitions, those powers should have strong regional ambitions in their respective zones of influence, that is to say in Eurasia / Central Asia / South East Asia. And yet this area is obviously a key strategic geopolitical area. Russian, Indian, Chinese and American regional interests will therefore probably continue to cross, and accentuate the new great game between these great powers at the heart of Eurasia. Thus it is doubtful that the transition towards a multipolar world (or at least towards a world that will no longer be under American control) happens in a non-chaotic, at least initially.

The project of "counter-hegemony", developed by Cox, aims to expose the existing order in international relations and raise the rebellion against it. For this, Cox calls for the creation of counter-hegemonic bloc, which will include those political actors who reject the existing hegemony. The basis of the unipolar model imposed by the United States, is a liberal ideology. From this we can conclude that the basis of the multipolar model just the same has to be based on some ideology. Which ideology, in your opinion, can take replace the counter-hegemonic one, capable of uniting a number of political actors who do not agree with the hegemony of the West?

The opposition of the communist and liberal ideologies had the advantage of structuring the world. With the victory of the liberal ideology, through the military and political victory of the Western coalition, there was more or less  a sense of global unity  because "the world" thought that victory was final and that the ideology of the winner would be "functional". But three decades later (and this has accelerated since the crisis of 2008) the system now appears to be corrupt, probably unsustainable and not adapted to the world. 

The liberal ideology has accelerated the globalization process, but this globalization has probably contributed indirectly to the destruction of the Western domination and of the related liberal ideology, that had put the economy at the heart of human history, just as Marxism had somehow done it before.

To have a glance at the emerging powers undoubtedly gives clues about the near future. The  new emerging  players of the world (BRICS for example), are a group of emerging powers that despite their important cultural, civilizational, geopolitical and demographic differences, also appear to have a lot of similarities. Their emergence is characterized by a type of development that challenges the recommendations of economic liberalism. These powers are characterized by strong state intervention. The BRICs are also societies in transition from an authoritarian tendency (China, Russia) or conservative societies dominated by a cast system (India, Brazil). Consequently they do not accept Western standards i.e. the rule of law and democracy. Their foreign policies are converging to challenge the status quo of the post-Cold War and the Western domination as it is American-centered. BRICS share a core value: a national sovereignty as a basic structural element  of the international system. Last, the BRICS systems have focused on societal systems based on traditions, identity and religion. All these are probably indications on the possible BRICS ideologies in construction, that will replace the current reigning ideology.

If we project the multipolar model on the economic world map, then we’ll get the coexistence of multiple poles, and at the same time, will create a complete matrix for the emergence of a new economy - outside of Western capitalist discourse. In your opinion, is the concept of “autarky of big spaces”, suggested by List, applicable for this?

I think we should differentiate the end of the unipolar world, and its corollary - the end of the current Western-centered world - from the globalization process, as the latter will continue. The Western world collapses mainly for political, demographic and economic reasons but also for spiritual ones. Its "code" of operation is clearly not functional anymore, nor adapted to today's world. Globalization will be lethal to the system that helped to accentuate it. Besides, the dominant power since the end of World War II (America) does not have the means anymore to promote its system of values and of thoughts, nor to impose its military domination. Therefore, America cannot control the Western world any longer.

That said, even if the Western world disappeared and even if the weakening of America continued during the first half of this century, globalization will spread culturally and demographically. As an example, in 2030, the world will perhaps count 8.5 billion people, and all the younger generation of the entire planet will read and write, which never happened before. There are human upheavals to come that are probably unprecedented. I do not think the anti-Western ideology is a sufficient vector to build a new world. BRICS though probably give a “first and vague” idea of what tomorrow's world could be: a world of civilizational and identity consolidation. Actually, it will be world made of a self-centered and wide open spaces.

Globalization should therefore widen and force "the worlds of tomorrow" to get more in contact the ones with the others, but one can sincerely doubt that this will happen in a friendly way and without tension. All this will probably be happening in a very chaotic way at first, since there will not be one dominant power able to more or less control, structure or master these flows.

Do you agree that now the fate of the world order is solved in Russia, that is, in the Heartland, to contain and weaken of which aims the Planetary U.S. strategy?

I see several interrelated equations together, and they are all related to the Heartland. First the global takeover of America and its globalist device happened via a projection capacity, that is to say, by extension beyond its borders to its military, economic and political devices, through NGOs and the revolutions of colours for example. This extension occurred through a unique  military control of the oceans in History, but also by using the dominated Western Europe as a bridgehead to attack Eurasia. This battle against the USSR for the global control turned  (since the fall of the Soviet Union) in a battle against Russia for the control of Eurasia.

Today the U.S. project is weakened by the financial, social, moral and political situation of the country. The expansion of NATO is jammed: the U.S. strategists surely foresaw Russia as a compliant bridgehead to America and that could attack an awakening China. But the reconstruction of Russia since March 2000 and the development of China hamper those plans. This is the reason why Russia is again the main enemy, as it prevents the American’s interference in what is known as the Heartland. 

Russia is now the key equation to prevent the unilateral world under American domination, to turn into a bilateral America / China world. Paradoxically, Russia will now have to deal with China in a subtle balance of forces, both friendly but firm.

We are now on the verge of paradigmatic transition from the unipolar world order model to the multi-polar one, where the actors are no more nation-states, but entire civilizations. Recently in Russia was published a book "Theory of multipolar world," written by the Doctor of Political and Social Sciences, Professor Alexander Dugin. This book lays the theoretical foundation, basis, from which a new historical stage can start, and describes a number of changes both in the foreign policy of nation-states and in today's global economy, which involve a transition to the multipolar model. Of course, this also means the emergence of a new diplomatic language. Do you believe that multipolarity is the natural state of the world and that transition to the multipolar model is inevitable?

I do not believe in the unipolar world and it seems to me that a multipolar world is best able to preserve the overall balance. But this requires several consistent players, of equivalent size and weight and whose own interests do not intersect. We know very well that this is not the case. The grandees of today and of tomorrow have their own interests in mind. I do not believe in an eternal honeymoon between non-western victorious countries.

In that sense, Russia may be facing a very difficult equation to contain an explosion in Asia: first, China will probably naturally and very quickly have its own sphere of influence felt in the pre-squared Russian Central Asia, and second, a Western coalition is currently installing a military device on the Western Russian side. Therefore, the collapse of the U.S. in my opinion refers directly to the place of Europe and Russia in the world of tomorrow. I put these two blocks together for several reasons. Neither Russia nor Europe can afford to face each other, as they both have strategic and structural weaknesses. Europe is currently an economic giant but a political and spiritual dwarf. On the opposite, Russia is a political and spiritual giant but also relatively an economic dwarf, apart from its raw materials.

The Europe / Russia relationship is one of the key points of the future. The political, economic and military potential of a European-Russian block, from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, could make it become one of the giants of tomorrow's world.Of course it also means that Europe must accept to become part of a Eurasian  block, allied with Russia and all the countries that would choose to ally themselves with Russia too, in the near future. 

I spoke of the need to have players of similar size; As a French of Eurasia - and in order for this Eurasian block to constitute itself, I believe in the creation of a Paris-Berlin-Moscow-Astana axis. This huge Euro-Eurasian pole would be a sovereign power and would be essential to contribute to peace on the continent, and why not, in the world.



vendredi, 20 avril 2012

Agni V placera l'Inde au même rang que les USA et la Russie


L'Inde veut entrer dans la cour des grands, aux côtés des USA et de la Russie, avec l'Agni V (missile balistique intercontinental) dont l'essai sera réalisé demain mercredi.

Agni V placera l'Inde au même rang que les USA et la Russie
Ex: http://mbm.hautetfort.com/

Les préparatifs du lancement du nouveau missile balistique intercontinental indien Agni V depuis le polygone de l'île de Wheeler dans le golfe de Bengale sont presque achevés. Son essai est prévu pour le mercredi 18 avril.

Les militaires indiens ont déclaré qu'en cas de succès, l'Inde se placera au même rang que les Etats-Unis, la Russie et la Chine qui disposent déjà de tels missiles.

Agniv pèse 50 t, sa longueur est de 17,5 m et son diamètre est de 2 m. La portée maximale est de 5 000 kms. Le missile peut porter une ogive d'un poids total d'une tonne.