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:

IL MEDITERRANEO TRA L’EURASIA E L’OCCIDENTE

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

IL MEDITERRANEO TRA L’EURASIA E L’OCCIDENTE di Claudio Mutti

“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.

AL DI LÀ DELL’ETHOS DELL’OCCIDENTE di Fabio Falchi

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?

LA LIBIA CHE È STATA DISTRUTTA di Giovanni Armillotta

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.

BOICOTTAGGIO CONTRO IL REGIME SIONISTA di Claudia Ciarfella

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.

LA “PRIMAVERA” DELLA LEGA ARABA di Finian Cunningham

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’EVOLUZIONE NEOOTTOMANA di Federico Donelli

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.

UN PERICOLO PER L’EURASIA di Andrea Fais

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.

CHE COSA VUOL DIRE REPUBBLICA ISLAMICA? di Ali Reza Jalali

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.

LA SFIDA DELLA MEZZALUNA TURCA di Vincenzo Maddaloni

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.

GUERRA DI LIBIA: BANCHE, PETROLIO E GEOPOLITICA di Claudio Moffa

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 FUNZIONE EURASIATICA DELL’IRAN di Claudio Mutti

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.

LA DESTABILIZZAZIONE DELLA SIRIA di Carlo Remeny

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

A COLLOQUIO CON MASSIMO FINI di Luca Bistolfi

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

L’INDIPENDENZA DELL’EGITTO NEI PIANI DELL’ASSE a cura di Stefano Fabei

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

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.

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.

 

 

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.

Spengler profeta dell'Eurasia

Andrea VIRGA:

Spengler profeta dell'Eurasia

Ex: andreavirga.blogspot.com/

 

Questo breve articolo è recentemente uscito sul numero III (dedicato all'Eurasia) della rivista Nomos, alla cui redazione collaboro.

 

Non ci si stancherà mai di raccomandare la lettura di Oswald Spengler (1880 – 1936), eclettico filosofo della storia tedesco e teorico del socialismo prussiano, le cui opere hanno riscosso successo e interesse negli ambiti più disparati, da Mussolini a Kissinger, dalla Germania di Weimar alla Russia contemporanea. Tra i vari motivi per cui risulta ancora oggi molto attuale, non possiamo non citare le sue ipotesi storiche riguardanti la Russia.

Nel 1918[1], mentre la guerra civile era ancora in corso, egli già prevedeva che la Russia avrebbe abbandonato nell’arco di pochi decenni il marxismo, per affermarsi come una nuova potenza imperiale eurasiatica – il che si è puntualmente avverato in questi ultimi anni. Noi vogliamo ora mettere a confronto il pensiero di Spengler con le attuali teorie eurasiatiste, che concepiscono lo spazio eurasiatico come di primaria importanza per la costruzione di un polo geopolitico alternativo a quello atlantico.

La sua tesi di fondo è che la Russia sia una realtà ben differente dalla “civilizzazione” occidentale, ma avente in sé tutte le premesse per la formazione di una nuova “civiltà”, la quale è ancora in una fase embrionale. Per analogia, la civiltà russa si trova perciò nella stessa fase di quella occidentale durante l’Alto Medioevo[2].

Questa civiltà era stata fino ad allora soggetta a forme ideologiche e culturali prettamente occidentali come il petrinismo e il leninismo, rispettivamente derivazioni di modelli occidentali come l’assolutismo e il marxismo, che le avevano impedito di esprimere il suo vero spirito. Tuttavia, era inevitabile, secondo il filosofo tedesco, che il bolscevismo sarebbe stato man mano superato e scartato dalla Russia, in favore di una forma politica più propriamente autoctona. Lo stesso bolscevismo russo, con Stalin, è andato assumendo caratteri decisamente nazionalisti e una sua politica di potenza a livello mondiale, interrotta dalla disintegrazione della potenza sovietica alla fine della Guerra Fredda, ma ripresa da Putin.

La “natura russa” (Russentum), «promessa di una Kultur [“civiltà”] a venire»[3], è modellata dal suo paesaggio natio, l’immensa piana eurasiatica che si estende oltre i confini delle civilizzazioni esistenti (Occidente, Islam, India, Cina), ed è infatti propria ai numerosi popoli, d’istinto nomade o seminomade, che vi vivono: slavi, iranici, uralici, altaici, ecc. Non dimentichiamo che, per l’occidentalista Spengler, «L’Europa vera finisce sulle rive della Vistola […] gli stessi Polacchi e gli Slavi dei Balcani sono “Asiatici”»[4].

Ancora più interessanti sono i rilievi che emergono dagli appunti postumi di Spengler dedicati alla protostoria[5]: nel Neolitico, delle tre grandi “civiltà” aurorali esistenti, che lui chiama Atlantis, Kush e Turan, quest’ultima occupa proprio la parte settentrionale dell’Eurasia, dalla Scandinavia alla Corea. L’uomo di Turan è un tipo eroico, in cui prevale il senso del tragico, dell’amor fati, della nostalgia e dall’irrequietezza data dai grandi spazi aperti. Queste caratteristiche si riscontrano per Spengler sia nel tipo prussiano sia in quello russo, il che contribuisce alla vicinanza tra questi due popoli. L’influenza di Turan si proietta inoltre dall’Europa al Medio Oriente, dalla Cina all’India, sulla scia della diffusione del carro da guerra indoeuropeo nel II millennio a.C[6], ponendo le basi per le civiltà successive.

Vediamo poi il significato politico delle teorie di Spengler. Robert Steuckers ipotizza che il comune substrato turanico potesse essere la base mitico-ideologica per un’alleanza politica tra il Reich tedesco, l’Unione Sovietica, la Cina nazionalista, e i nazionalisti indiani, in un’ottica anti-occidentale[7]. Viceversa, la critica coeva di Johann von Leers[8] accusava Spengler per la sua opera “Anni della decisione” (1933)[9] di voler formare un asse occidentalista e razzista con l’Inghilterra e gli Stati Uniti bianchi, di contro alle potenze di colore (America Latina, Africa, Asia, incluse Giappone, Italia e Russia). Non va però scordato che in scritti precedenti[10] aveva affermato chiaramente una maggiore affinità tra Prussia e Russia. La sua stessa interpretazione del bolscevismo russo come prodotto essenzialmente autoctono, in contrasto con quella antigiudaica delle destre europee anticomuniste, ha ispirato autori di tendenze nazionalbolsceviche come Arthur Moeller van den Bruck[11], Ernst Jünger, Ernst Niekisch, Erich Müller[12].

Risulta quindi evidente come Spengler, non adoperi il termine “Eurasia”, ma di fatto descriva quello stesso spazio (Raum) etnoculturale e geopolitico, identificandolo con una nascente civiltà russa, con caratteristiche sia asiatiche che centro-europee. La sua interpretazione della storia russa contemporanea coincide inoltre con l’interpretazione data dagli odierni eurasiatisti (Dugin, Baburin), ossia di una continuità nella politica internazionale tra zarismo, stalinismo e neo-eurasiatismo nell’affermazione della Russia come potenza eurasiatica.

 

---

[1] O. Spengler, Prussianesimo e socialismo, Ar, Padova 1994, p. 111 ssg.

[2] Id., Il tramonto dell’Occidente. Lineamenti di una morfologia della storia mondiale, Longanesi, Milano 2008, pp. 931 ssg.

[3] Ibid., p. 111.

[4] Id., Il doppio volto della Russia e il problema della Germania ad Est, in Forme della politica mondiale, Ar, Padova 1994, pp. 28 ssg.

[5] Id., Gli albori della storia mondiale, Ar, Padova 1996, 2 voll.

[6] Cfr. la conferenza Der Streitwagen und the Seine Bedeutung für den Gang der Weltgeschichte, 6 agosto 1934, Monaco; in Reden und Aufsätze, C. H. Beck, München 1937 [inedito in Italia].

[7] R. Steuckers, Atlantis, Kush, & Turan: Prehistoric Matrices of Ancient Civilizations in the Posthumous Work of Spengler, in Nouvelles de Synergies européennes, n° 21, 1996.

[8] J. von Leers, Contro Spengler, All’Insegna del Veltro, Parma 2011.

[9] O. Spengler, Anni della decisione, Ar, Padova 1994.

[10] Id., Prussianesimo e socialismo, cit.

[11] A. Moeller van den Bruck, Il Terzo Reich, Settimo Sigillo, Roma 2000.

[12] E. Müller, Nazionalbolscevismo, in Aa. Vv., Nazionalcomunismo, SEB, Milano 1996.

Eurazië, nieuwe zet van Moskou

Eurazië, nieuwe zet van Moskou

door Georges Spriet

Ex: http://www.uitpers.be/

De CSTO is bij ons niet zo bekend. Deze Collective Security Treaty Organisation werd in 2002 opgericht en omvat vandaag Rusland, Armenië, Wit-Rusland, Kazachstan, Kirgizië, Tadzjikistan en Oezbekistan. Opvallend is de aankondiging na de CSTO-top van december 2011 dat Moskou een vetorecht zou krijgen over de buitenlandse militaire basissen in de CSTO-lidstaten.

CSTO als opvolger van een vroeger militair akkoord onder bepaalde leden van de het Gemenebest van Onafhankelijke Staten (GOS), is een militaire alliantie die in vergelijking met de geoliede mechanismes van de NAVO over een eerder beperkte slagkracht beschikt: er is een CSTO rapid reaction force, maar niemand weet echt hoe operationeel die (al) zou zijn. Rusland was de initiatiefnemer voor de GOS en voor de militaire samenwerking: wat Washington voor de NAVO is, is Moskou voor de CSTO.

Menig commentaarschrijver is het eens over de zwakke interne samenhang van de CSTO. Er wordt daarbij steeds gewezen op de binnenlandse moeilijkheden van bepaalde lidstaten met hierbij Kirgizië op kop; van Armenië wordt gezegd dat het alleen met zichzelf bezig is en geen inbreng heeft in een gemeenschappelijke veiligheidsstrategie. Tadzjikistan heeft de naam niet erg loyaal te zijn. De relaties tussen Moskou en Wit-Rusland zijn na verschillende prijsdisputen over het aardgas ook niet meer zo stevig, en Kazachstan zou steeds meer een eigen koers gaan varen. Oezbekistan trad tot de CSTO toe in 2006, maar het is duidelijk dat dit land de CSTO verhinderde om militair tussen te komen bij de Kirgizische crisis van 2010. Anderzijds loopt er sedert 2002 een strategisch partnership akkoord tussen Oezbekistan en de USA. Maar hier zijn de relaties ook aan het verkoelen. Tijdens haar Azië rondreis van november vorig jaar gaf Hilary Clinton heel wat opmerkingen over de mensenrechtensituatie in Oezbekistan. Oezbekistan had zelf al eerder openlijk kritiek geuit op de Amerikaanse oorlogsstrategie in Afghanistan. Het feit dat de Oezbeekse president Islam Karimov toch persoonlijk aanwezig was op de CSTO top in Moskou moet wellicht ook in dit licht worden gezien.

Onder het principe van roterend CSTO voorzitterschap gaf Belarus de fakkel door aan Kazachstan. De Kazachse president Nazerbayev verklaarde na afloop dat deze top de interne cohesie van de alliantie sterk had verbeterd; in die mate zelfs dat er is afgesproken dat een land buiten de CSTO slechts militaire basissen op het grondgebied van de CSTO-lidstaten kan installeren na het akkoord van alle leden. Dit geeft alle leden, maar in de allereerste plaats het centrum van de alliantie met name Moskou, een vetorecht over buitenlandse militaire basissen bij de collega lidstaten.

Naar verluidt werd hierover een protocol getekend - dus nog geen volwaardig akkoord? – dat echter naliet de buitenlandse militaire aanwezigheid te definiëren. Deze regeling zou niet van toepassing zijn op de bestaande afspraken met westerse legers zoals het US transit centrum in Manas, Kirgizië, het Duitse luchtsteunpunt in Oezbekistan, en de Franse luchtmachtrechten in Tadzjikistan. De VS basis van Manas in Kirgizië werd opgericht kort na de terreuraanslagen in New York als logistieke steun voor de Amerikaanse militaire operaties in Afghanistan. In februari 2009 had het Kirgizische parlement al 's de sluiting van de basis gestemd na onenigheid over de 'huurprijs'. President Atembayev blijft herhalen dat hij het contract na 2014 niet meer zal verlengen omdat het niet bijdraagt tot de eigen veiligheid van de Kirgizische Republiek. "Manas is een burgerluchthaven en dat moet zo blijven in plaats van een mogelijk doelwit te worden van eventuele represailles", stelde hij onlangs.

Deze militaire steunpunten in de Centraal-Aziatische landen zijn van essentieel belang voor de bevoorrading van de westerse operaties in Afghanistan. De beslissing op de CSTO top over de buitenlandse militaire basissen zou ook geen invloed hebben op het NDN- netwerk voor Afghanistan. Inderdaad het opdrijven van het aantal Amerikaanse troepen in Afghanistan – de zogenaamde surge – ging gepaard met meer dan een verdubbeling van de behoefte aan niet-militaire bevoorrading. Daarom werd het Northern Distribution Network opgezet, een reeks commerciële logistieke regelingen die de Baltische en Kaspische havens met Afghanistan verbinden via Rusland, Centraal-Azië en de Kaukasus.

Nu de breuk tussen Pakistan en de VS steeds dieper lijkt te worden en de militaire bevoorrading door dit land is opgeschort na de 24 Pakistaanse doden bij een Amerikaanse drone-aanval op 26 november 2011, is het belang van de Centraal-Aziatische landen als logistieke lijn voor de troepen in Afghanistan enorm toegenomen. Rapporten wijzen op de ernstige stijging in de kosten nu ladingen uit de Pakistaanse havens moeten worden verscheept naar Indische havens om dan naar Afghanistan te worden gevlogen, of per trein noordwaarts te worden gebracht om via een van de NDN-routes ter bestemming te worden gebracht.

Deze beslissing van gezamenlijke toestemming voor buitenlandse militaire basissen in CSTO-lidstaten krijgt ook groter gewicht in het perspectief van eventuele Amerikaanse luchtaanvallen tegen Iran en vooral in het vooruitzicht van de terugtrekking van de westerse troepen uit Afghanistan in 2014. Er is namelijk ook sprake van een westerse herpositionering van militaire contingenten in Centraal-Azië. Een kopie van het 'weg-is-niet-weg' patroon uit het Irak dossier.

Dit moet dan nog gekoppeld aan de nieuwste strategieverschuiving in de USA waar men de militaire samenwerkingen in Azië als absolute topprioriteit gaat beschouwen als indamming van de Chinese invloed. Ten slotte kan deze beslissing Poetin helpen om de stemmen van de patriottische vleugel in de Russische samenleving voor zich te garanderen bij de aankomende presidentsverkiezingen.

Indien dit nieuwe 'CSTO-protocol' effectief zou worden nageleefd betekent het zonder meer een versterking van de Russische invloed in de regio, en een stevige zet tegenover de nieuwe strategische accenten van het Pentagon.

(Uitpers nr. 139, 13^de jg., februari 2012)

Il était temps que le premier ministre indien dénonce publiquement, et dans un média US de surcroît, la déstabilisation américaine en Inde. Ils finiront par pousser l'Inde à intégrer l'OCS comme avec l'Ukraine à intégrer l'Union eurasienne.

Les ONG américaines se mêlent des projets nucléaires indiens

Guéorgui Vanetsov - Ex: http://mbm.hautetfort.com/

 

© Collage: «Voix de la Russie»

 

Les organisations non-gouvernementales américaines sont derrière les mouvements de protestation contre le projet de la centrale nucléaire de Kudankulam, qui est actuellement en construction dans le sud de l'Inde avec l'aide de la Russie, a déclaré le premier ministre Manmohan Singh dans une interview accordée au magazine américain Science.

«Les ONG, dont la plupart se base aux Etats-Unis, ne voient aucune nécessité pour notre pays d’accroître la production de l’électricité», a déclaré Manmohan Singh. A cause des protestations, que nous estimons comme initiées par des ONG étrangères, le premier bloc de la centrale de Kudankulam, dont la construction est terminée, ne pourra pas être lancé dans les délais prévus. Une date ultérieure a été également fixée pour le lancement du second bloc de la centrale, actuellement en construction. Quant à la construction du troisième et quatrième bloc de la deuxième série, la signature des contrats pour l’élaboration de ces projets a également été reportée à plus tard. A l’origine, ces contrats devaient être signés lors de la visite du premier ministre indien en Russie en décembre de l’année dernière. Le développement du secteur de l’énergie nucléaire en Inde se retrouve ainsi bloqué, ce qui porte préjudice à l’économie du pays.

«Manmohan Singh a déclaré dans une interview au magazine américain ce dont toute la presse indienne parlait depuis longtemps», explique le célèbre journaliste indien Vinay Shukla. Par exemple, le journal Times of India a rapporté que les organisations chrétiennes occidentales ont transféré à l'Inde 630 millions de roupies pour le financement de la campagne de protestation contre le développement de l'énergie nucléaire pacifique dans le pays. Par conséquent, la déclaration du premier ministre indien est vue très positivement. Les gens disent que le chef du gouvernement a enfin appelé les choses par leur nom, en exprimant fermement ce qu'il devait dire depuis très longtemps. En Occident, il y a effectivement certains cercles, en particulier en Scandinavie, qui ne veulent pas le développement économique de l'Inde, ayant à cet effet leurs propres projets».

En Inde, on se souvient bien que ces organisations, financées par les pays occidentaux, étaient à l’origine des protestations de masse contre la construction des usines de sidérurgie, des entreprises d'ingénierie, et des raffineries de pétrole. Dans l’interview au magazine Science, le premier ministre de l'Inde a également accusé les ONG étrangères de s'opposer au développement des biotechnologies de pointe dans le pays. «Les biotechnologies ont un potentiel énorme», explique-t-il. «Et nous avons besoin d’utiliser ces biotechnologies pour accroître la production alimentaire en Inde», a déclaré Manmohan Singh.

En ce qui concerne l'énergie nucléaire, les Etats-Unis ont signé au début de 2006 avec l'Inde un accord de coopération, en s'engageant à construire dans le pays des centrales nucléaires et fournir les technologies et l'équipement nécessaire à leur fonctionnement. Toutefois, jusqu'à présent, le travail en vertu de cet accord n'a toujours pas commencé. Mais l'activité des ONG basées aux Etats-Unis visant à entraver la coopération de l’Inde avec les autres pays dans le domaine de l'énergie nucléaire pacifique s’est intensifiée. Une tentative visant à perturber le lancement de la centrale nucléaire de Kudankulam, construite avec l'aide des technologies russes – ce n'est pas seulement une attaque contre un projet spécifique. Il s'agit d'une tentative de remettre en question l'ensemble du programme de la coopération russo-indienne dans la construction des centrales nucléaires, alors que la Russie et l’Inde comptent construire ensemble dans les années à venir en tout 16 blocs pour les centrales nucléaire indiennes.

EURASIA - BRICS: i mattoni del nuovo ordine

BRICS: i mattoni del nuovo ordine

http://www.eurasia-rivista.org

Editoriale:
Tiberio Graziani, BRICS: i mattoni dell’edificio multipolare ^[1]

 

Dossario: BRICS: i mattoni del nuovo ordine
Come Carpentier de Gourdon, L’ascesa del BRICS. Da scenario finanziario a blocco strategico
Vagif Gusejnov, BRICS: stato e prospettive
Konstantin Zavinovskij, Cina e Russia in mezzo agli altri “mattoni”
Amb. José Filho, Il Brasile e i BRICS: lettera dell’Ambasciatore brasiliano
Roberto Nocella, Il Brasile e il Consiglio Diritti Umani
Vincenzo Mungo, L’India contemporanea: un progresso tra luci e ombre
Francesco Brunello Zanitti, L’ascesa geopolitica di Nuova Delhi: ostacoli e paradossi
Zorawar Daulet Singh, L’India dev’essere orientale o eurasiatica?
Alessandro Lattanzio, Le forze strategiche del BRICS
Aldo Braccio, E se il BRICS diventasse BRICST?
Hendrik Strydom, Potenze emergenti e governo mondiale?
Ignazio Castellucci, Il diritto nel mondo dei molti imperi
Marco Marinuzzi, Le relazioni tra i paesi lusofoni e la Cina
Giovanni Andriolo, Lega Araba e Nazioni Sudamericane

 

Continenti
Miguel Angel Barrios, Europa-Mercosur nella dinamica geopolitica del XXI secolo
Tommaso Cozzi, Europa: evoluzione dei consumi e dei costumi
Eleonora Gentilucci e Rémy Herrera, Gli effetti economici sulle spese militari
Hans Koechler, Collasso della globalizzazione e nuovo ordine mondiale
Cristiana Tosti, Seggio europeo all’ONU: un primo passo?

 

Interviste e recensioni
Enrico Galoppini, Intervista all’ambasciatore M.A. Hosseini
Orazio M. Gnerre, Claudio Mutti, Intervista al console Istvan Manno
Enrico Verga, Intervista al sottosegretario Enzo Scotti
Luca Bionda, recensione a Emanuele Aliprandi, Le ragioni del Karabakh
Claudio Mutti, recensione a Johann Jakob Bachofen, Matriarcato mediterraneo. Il popolo licio
Matteo Finotto, recensione a Francesco Brunello Zanitti, Progetti di egemonia. Neoconservatori statunitensi e neorevisionisti israeliani a confronto
Alessandro Lattanzio, recensione a Roj A. Medvedev e Zores A. Medvedev, Stalin sconosciuto. Alla luce degli archivi segreti sovietici
Zorawar Daulet Singh, recensione a Farzana Shaikh, Making Sense of Pakistan

L’aéronautique européenne met le cap sur la Sibérie

Ex: http://fortune.fdesouche.com/

Eurocopter et ATR enchaînent les contrats avec UTair. La compagnie régionale russe, qui, jusque-là, volait avant tout sur Boeing, négocie aussi avec Airbus et profite des pétrodollars pour renouveler des flottes vieillissantes.

En Sibérie, EADS a trouvé sa terre sainte, la région de Tioumen. Et un prophète commercial : UTair, principale compagnie régionale russe derrière Aeroflot. « Un leader d’opinion dans l’aéronautique du pays ! C’est devenu notre premier client en Russie et notre collaboration doit créer des ouvertures vers d’autres sociétés », s’enthousiasme Laurence Rigolini, directrice de la filiale d’Eurocopter à Moscou.

Le fabricant d’hélicoptères, filiale du groupe aéronautique et de défense européen, enchaîne les contrats avec UTair. La compagnie, qui dispose de la flotte privée d’hélicoptères la plus étoffée de Russie, a déjà commandé 20 Ecureuil. Commencées en 2011 avec 5 appareils, les livraisons se prolongeront jusqu’en 2013. L’objectif : remplacer les MI8 soviétiques, pour l’inspection d’infrastructures dans cette région pétrolière notamment.

Le deuxième contrat, signé en mars dernier, concerne 15 EC175, le nouveau modèle d’Eurocopter en cours de certification dans le pays, malgré les pressions de son concurrent, le groupe public Hélicoptères de Russie. Avec cet appareil plus large que l’Ecureuil, UTair veut cibler les marchés pétroliers offshore internationaux, une ambition impossible sans une flotte modernisée. « C’est notre client de lancement », explique Laurence Rigolini.

Au siège de la compagnie, à Tioumen, Eurocopter a même créé un centre de maintenance puis de formation ouvert à tous les pilotes et mécaniciens russes, quelle que soit leur compagnie. Une première mondiale pour la filiale d’EADS. Autre étape envisagée de la coopération : l’installation d’une chaîne d’assemblage. C’est un vieux projet, sachant qu’Eurocopter discute en parallèle avec le ministère de la Défense pour assembler des Ecureuil dans le pays.

Eurocopter, qui représente près de 75 % de la flotte occidentale d’hélicoptères en Russie, n’est pas la seule branche d’EADS à s’intéresser à la Sibérie. Dans ce territoire très large, comme ailleurs en Russie, les compagnies aéronautiques doivent renouveler leurs vieux appareils. A une différence près : grâce aux pétrodollars, les moyens de manquent pas. UTair a ainsi commandé 20 ATR, ce qui fera de la société le premier client du fabricant d’avions régionaux en Europe d’ici à l’été prochain.

C’est un changement de stratégie pour la compagnie sibérienne qui, jusque-là, volait avant tout sur Boeing (elle a encore passé commande de 40 B737 l’été dernier). « Les récents accidents aériens avec des compagnies utilisant des Tupolev ou Antonov et les appels des autorités à moderniser les appareils ont renforcé notre stratégie auprès des compagnies régionales. La Russie est l’un des principaux marchés d’ATR », confirme-t-on au sein d’EADS à Moscou. Le prochain gros contrat pourrait à nouveau se conclure avec UTair, qui discute avec Airbus pour étendre ses ailes.

Les Echos

Welke bedoelingen heeft Poetin met de Euraziatische Unie?

 

Welke bedoelingen heeft

Poetin met de Euraziatische

Unie?

Ze is qua oppervlakte tienmaal groter dan de Europese Unie en het doel is om het uitgestrekte oostelijke deel van het Europese continent met Azië te vervlechten. Welke doelstellingen steken achter dit project? Alexander Rahr heeft het uitgezocht. Hij is kort geleden teruggekeerd van de samenkomst van de Valdaiclub, waar hij de gelegenheid had om met premier Poetin te praten, die hoogstwaarschijnlijk in 2012 opnieuw als president zijn intrek in het Kremlin neemt.

Uit: Eurasisches Magazin 12-11 · 12.12.2011

Eurasisches Magazin: Tegen het einde van het jaar zou op het grondgebied van de voormalige Sovjetunie op initiatief van Poetin een nieuwe Euraziatische Unie moeten ontstaan. U hebt de initiatiefnemer daar in de Valdaiclub over bevraagd. Wat bent u te weten gekomen?

Alexander Rahr: De afspraak met Poetin heeft drie uur geduurd en vormde zonder twijfel het hoogtepunt van mijn gesprekken. Het is inderdaad zo dat - precies 20 jaar na het uiteenvallen van de Sovjetunie – op 80 procent van haar grondgebied een nieuwe unie onder de naam “Eurazië” zal ontstaan. Deze statenbond, die vergelijkbaar is met de EEG uit de jaren ’50, zal Rusland, Kazakstan, Wit-Rusland, Kirgizië en Tadzjikistan omvatten.

De Euraziatische Unie wordt in een eerste stadium enkel een economische gemeenschap

EM: Is het Poetin te doen om een heruitgave van de Sovjetunie?

Rahr: In geen geval. De Euraziatische Unie wordt in een eerste stadium enkel een economische gemeenschap, een vrijhandelszone, zonder eigen president of parlement. Ze zal worden geleid door Euraziëcommissarissen, naar het voorbeeld van haar Brusselse tegenhanger, wier taak bestaat uit het stroomlijnen van de economische en de juridische systemen van de voormalige Sovjetrepublieken die zich verder willen integreren.

EM: In een dergelijke unie heeft Rusland toch een verpletterend overwicht ten opzichte van alle andere staten. Zijn zij werkelijk bereid om hun net verworven onafhankelijkheid weer op te geven?

Rahr: Men zal met de integratie zeer omzichtig moeten omspringen. Rusland wil de landen die zich willen integreren niet afschrikken. Maar natuurlijk speelt Moskou in de financiële crisis zijn macht uit. Rusland is bereid om de landen die tot de Euraziatische Unie toetreden goedkoop gas te leveren, hen kredieten toe te staan en zijn eigen markt open te gooien. Maar een land zoals Kazakstan, dat inmiddels een eigen machtsstatus heeft opgebouwd, zal zich niet zo snel laten inpakken door Moskou.

Poetin wilde eigenlijk een vrijhandelszone van Brest tot Vladivostok

EM: Wat heeft Poetin precies geantwoord op uw directe vraag naar de doelstellingen achter het nieuwe integratiemodel?

Rahr: Ik heb Poetin onmiddellijk de vraag gesteld of de Euraziatische Unie een brugfunctie moest vervullen tussen voormalige Sovjetstaten en de Europese Unie, een soort tussenstop met als einddoel de vereniging van West- en Oost-Europa in het gemeenschappelijke EU-huis, zoals Michael Gorbatsjov het 20 jaar geleden stelde. Uiteindelijk had Poetin precies een jaar geleden op het forum van de Süddeutsche Zeitung in Berlijn het voorstel van een vrijhandelszone van Brest tot Vladivostok gelanceerd. Bondskanselier Merkel heeft dit toen afgewezen – Rusland moest volgens haar eerst toetreden tot de Wereldhandelsorganisatie.

EM: En wat was zijn antwoord daarop? Het laatste struikelblok voor een Russische toetreding tot de WTO, met name het veto van Georgië, is van de baan. Is de tijd nu rijp voor een Eurazië naar Russisch model?

Rahr: Het antwoord van Poetin heeft mij wat uit het lood geslagen. Enerzijds was zijn stelling dat alle staten van de Euraziatische Unie dienden toe te treden tot de WTO en samen moesten opschuiven richting EU. Maar anderzijds zei hij dat de tradities van de voormalige Sovjetrepublieken niet samengaan met het West-Europese acquis – het bindende gemeenschappelijke bezit. Het is niet de bedoeling dat de Euraziatische Unie zich tot een soort West-Europese waardenclub ontpopt. Tevens hamerde hij erop dat de Euraziatische Unie geen brugfunctie vervult, maar een autonoom bondgenootschap is. Maar toen liet hij bij wijze van spreken de kat toch nog uit de zak.

De Euraziatische Unie is geen nieuwe Sovjetunie

EM:  In welke zin?  Heeft Poetin een tipje van de sluier gelicht en u verklapt welke zijn ware bedoelingen zijn met de oprichting van de Euraziatische Unie?

Rahr: Hij zei dat de Euraziatische Unie zich zowel op de EU als op China zou richten. De handelsbetrekkingen met China zouden intensiever en “strategischer” worden. Intussen verkopen de Russen veel olie, gas, wapens en kernreactoren aan China. Daartegenover staat dat de EU er alles aan doet om Rusland van de westelijke gasmarkt te verdringen. Rusland zal dit niet zomaar over zijn kant laten gaan. Het is van plan om zijn pijplijnen van west naar oost te heroriënteren.

EM: Wat moeten we daaruit opmaken?

Rahr: Heel eenvoudig. De Euraziatische Unie, die tienmaal groter is dan de hele Europese Unie, wil het uitgestrekte oostelijke deel van het Europese continent met Azië vervlechten. Indien de West-Europeanen Rusland niet in hun Europa willen, zal Poetin de economische integratie met Azië nastreven, hoewel deze idee in het westen op dit moment als volledig onrealistisch en als zuivere Poetin-propganda wordt afgedaan.

EM: En wat is er werkelijk aan de hand? Is deze Euraziatische Unie meer dan enkel propaganda? Staan we dan toch aan de vooravond van een nieuwe Sovjetunie, weliswaar ditmaal met een zwaartepunt in Azië?

Rahr: De Euraziatische Unie is geen nieuwe Sovjetunie. Poetin heeft in de Valdaiclub gesteld dat enkel gekken naar een herleving van het Russische Rijk streven. Waar het wel om gaat is het vinden van een historische rol voor Rusland en de andere voormalige Sovjetrepublieken in de nieuwe economische wereldorde van de 21ste eeuw. Deze staten gaan niet in de EU opgenomen worden en als gevolg van de eurocrisis is de EU voor decennia verzwakt. Dus zoeken zij naar andere overlevingsvormen in een wereldeconomie die zich regionaal overal integreert. Wanneer we tegenwoordig de EU, de NAFTA, de MERCOSUR, de ASEAN, de Afrikaanse Unie en de Unie van de Arabische Maghreb hebben, waarom zouden de voormalige Sovjetrepublieken zich dan niet verenigen in een regionaal bondgenootschap? Zo zal het effectief lopen.

*

Lees ook het EM-interview „Wir können die Herausforderungen der Zukunft nur zusammen mit Russland meistern“ in EM 10-2011 en de recensie van Alexander Rahrs nieuwste boek „Der kalte Freund – Warum wir Russland brauchen: Die Insider-Analyse“ in EM 10-2011.

Interview: Hans Wagner

 

Former Soviet States: Battleground For Global Domination

Former Soviet States: Battleground For Global Domination

by Rick Rozoff

 

Ex: http://globalresearch.ca/

A Europe united under the EU and especially NATO is to be strong enough to contain, isolate and increasingly confront Russia as the central component of U.S. plans for control of Eurasia and the world, but cannot be allowed to conduct an independent foreign policy, particularly in regard to Russia and the Middle East. European NATO allies are to assist Washington in preventing the emergence of "the most dangerous scenario...a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran" such as has been adumbrated since in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

 

Four years after the publication of The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski's recommended chess move was made: The U.S. and NATO invaded Afghanistan and expanded into Central Asia where Russian, Chinese and Iranian interests converge and where the basis for their regional cooperation existed, and Western military bases were established in the former Soviet republics of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, where they remain for the indefinite future.

 

As the United States escalates its joint war with NATO in Afghanistan and across the Pakistani border, expands military deployments and exercises throughout Africa under the new AFRICOM, and prepares to dispatch troops to newly acquired bases in Colombia as the spearhead for further penetration of that continent, it is simultaneously targeting Eurasia and the heart of that vast land mass, the countries of the former Soviet Union.

 

Within months of the formal breakup of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in December of 2001, leading American policy advisers and government officials went to work devising a strategy to insure that the fragmentation was final and irreversible. And to guarantee that the fifteen new nations emerging from the ruins of the Soviet Union would not be allied in even a loose association such as the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) founded in the month of the Soviet Union's dissolution.

 

Three of the former Soviet republics, the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, never joined the CIS and in 2004 became full members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, in all three cases placing the U.S.-led military bloc on Russian borders.

 

That left eleven other former republics to be weaned from economic, political, infrastructural, transportation and defense sector integration with Russia, integration that was extensively and comprehensively developed for the seventy four years of the USSR's existence and in many cases for centuries before during the Czarist period.

 

A change of its socio-economic system and the splintering of the nation with the world's largest territory only affected U.S. policy toward former Soviet space insofar as it led to Washington and its allies coveting and moving on a vast expanse of Europe and Asia hitherto off limits to it.

 

Two months after the end of the Soviet Union then U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz and his deputy in the Pentagon, Lewis Libby, authored what became known as the Defense Planning Guidance document for the years 1994–99. Some accounts attribute the authorship to Libby and Zalmay Khalilzad under Wolfowitz's tutelage.

 

Afghan-born Khalilzad is a fellow alumnus of Wolfowitz at the University of Chicago and worked under him in the Ronald Reagan State Department starting in 1984. From 1985-1989 he was the Reagan administration's special adviser on the proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and on the Iran-Iraq war. In the first capacity he coordinated the Mujahideen war against the government of Afghanistan waged from Pakistan along with Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Robert Gates, now U.S. Secretary of Defense. (Gates has a doctorate degree in Russian and Soviet Studies, as does his former colleague the previous U.S. secretary of state Condoleezza Rice.)

 

The main recipient of U.S. arms and training within the Mujahideen coalition during those years was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whose still extant armed group Hezb-e-Islami assisted in driving American troops out of Camp Keating in Afghanistan's Nuristan province this October. Hekmatyar remains in Afghanistan heading the Hezb-e-Islami and top U.S. and NATO military commander General Stanley McChrystal in his Commander's Initial Assessment of September - which called for a massive increase in American troops for the war - identified the party as one of three main insurgent forces that as many as 85,000 U.S. and thousands of NATO reinforcements will be required to fight.

 

The Wolfowitz-Libby-Khalilzad Defense Planning Guidance prototype appeared in the New York Times on March 7, 1992 and to demonstrate that the end of the Soviet Union and the imminent fall of the Afghan government (Hekmatyar and his allies would march into Kabul two months later) affected U.S. policy toward Russia not one jot contained these passages:

 

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to general global power."

 

"We continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others....We must, however, be mindful that democratic change in Russia is not irreversible, and that despite its current travails, Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States."

 

In its original and revised versions the 46-page Defense Planning Guidance document laid the foundation for what would informally become known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine and later the Bush Doctrine, indistinguishable in any essential manner from the Blair, alternately known as Clinton, Doctrine enunciated in 1999: That the U.S. (with its NATO allies) reserves the unquestioned right to employ military force anywhere in the world at any time for whichever purpose it sees fit and to effect "regime change" overthrows of any governments viewed as being insufficiently subservient to Washington and its regional and global designs.

 

Five years later former Carter administration National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who launched the Afghan Mujahideen support project in 1978 and worked with Khalilzad at Colombia when the latter was Assistant Professor of Political Science at the university's School of International and Public Affairs from 1979 to 1989 and Brzezinski headed the Institute on Communist Affairs, wrote an article called "A Geostrategy for Eurasia."

 

It was in essence a precis of his book of the same year, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives, and was published in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations.

 

The framework for the piece is contained in this paragraph:

 

"America's status as the world's premier power is unlikely to be contested by any single challenger for more than a generation. No state is likely to match the United States in the four key dimensions of power - military, economic, technological, and cultural - that confer global political clout. Short of American abdication, the only real alternative to American leadership is international anarchy. President Clinton is correct when he says America has become the world's 'indispensable nation.'"

 

Brzezinski identified the subjugation of Eurasia as Washington's chief global geopolitical objective, with the former Soviet Union as the center of that policy and NATO as the main mechanism to accomplish the strategy.

 

"Europe is America's essential geopolitical bridgehead in Eurasia. America's stake in democratic Europe is enormous. Unlike America's links with Japan, NATO entrenches American political influence and military power on the Eurasian mainland. With the allied European nations still highly dependent on U.S. protection, any expansion of Europe's political scope is automatically an expansion of U.S. influence. Conversely, the United States' ability to project influence and power in Eurasia relies on close transatlantic ties.

 

"A wider Europe and an enlarged NATO will serve the short-term and longer-term interests of U.S. policy. A larger Europe will expand the range of American influence without simultaneously creating a Europe so politically integrated that it could challenge the United States on matters of geopolitical importance, particularly in the Middle East...."

 

The double emigre - first from Poland, then from Canada - advocated a diminished role for nation states, including the U.S., and Washington's collaboration in building a stronger Europe in furtherance of general Western domination of Eurasia, the Middle East, Africa and the world as a whole.

 

"In practical terms, all this will eventually require America's accommodation to a shared leadership in NATO, greater acceptance of France's concerns over a European role in Africa and the Middle East, and continued support for the European Union's eastward expansion even as the EU becomes politically and economically more assertive....A new Europe is still taking shape, and if that Europe is to remain part of the 'Euro-Atlantic' space, the expansion of NATO is essential."

 

While giving lip service to the role of the European Union, he left no doubt as to which organization - the world's only military bloc - is to lead the charge in the conquest of the former Soviet Union as well as the world's "periphery." It is NATO.

 

Already stating in 1997, two years before his native Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary would become full members of the Alliance, that "Ukraine, provided it has made significant domestic reforms and has become identified as a Central European country, should also be ready for initial negotiations with the EU and NATO," he added:

 

"Failure to widen NATO, now that the commitment has been made, would shatter the concept of an expanding Europe and demoralize the Central Europeans. Worse, it could reignite dormant Russian political aspirations in Central Europe. Moreover, it is far from evident that the Russian political elite shares the European desire for a strong American political and military presence in Europe....If a choice must be made between a larger Europe-Atlantic system and a better relationship with Russia, the former must rank higher."

 

That a former U.S. foreign policy official and citizen of the country would so blithely determine years before the event which nations would join the European Union went without comment on both sides of the Atlantic. That the nominal geographic location of a nation - placing Ukraine in Central Europe - would be assigned by an American was similarly assumed to be Washington's prerogative evidently.

 

Despite vapid maunderings about desiring to free post-Soviet Russia from its "imperial past" and "integrating [it] into a cooperative transcontinental system," Brzezinski presented a blueprint for surrounding the nation with a NATO cordon sanitaire, in truth a wall of military fortifications.

 

"Russia is more likely to make a break with its imperial past if the newly independent post-Soviet states are vital and stable. Their vitality will temper any residual Russian imperial temptations. Political and economic support for the new states must be an integral part of a broader strategy....Ukraine is a critically important component of such a policy, as is support for such strategically pivotal states as Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan."

 

Adding Georgia and Moldova, the three states he singles out became the nucleus of the GUUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Moldova) bloc originally created in the same year as Brzezinski's article and book appeared. (Uzbekistan joined in 1999 and left in 2005.)

 

GUAM was promoted by the Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright administration as a vehicle for planned Trans-Eurasian energy projects and to tear apart the Commonwealth of Independent States by luring members apart from Russia toward the European Union, the so-called soft power preliminary stage, and NATO, the hard power culmination of the process.

 

In the above-quoted article Brzezinski also wrote, in addressing Turkey, that "Regular consultations with Ankara regarding the future of the Caspian Sea basin and Central Asia would foster Turkey's sense of strategic partnership with the United States. America should also support Turkish aspirations to have a pipeline from Baku, Azerbaijan, to Ceyhan on its own Mediterranean coast serve as a major outlet for the Caspian sea basin energy reserves."

 

Eight years later, in 2005, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline transporting Caspian Sea oil to Europe came online, followed by the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum natural gas pipeline and the Kars-Akhalkalaki-Tbilisi-Baku railway, with the Nabucco natural gas pipeline next to be activated. The last-named is already slated to include, in addition to Caspian supplies, gas from Iraq and North Africa.

 

The book whose foreword Brzezinski's "A Geostrategy for Eurasia" in a way was, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives, laid out in greater detail plans that have been expanded upon in the interim.

 

The volume's preface states, "It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book....Potentially, the most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran....Averting this contingency, however remote it may be, will require a display of US geostrategic skill on the western, eastern, and southern perimeters of Eurasia simultaneously.”

 

In pursuance of "America's role as the first, only, and last truly global superpower," Brzezinski noted that "the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia. For half a millennium, world affairs were dominated by Eurasian powers and peoples who fought with one another for regional domination and reached out for global power. Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained."

 

The military fist inside the diplomatic glove is and will remain NATO.

 

"The emergence of a truly united Europe - especially if that should occur with constructive American support - will require significant changes in the structure and processes of the NATO alliance, the principal link between America and Europe. NATO provides not only the main mechanism for the exercise of US influence regarding European matters but the basis for the politically critical American military presence in Western Europe....Eurasia is thus the chessboard on which the struggle for global primacy continues to be played."

 

In a section with the heading "The NATO Imperative," the author reiterated earlier policy demands: "It follows that a wider Europe and an enlarged NATO will serve well both the short-term and the longer-term goals of US policy. A larger Europe will expand the range of American influence — and, through the admission of new Central European members, also increase in the European councils the number of states with a pro-American proclivity — without simultaneously creating a Europe politically so integrated that it could soon challenge the United States on geopolitical matters of high importance to America elsewhere, particularly in the Middle East."

 

A Europe united under the EU and especially NATO is to be strong enough to contain, isolate and increasingly confront Russia as the central component of U.S. plans for control of Eurasia and the world, but cannot be allowed to conduct an independent foreign policy, particularly in regard to Russia and the Middle East. European NATO allies are to assist Washington in preventing the emergence of "the most dangerous scenario...a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran" such as has been adumbrated since in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

 

Four years after the publication of The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski's recommended chess move was made: The U.S. and NATO invaded Afghanistan and expanded into Central Asia where Russian, Chinese and Iranian interests converge and where the basis for their regional cooperation existed, and Western military bases were established in the former Soviet republics of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, where they remain for the indefinite future.

 

Western-controlled pipelines traverse the South Caucasus - Azerbaijan and Georgia - to drive Russia and Iran out of the European and ultimately world energy markets, with a concomitant U.S. and NATO takeover of the armed forces of both nations. The two countries have also been tapped for increased troop deployments and transport routes for the war in South Asia.

 

The West is completing the process described by Brzezinski in his 1997 book in which he stated "In effect, by the mid-1990s a bloc, quietly led by Ukraine and comprising Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and sometimes also Kazakhstan, Georgia and Moldova, had informally emerged to obstruct Russian efforts to use the CIS as the tool for political integration."

 

Note, not to obstruct a new "imperial" Russia from exploiting the Commonwealth of Independent States to dominate much less absorb former parts not only of the Soviet Union but of historical Russia, but to integrate - or rather maintain the integration of - nations which were within one state until eighteen years ago. At that time, 1991, the Soviet Union precipitately disintegrated into fifteen new nations and four independent "frozen conflict" zones - Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Transdniester - and Russia made a 180 degree turn in its political structure and orientation, both domestically and in its foreign policy.

 

The response to those developments by the U.S. and its NATO cohorts was to scent blood and move in for the kill.

 

Starting in 1994 NATO recruited all fifteen former Soviet republics into its Partnership for Peace program, which has subsequently prepared ten nations - all in Eastern Europe, three of them former Soviet republics - for full membership.

 

As noted above, in 1997 the West absorbed four and for a period five former Soviet states - Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova and Uzbekistan - into the GUAM, now Organization for Democracy and Economic Development, format, which has recently been expanded to include Armenia and Belarus with the European Union's Eastern Partnership initiative. The latter includes half (six of twelve) of the CIS and former CIS nations, all except for Russia and the five Central Asian countries. [1]

 

Armenian, Azerbaijani, Georgian and Ukrainian troops have been enlisted by the U.S. and NATO for the war in Afghanistan, with Moldova to be the next supplier of soldiers. All five nations also provided forces for the war and occupation in Iraq.

 

The five Central Asian former Soviet republics - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan - have provided the Pentagon and NATO with bases and transit rights for the war in South Asia and as such are being daily dragged deeper into the Western military nexus. Kazakhstan, for example, sent troops to Iraq and may soon deploy them to Afghanistan.

 

In recent days the West has stepped up its offensive in several former Soviet states.

 

GUAM held a meeting of its Parliamentary Assembly in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi on November 9 and the leader of the host nation's parliamentary majority, David Darchiashvili, said "GUAM has significant potential, as its member states have common interests while the CIS is a union of conflicting interests" and "It is important for GUAM members to have a specific attitude to the EU. GUAM has a potential to develop a common direction with the EU under the policy of the Eastern Partnership." [2]

 

Georgian Foreign Minister Grigol Vashadze said at the event that "Our relations are extending, new partners appear. The US, the Czech Republic, Japan and the Baltic states will become GUAM partners soon. They will participate in economic projects with us." [3]

 

The Secretary General of the Council of Europe Torbjorn Jagland met with GUAM member states' permanent representatives to the Council of Europe and during the meeting "the Azerbaijani side emphasized the need to intensify the Council of Europe's efforts in the settlement of 'frozen conflicts' in the GUAM area." [4] The allusion is again to Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Transdniester where several thousand lives were lost in fighting after the breakup of the Soviet Union and, in the case of South Ossetia, where a Georgian invasion of last year triggered a five-day war with Russia.

 

Later at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Edinburgh, Scotland from November 13-17, Azerbaijani member of parliament Zahid Oruj said that "the territories of both Georgia and Azerbaijan were occupied and the Collective Security Treaty Organization’s policy in the region proved that" and he "characterized these steps as an action against NATO." [5] The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) is a post-Soviet security bloc consisting of Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Belarus (initially) and Uzbekistan both boycotted the creation of the new CSTO rapid reaction force last month and the Eastern Partnership is designed in part to pull Armenia and Belarus out of the organization. Comparable initiatives are underway in regards to the four Central Asian members states, with the Afghan war the chief mechanism for reorienting them toward NATO.

 

During the NATO Parliamentary Assembly session, for example, a Turkish parliamentarian said "Armenia’s releasing the occupied Azerbaijani territories [Nagorno Karabakh] will create a security zone in the South Caucasus and pave the way for NATO’s cooperation with this region."

 

An Azerbaijani counterpart was even more blunt in stating "NATO should defend Azerbaijan” and stressing "that otherwise, security will not be firm in the region, stability can be violated anytime [and a] new military conflict will be inevitable." [6]

 

The day after the NATO session ended the president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, revealed the context for NATO "defending Azerbaijan" when he announced that "There is strong support for building the national army. Our army grows stronger. We are holding negotiations but we should be ready to liberate our territories any time from the invaders by military means." [7]

 

The same day Daniel Stein, senior assistant to the U.S. Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy, was in Azerbaijan where he confirmed strategic ties with the nation's government and said that as "global energy security is one of the priorities of US foreign policy, his country supports diversification of energy resources while delivering them to world markets." [8]

 

Also on November 18 Stein's superior, U.S. Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy Richard Morningstar, addressed the European Policy Center, a Brussels-based think-tank, and said "Turkey will become a very strong transit country in transporting the gas of the Caucasus and Central Asia to Europe” - via Azerbaijan and Georgia - and "Turkmenistan and Iraq could join in as other suppliers besides Azerbaijan...." [9]

 

The following day, November 19, a conference on NATO's New Strategic Concept: Contribution to the Debate from Partners was held in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. The host country's deputy foreign minister, Araz Azimov, stated at the meeting:

 

"I offer the signing of bilateral agreements between NATO and partner countries to cover security guarantees for partner countries along with the responsibility and commitments of the parties.

 

"Yes, we (partner countries) are important for NATO in general for the security architecture of the Euro-Atlantic area. Today Azerbaijan's borders are the borders of Europe." [10]

 

On November Azerbaijan hosted an international conference titled Impediments to Security in the South Caucasus: Current Realities and Future Prospects for Regional Development, co-sponsored by Britain's International Institute for Strategic Studies. Speakers included Ariel Cohen, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and the Washington, D.C.-based Jamestown Foundation's President Glenn Howard and Senior Fellow Vladimir Socor.

 

Socor, a Romanian emigre and former Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty employee, in addressing the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno Karabakh, "stressed the necessity of an undertaking by NATO of analogous steps in this conflict taken for the settlement of the conflicts in the Balkans and former Yugoslavia." [11]

 

Novruz Mammadov, head of the Foreign Relations Department of Azerbaijan's presidential administration, said that "Azerbaijan is the only country in the post-Soviet space usefully and really cooperating with the West," and Elnur Aslanov, head of the Political Analysis and Information Department for the President of Azerbaijan, said:

 

"The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan, Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum and Baku-Tbilisi-Kars
projects...stimulate the development of regional cooperation, and also are important from the security standpoint....Azerbaijan is a reliable partner of the European security architecture...the country plays an important role in ensuring European energy security." [12]

 

Jamestown Foundation chief Glenn Howard added "that Azerbaijan is an important partner for NATO in terms of energy security," and backed the nation's deputy foreign minister's demand the previous day that NATO must offer Yugoslav war-style support to its Caucasus partners "especially after the war in Georgia last year."

 

Howard added:

 

"NATO can give security guarantees to a country in case of an attack, which is what happened in 1979 in the Persian Gulf - after the fall of the Shah of Iran the US gave security guarantees to countries through bilateral agreements with those countries....If Azerbaijani troops are going to help in one area, that will lessen the need for NATO troops in this particular area, so that they can be involved in some other area, for example, that helps put more troops in fighting the Taliban...." [13]

 

Azerbaijan is not the only former Soviet republic the U.S. intends to use to penetrate the Caspian Sea Basin. After leaving Baku the State Department's Daniel Stein arrived in Turkmenistan where he stated that "The United States offers its mediating mission in Turkmen-Azerbaijan disputes over the Caspian status," in relation to a border demarcation conflict in a sea that the two nations share with Russia and Iran. He added, "The U.S. and EU member countries try to assure Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan that they should reach an agreement on the division of the Caspian to create real opportunities for Nabucco and other projects." [14]

 

The same day U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia George Krol was also in the Turkmen capital to deliver an address at the the annual Oil and Gas Conference there and said, "The U.S. considers energy security as a priority issue, and Central Asia is an important region in the global energy map." [15]

 

In Azerbaijan's fellow GUAM member state Moldova, the new government of acting president Mihai Ghimpu, which came to power after April's so-called Twitter Revolution, announced that it was establishing a national committee to implement an Individual Partnership Action Plan for NATO membership. To indicate the importance the new administration attaches to integration with the bloc, "Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Integration Iurie Leanca has been appointed committee chairman." [16]

 

Earlier this month it was reported that the government's Prosecutor General's Office had "dropped criminal proceedings against the people accused of masterminding riots in the republic's capital in April, following the Opposition's protest against the results of the parliamentary election....After the early parliamentary election on July 29 when the Opposition came to power, most cases were closed" and instead "When the new prosecutor general was appointed, criminal cases were opened against police who took part in driving the protesters from the city center and their arrests." [17]

 

On the same day that the Jamestown Foundation's Glenn Howard and Vladimir Socor were in Azerbaijan advocating NATO intervention in the South Caucasus, U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden held a phone conversation with Georgian president and former U.S. resident Mikheil Saakashvili in which the first "reiterated the United States' 'strong support' for Georgia´s sovereignty and territorial integrity" and "underscored the importance of sustaining the commitment to democratic reform to fulfill the promise of the Rose Revolution." [18]

 

Also on November 20 a major Russian news source reported that Washington had shipped nearly $80 million in weapons to Georgia in 2008 and plans to supply more in the future.

 

"Despite the economic crisis, Georgia is increasing expenditure on arms purchases in the U.S.," although "Independent sources say[ing] Georgia´s unemployment stands at about one-third of its able-bodied population." [19]

 

On the same day a delegation from the Pentagon was in the Georgian capital to meet with Temur Iakobashvili, the nation's State Reintegration Minister - for "reintegration" read forcible incorporation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia - and the Georgian official announced "We introduced to the guests our plan to ensure security in the occupied territories. We also talked about the role the U.S. will play in assisting the ensuring of regional security." [20]

 

The U.S. Defense Department representatives, including Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia Celeste Wallander, met with Georgian Defense Minister Bacho Akhalaia "to hold consultations on defence cooperation issues concerning the two countries," and "Wallander personally inspected ongoing military trainings aimed at the preparation of the 31st Battalion of the GAF [Georgian Armed Forces] for participation in the ISAF operation in Afghanistan. The sides evaluated the US assistance provided during 2009 and considered in detail future cooperation prospects for 2010/2011.

 

"Under the visit's agenda the high-ranking US official met with the Security Council Secretary, Eka Tkeshelashvili, State Minister for Reintegration Temur Iakobashvili and Defence and Security Committee members of parliament." [21] The inspection mentioned above was of training following that conducted by U.S. Marines. The first contingent of new Georgian troops thus prepared was sent to Afghanistan four days before.

 

Two days earlier NATO spokesman James Appathurai announced that the Alliance was forging ahead with plans for both Georgia's and Ukraine's full membership and that "assessments would be made at a meeting of the NATO-Ukraine and NATO-Georgia Commissions to be held in Brussels in early December at the level of NATO foreign ministers." [22]

 

Also on November 18 Georgian Vice Premier and State Minister for Euro-Atlantic Integration Giorgi Baramidze met with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in Brussels. "The Georgian delegation also included Deputy Foreign Minister Giga Bokeria and Deputy Defense Minister Nikoloz Vashakidze. A meeting of the NATO-Georgia Commission at the ambassadorial level was also held in Brussels." [23]

 

The day preceding the meeting, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Tina Kaidanow were in Georgia to convene "working meetings with Georgian authorities within the Strategic Partnership Charter.

 

"The delegation will monitor the implementation of the U.S.-Georgia Strategic Partnership Plan" inaugurated in January of this year, less than four months after the war with Russia. [24]

 

The prior week Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Western and allied nations of continuing to arm Georgia, stating “I hope many take lessons from last year’s August events. But I have to say that according to the reports of various sources, some countries are sending arms and ammunition demanded by the Georgian leadership via different complicated schemes.” [25]

 

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin warned on the same day that "[Georgian] military drones have started flying over South Ossetia and Abkhazia" [26} and the day before Nikolay Makarov, Chief of the General Staff, said "Georgia is getting large amounts of weapons supplied from abroad" and "Georgian military potential is currently higher than last August." [27]

 

Makarov's contention was confirmed by Georgian Defense Minister Bacho Akhalaia on November 14 when he said "the country’s defense capabilities are now better than they were a year ago and they are further improving."

 

The defense chief added, “a strong army will be one of our key priorities until the last occupant leaves our territories.” [28] The "occupants" in question are Russian troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

 

Azerbaijan is not the only South Caucasus NATO partner preparing for war.

 

Regarding the recently concluded two-week Immediate Response 2009 exercises run by the U.S. Marine Corps in Georgia, a leading Russian news site wrote "Perhaps, the exercises were aimed at issuing a warning to Russia." [29]

 

On November 13 the Russian General Staff revealed that "Russian secret services have declassified information about Georgia’s plans to start forming its special forces in a move that will be implemented in close cooperation with Turkey," and "voiced concern about Georgia’s ongoing push for muscle-flexing amid efforts by Israel, Ukraine and NATO countries to re-arm the Saakashvili regime." [30]

 

In Ukraine, on November 19 Deputy Foreign Minister Kostiantyn Yeliseyev said of American ambassador to Georgia and ambassador designate to Ukraine John Tefft that "The U.S. Senate [Foreign Relations] Committee has approved his candidacy and we are expecting him to arrive soon." [31] In time for January's presidential election. Incumbent president and U.S. client Viktor Yushchenko is running dead last among serious candidates and his poll ratings are never higher than 3.5%. Tefft's task is to engineer some variant of the 2004 "Orange Revolution."

 

Yushchenko is a die-hard, intractable, unrelenting advocate of forcing his nation into NATO despite overwhelming popular opposition and for evicting the Russian Black Sea Fleet from the Crimea.

 

On November 16 NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen addressed High-Level NATO-Ukraine Consultations at the Alliance's headquarters in Brussels and said:

 

"In 2008 at the Bucharest Summit NATO Heads of State and Government welcomed Ukraine’s aspirations for membership in NATO and agreed that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance. To reflect this spirit of deepening cooperation, Ukraine has developed its first Annual National Programme which outlines the steps it intends to take to accelerate internal reform and alignment with Euro-Atlantic standards." [32]

 

The same day Reuters revealed that "Poland and Lithuania want to forge military cooperation with Ukraine to try to bring the former Soviet republic closer to NATO." Poland's Deputy Defense Minister Stanislaw Komorowski was quoted as saying of the initiative, "This reflects our support for Ukraine. We want to tie Ukraine closer to Western structures, including military ones." [33]

 

The agreement was reached at talks in Brussels attended by Ukraine's acting Defense Minister Valery Ivashchenko, Lithuania's Minister of National Defense Rasa Jukneviciene and Poland's Komorowski.

 

The combined military unit will be stationed in Poland and include as many as 5,000 troops. The joint buildup on Russia's western and northwestern borders "may have a political objective. It is meant to set up an alternative center of military consolidation for West European projects, a center which could embrace former Soviet republics (above all Ukraine), now outside NATO. There is no doubt who will control this process, considering U.S. influence in Poland and the Baltics." [34]

 

On the same day that the Polish, Lithuanian and Ukrainian defense chiefs reached the agreement, Poland hosted multinational military exercises codenamed Common Challenge 09 with "2,500 troops from Germany, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland - forming the so-called EU Combat Group....Common Challenge is being held for the first time in Poland. Exercises are conducted simultaneously in Poznan, western Poland, and the nearby military range in Wedrzyn." [35]

 

In a complementary development, The Times of London published an interview with Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini on November 15 in which he "said Italy would push for the creation of a European Army after the 'new Europe' takes shape at this week's crucial November 19 EU summit following the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty." [36] A commentary from Russia, which of course will not be included in the plans, mentioned that "NATO has been actively discussing the possibility of establishing a joint European army for a long time" and that Frattini had "reiterated the need for deploying a joint naval fleet or air force in the Mediterranean or other areas crucial to European security." [37]

 

In a Wall Street Journal report titled "Central Europe Ready To Send More Soldiers To Afghanistan," Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, again emphasizing the connection between war zone training in Afghanistan and preparation for action much closer to home, was quoted as saying "The credibility of NATO will be decided in Afghanistan. If NATO can be successful with what was a success in the Balkans and Iraq, its deterrent potential will rise, and it is in Poland’s national interest.” [38]

 

On November 18 the ambassadors from all 28 NATO member states gathered in Brussels commented on Belarusian-Russian military exercises conducted months earlier, Operation West, and "expressed concerns about the large scale of the exercises and a scenario that envisioned an attack from the West...." [39]

 

Sikorski's allusion to so-called NATO deterrent potential is, then, clearly in reference to Russia.

 

On November 17 the European Union's Special Representative for the South Caucasus Peter Semneby announced that the first foreign ministers meeting of the Eastern Partnership program will be held next month. He said that "The Eastern Partnership will be under the jurisdiction of a new representative for foreign affairs and security. The appointment will come after the Lisbon summit,” [40] as will the creation of the new European Army Italian Foreign Minister Frattini spoke of earlier.

 

Participants will include the foreign ministers of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, half - six of twelve - of the members or former members of the Commonwealth of Independent States and all those in Europe and the Caucasus except for Russia, which is not invited.

 

Comparable efforts to pull the five Central Asian CIS members - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan - away from cooperation with Russia through a combination of an analogous EU partnership, energy project agreements and involvement in the Afghan war are also proceeding apace.

 

The eighteen-year-old project of Paul Wolfowitz, Zbigniew Brzezinski et al. to destroy the post-Soviet Commonwealth of Independent States and effect a cordon sanitaire around Russia, enclosing it with NATO member states and partners, has continued uninterruptedly since 1991.

 

Washington will not tolerate rivals and will ruthlessly attempt to eliminate even the potential of any nation to challenge it globally or regionally. In any region of the world. Russia, because of what it was, what it is, where it is and what it has - massive reserves of oil and natural gas, a developed nuclear industry and the world's only effective strategic triad outside the U.S. - is and will remain the main focus of efforts by the United States and NATO to rid themselves of impediments to achieving uncontested global domination.

 

Carthage must be destroyed is the West's policy toward the former Soviet Union.

NOTES

 

1) Eastern Partnership: The West’s Final Assault On the Former Soviet Union, Stop NATO, February 13, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/eastern-partnership-the-wests-final-assault-on-the-former-soviet-union
2) Georgia Online, November 9, 2009
3) Azeri Press Agency, November 10, 2009
4) Azeri Press Agency, November 12, 2009
5) Azeri Press Agency, November 17, 2009
6) Azeri Press Agency, November 16, 2009
7) Azertag, November 18, 2009
8) Azeri Press Agency, November 18, 2009
9) Azeri Press Agency, November 18, 2009
10) Azerbaijan Business Center, November 19, 2009
11) Azertag, November 20, 2009
12) Ibid
13) Ibid
14) Azeri Press Agency, November 18, 2009
15) Trend News Agency, November 18, 2009
16) Focus News Agency, November 11, 2009
17) Itar-Tass, November 12, 2009
18) Civil Georgia, November 20, 2009
19) Voice of Russia, November 20, 2009
20) Trend News Agency, November 20, 2009
21) Georgia Ministry of Defence, November 20, 2009
22) Rustavi2, November 19, 2009
23) Civil Georgia, November 18, 2009
24) Rustavi2, November 17, 2009
25) Azeri Press Agency, November 11, 2009
26) Russian Information Agency Novosti, November 11, 2009
27) Voice of Russia, November 10, 2009
28) Civil Georgia, November 14, 2009
29) Voice of Russia, November 9, 2009
30) Voice of Russia, November 13, 2009
31) Interfax-Ukraine, November 19, 2009
32) NATO, November 16, 2009
33) Reuters, November 16, 2009
34) Russian Information Agency Novosti, November 18, 2009
35) Polish Radio, November 16, 2009
36) Russian Information Agency Novosti, November 17, 2009
37) Ibid
38) Wall Street Journal, November 12, 2009
39) Reuters, November 18, 2009
40) Azertag, November 17, 2009

GEOPOLITIEKE CONSEQUENTIES VAN DE DEMOGRAFISCHE ONTWIKKELINGEN IN RUSLAND:

GEOPOLITIEKE CONSEQUENTIES VAN DE DEMOGRAFISCHE ONTWIKKELINGEN IN RUSLAND:

"De demografische ontwikkeling kan ook geopolitieke gevolgen krijgen. Niet alleen door de immigratie van mensen uit voormalige deelrepublieken van de Sovjet-Unie, die vestigen zich namelijk vooral in de stedelijke gebieden en moeten zich noodgedwongen enigermate integreren in de Russische samenleving. Veel Russen maken zich echter zorgen over Siberië. Dit Aziatische deel van Rusland (...) is rijk aan grondstoffen maar dunbevolkt en maar weinig ontwikkeld. (...)

Sinds 1989 is de Russische bevolking van Siberië met een zesde afgenomen en deze ontwikkeling zet zich voort. Siberië is al met al erg aantrekkelijk voor het dichtbevolkte en economisch sterk groeiende China. Sommige Russische wetenschappers voorspellen dat de Chinezen deze regio wel eens in ontwikkeling zouden kunnen brengen en op den duur over zouden kunnen nemen. (...) Nu is het risico dat veel Chinezen zich in Siberië zullen vestigen gezien het klimaat en de onherbergzaamheid van het gebied niet erg groot, het is echter een kwestie van tijd voor het delven van allerlei Siberische grondstoffen interessant wordt":
http://www.novini.nl/geopolitieke-consequenties-van-de-demografische-ontwikkeling-in-rusland/

„Wir können die Herausforderungen der Zukunft nur zusammen mit Russland meistern“

„Wir können die Herausforderungen der Zukunft nur zusammen mit Russland meistern“

Ex: http://www.eurasischesmagazin.de/

 

Alexander Rahr, Leiter des Berthold-Beitz-Zentrums in der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, über die Rolle Russlands in Europa, die Modernisierung des Landes und die „westliche Arroganz“.

Eurasisches Magazin: Sie haben ein neues Buch über Russland geschrieben. Eine „Insider-Analyse“, heißt es auf dem Umschlag, die untersucht, „warum wir Russland brauchen“.  Wer ist mit „wir“ gemeint?

Alexander Rahr: Gemeint sind wir Europäer, vor allem Deutsche. Die Hauptthese des Buches lautet: Westeuropa scheint tatsächlich zu glauben, dass es seine Zukunft alleine auf die Schicksalsgemeinschaft mit den USA ausrichten und Länder wie Russland und Ukraine ignorieren kann. EU-Europa hat heute keinen Osten. Europa ist nicht fertiggebaut nach dem Kalten Krieg. Zwischen uns und Russland liegt eine neue „Mauer“ – die Visumsbarriere. Manche im Westen sehen Russland nicht als Partner, sondern als potenziellen Feind. Dabei können wir die Herausforderungen der Zukunft nur zusammen mit Russland meistern. Das Buch liefert dafür die notwendigen Argumente. 
  
EM: Inwiefern sind Sie Insider – Sie leben in Deutschland, arbeiten in der „Deutschen Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik“ und beraten deutsche Politiker und Wirtschaftsbosse?

„Meine Aufgabe ist es nicht nur den Deutschen Russland zu erklären, sondern auch den Russen den europäischen Gedanken zu vermitteln“

Rahr: Ich leite seit Jahren das Berthold-Beitz-Zentrum im Think Tank Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik. Wer die Biographie des Industriellen Berthold Beitz liest, erkennt in ihm einen weit vorausschauenden Ostpolitiker. Er war ständig im Osten. Ich fühlte mich seinem Erbe verbunden und verheimliche dies auch nicht in meinem Buch. Ich berate gleichzeitig deutsche, russische und ukrainische Politiker und Unternehmer. Ich wandere und lebe zwischen zwei Welten. Meine Aufgabe ist es, nicht nur den Deutschen Russland zu erklären, sondern auch den Russen den europäischen Gedanken zu vermitteln. Ich bin eine wichtige europäische Stimme in der osteuropäischen Medienlandschaft, ein wichtiger Meinungsmacher in den Ländern des postsowjetischen Raums. Wer das nicht glaubt, kann mich entsprechend googeln. Ich hoffe, ich trage mit meinem Engagement zum besseren Dialog zwischen Russland und der EU bei. Wichtig ist, dass ich sowohl hier als auch dort akzeptiert bin. 

EM: Der Titel Ihres Buches lautet: „Der kalte Freund“. Inwiefern Freund?

Rahr: Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel sagte vor ihrem Amtsantritt 2005: Deutschland verbindet eine Freundschaft mit den USA, ob Russland irgendwann einmal unser Freund wird, muss sich zeigen. Der Kalte Krieg ist vorbei, aber wir sind noch keine echten Partner und Verbündeten geworden. Wir leben in der Zeit des kalten Friedens, oder – in einer (noch) kalten Freundschaft. Ich glaube, das ist eine passende Beschreibung des Zustands unserer Beziehungen zu Russland. 

„Die Deutschen sind das Lieblingsvolk der Russen“

 

EM: Sie gehen darauf ein, dass Deutsche zu Russland eine „besondere Beziehung“ hätten. Trifft das auch umgekehrt zu? Und wie kann man diese Beziehung von Deutschen und Russen zueinander charakterisieren?

Rahr: Die Russen mögen die Deutschen mehr als umgekehrt. Die Deutschen sind das Lieblingsvolk der Russen. Russland will eine Modernisierungs-Partnerschaft mit Deutschland. Sie wollen deutsches Know-how. Die Ware Made in Germany ist in Russland höchst attraktiv.  Im 20. Jahrhundert haben sich Deutsche und Russen auseinandergelebt und den schrecklichsten Krieg aller Zeiten geführt. Doch die Russen haben die deutsche Wiedervereinigung stärker unterstützt, als viele NATO-Verbündete Westdeutschlands. Deutschland hat 2008 die dritte NATO-Osterweiterung vor Russlands Toren aufgehalten, das vergisst Moskau Deutschland nicht.

EM: Nach dem deutschen Angriff auf die Sowjetunion im Zweiten Weltkrieg sind Millionen Russen gefallen. Zivilisten sind verhungert, wurden verschleppt und umgebracht. Dennoch gibt es kaum Hass von Russen gegenüber Deutschen. In anderen Ländern, die unter der Wehrmacht zu leiden hatten, ist solcher Hass durchaus lebendig. Können Sie das erklären?

Rahr: Die Russen haben das Gefühl, dass sie Deutschland vernichtend geschlagen und für den Hitler-Angriff bestraft haben. Ostdeutschland wurde von der UdSSR für 45 Jahre besetzt. Die tiefe Feindschaft und der Hass sind übergegangen in eine echte Versöhnung. Heute erinnert man sich in Russland wieder an die positiven Seiten der deutsch-russischen Beziehungen, an den Eisernen Kanzler Bismarck, an Willy Brandt. Gerhard Schröder wird als engster Freund Russlands gesehen. Bundespräsident Christian Wulff und Bundesaußenminister Guido Westerwelle haben im vergangenen Jahr Russland eine neue Zusammenarbeit in Rechtsfragen vorgeschlagen. Die Initiative ist in Russland, vor allem bei Präsident Dmitri Medwedew, auf großes Interesse gestoßen.

Deutschland als wichtigster Rechtspartner

EM: Worum geht es beim deutsch-russischen Rechtsdialog? 

Rahr: Ziel ist die Unterfütterung der anvisierten Modernisierungspartnerschaft mit konkreten Inhalten. Russland hat Interesse an einer Integration in den gesamteuropäischen Rechtsraum gezeigt, Deutschland kann mit seiner Erfahrung des Aufbaus eines Rechtsstaates in Ostdeutschland nach der Wende Moskau wertvolle Ideen vermitteln. Der Rechtsdialog ist keine Sackgasse, Deutschland spielt sich hier nicht als „Lehrmeister“ gegenüber dem vermeintlichen „Schüler“ Russland auf. Die zu diskutierenden Themen werden von beiden Ländern entsprechend ihren nationalen Bedürfnissen ausgesucht. Die Rechtsinitiative zielt keineswegs nur auf die Juristen beider Länder, sondern auf Wirtschaftskreise und die Zivilgesellschaft allgemein. Russland begrüßt den Rechtsdialog, denn er hilft bestehende Missverständnisse aus dem Weg zu räumen und zusätzliches Vertrauen zu gewinnen. In Deutschland benötigt vor allem der Mittelstand den Dialog, um in Russland besser Fuß zu fassen. Nach Meinung der offiziellen russischen Seite hätte der Rechtsdialog schon viel früher beginnen müssen, Russland sei in der Zarenzeit immer von der deutschen Rechtskultur beeinflusst gewesen. In den neunziger Jahren hätte Russland zunächst Rechtsnachhilfe von den USA bekommen, heute wünsche es sich Deutschland als wichtigsten Rechtspartner.

„Wenn die Türkei in die EU hinein geholt werden muss, dann Russland erst recht“

EM: Ist das heutige Russland wichtig für die Welt, für den Westen, für Europa, für Deutschland, oder könnte man es auch locker links liegen lassen?

Rahr: Mein Buch „Der kalte Freund“ ist als Appell an den Westen zu verstehen, das Bauwerk Europa mit der Integration Russlands – dem größten europäischen Land – abzurunden. Wir werden die sibirischen Rohstoffe brauchen wie noch nie. Auch sind die Russen vom Geist her Europäer. Wenn die Türkei in die EU hinein geholt werden muss, dann Russland erst recht. Russland wird bei fast allen künftigen Konfliktlösungen auf globaler Ebene benötigt. Wenn wir die letzten Wikileaks-Veröffentlichungen über die russische Außenpolitik betrachten, stellen wir fest, dass die russische Diplomatie in grundsätzlichen Fragen an der Seite der USA und des Westens steht. Das muss sich künftig institutionell für alle Seiten auszahlen. Viele kluge Leute plädieren für eine gemeinsame Raketenabwehr Russland – USA – EU. Sie schweißt uns gegen die kommenden Gefahren zusammen.

EM: Welche „kommenden Gefahren“ meinen Sie?

Rahr: Wir leben doch heute schon in einem Nord-Süd-Konflikt. Die NATO hat drei Kriege in der islamischen Welt geführt. Iran gilt als Hauptfeind des Westens. Europa muss theoretisch damit rechnen, dass in einigen Jahren moderne Raketensysteme aus dem arabischen Teil der Welt gegen den Westen gerichtet werden. Niemand kann voraussagen, wer in 10-20 Jahren den Atomstaat Pakistan wirklich regieren und wie sich Islamabad gegenüber dem Westen positionieren wird. Eine zweite reale Herausforderung ist die Sicherung der künftigen Rohstoff- und Handelsrouten nach Westen. Kommt es zu Konflikten am Persischen Golf, können Transporte zwischen EU und Asien über Russland abgewickelt werden.   

„Die grassierende Korruption ist Russlands größtes Übel“

EM: Warum funktioniert nichts in Russland, wie Wladimir Putin gesagt hat, als das Atom-U-Boot „Kursk“ im Inferno unterging und in Moskau der Fernsehturm brannte. Derzeit ist Russland das Land mit den schrecklichsten Flugzeugunfällen. Gibt es einen speziellen russischen Schlendrian oder hat der Kommunismus das Land so sehr verrotten lassen, dass es noch immer davon kaputt ist?

Rahr: Die industrielle Infrastruktur Russlands stammt noch aus der Zeit der Sowjetunion. Flugzeuge, Schiffe, Lastwagen – sie sind 30-40 Jahre alt. Russlands Modernisierungsbedarf ist riesig. Leider werden die für die Modernisierung bereitgestellten Gelder oft zweckentfremdet.  Die grassierende Korruption ist Russlands größtes Übel. In meinem Buch wird diese Tatsache nicht verschwiegen, im Gegenteil. Der Leser erkennt, vor welchen Herausforderungen Russlands Modernisierer stehen. Die Modernisierung kann durchaus scheitern. Die Frage ist dann, was wir mit einem schwachen Russland machen.    

„Auf Russland wird eingeprügelt, wo es nur geht“

EM: Geschieht dem „kalten Freund“ Unrecht, wird Russland vom Westen schlechter behandelt als andere Länder?

Rahr: Ich erkenne in der westlichen Wertedebatte eine große Arroganz und Doppelzüngigkeit. Auf Russland wird eingeprügelt, wo es nur geht. Stereotypen aus dem Kalten Krieg prägen leider noch immer unser Russlandbild. Manchmal scheint es, als ob manche im Westen ein Vergnügen entwickeln, dem stolpernden Erzfeind Russland vor das Schienbein zu treten. Wir dürfen nicht vergessen, dass Deutschland 25 Jahre nach der Stunde Null auch noch keine funktionierende Zivilgesellschaft hatte. Unser demokratisches Wertesystem hat sich mühsam entwickelt, wir müssen den Russen mehr Zeit geben Demokratie einzuführen. 

EM: Wer hat Russland im Westen eigentlich noch wirklich auf der Rechnung, außer vielleicht dem ehemaligen Bundeskanzler Gerd Schröder?

Rahr: Ich denke, nach der Lektüre des „Kalten Freundes“ werden sich auch bei den kritischsten Russland-Beobachtern positive Eindrücke in Bezug auf eine strategische Partnerschaft mit Russland festsetzen. Amerika schwächelt, wir müssen damit rechnen, dass Washington sich selbst isolieren wird. Die EU muss lernen auf eigenen Beinen zu stehen. Die Welt hat sich verändert. Wir brauchen eigenständige Beziehungen zu den neuen Machtpolen der Weltordnung, zu China, Indien, Russland.

„Möglicherweise wird Russland einmal zu einem zweiten Schutzpatron des Westens“

EM: Was hat Russland zu bieten, außer Gas und Öl?

Rahr: Einen riesigen wachsenden Markt, hochgebildete Menschen, die Brücke nach Asien, Kooperation in der Hochtechnologie, im Weltraum. Möglicherweise wird Russland einmal zu einem zweiten Schutzpatron des Westens neben den USA. Ich habe in meinem Buch den Weg zu einem solchen Bündnis aufgezeigt.

EM: Und was ist mit Gas und Öl?

Rahr: Der Ölpreis wird nicht sinken. Darauf müssen sich Europa und der Westen kurz-, mittel- und langfristig einstellen. Die Schlussfolgerung hieraus kann nur lauten, die strategische Partnerschaft zu Russland weiter zu vertiefen. Russland ist Europas natürlicher Partner, der sich trotz der häufig negativen Wahrnehmung über Jahrzehnte bewährt hat. Wir haben keine Alternativen, als unsere Beziehungen zu intensivieren.  Die Vorteile liegen für beide Seiten auf der Hand: Wir erhalten Zugang zu auf dem Weltmarkt immer teurer und knapper werdenden Ressourcen – Öl, Gas, aber auch anderen wichtigen Rohstoffen, etwa Seltenen Erden – und Russland profitiert vom größten Trumpf, den Deutschland vorzuweisen hat, der Technologie.

EM: Was hat Russland von unserer Technologie?

Rahr: Das Know-how unserer Unternehmen, die Technologieführerschaft Deutschlands wird helfen, das Potenzial der russischen Wirtschaft besser zu entfalten. So können perspektivisch vor Ort geförderte Rohstoffe beispielsweise auch direkt vor Ort veredelt werden. Bedenkt man die vorhandenen und geschätzten Reserven, wird diese Partnerschaft zur Rohstoffsicherheit Europas beitragen und auch die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung in Russland positiv beeinflussen. Man darf sich allerdings nicht täuschen, dass all dies so einfach zu haben und der Rohstoffbezug dann plötzlich für lange Zeit gesichert sein wird. Von beiden Seiten wird hart verhandelt werden müssen. Und auch hier muss sich Deutschland darüber im Klaren sein, dass es in Konkurrenz zu Ländern wie China steht. Der Erfolgsdruck ist auf beiden Seiten sehr hoch. Aber ich wiederhole: Bewähren wird sich diese Partnerschaft für beide Seiten.

„Russland hat keine Feinde, aber auch keine Verbündeten“

EM: Die kommunistische Sowjetunion hatte einst viele erklärte Feinde weltweit. Wie ist es mit dem heutigen Russland – wer sind seine Feinde?

Rahr: Russland hat keine Feinde, aber auch keine Verbündeten. Medwedew und Putin sind Europäer, die sehen, dass ein Bündnis mit China sie für lange Zeit von Europa abschneiden wird. Hinter den heute noch 148 Millionen Russen leben auf der gemeinsamen Festlandsmasse über 1,3 Milliarden Chinesen. Mit der 7.000 Kilometer langen, schwer kontrollierbaren Grenze dazwischen. Ohne den Chinesen Böses zu unterstellen: Russland sucht die Europa-Bande sogar sicherheitspolitisch wegen des gemeinsamen Interesses am europäischen Gleichgewicht. Wenn der Westen Russland als strategischen Interessenspartner stärker integriert hätte, wäre Putin niemals diesen heutigen taktischen Bund mit China eingegangen. Aber gegenwärtig lockt China Russland immer weiter nach Asien. Beijing möchte natürlich nicht, dass Russland der NATO beitritt und sich das Militärbündnis Chinas Grenze nähert.

EM: Eine der vielen plakativ formulierten Kapitelüberschriften Ihres neuen Buches lautet: „Was kann Russland wirklich?“ Das ist die Frage. Können Sie in der knappen Form des Interviews die Antwort geben?

Rahr: Wenn Russland die Gespenster des Kommunismus abwirft, die Korruption besiegt und versteht, dass der Erfolg und die Stabilität des Landes in der Demokratie und im Rechtsstaat liegen, wird es zu einem normalen europäischen Land.  Vor allem Präsident Dmitri Medwedjew stieß mit seinem Artikel „Vorwärts Russland“ eine strategische Debatte über die Modernisierung in Russland an.

„Die Abhängigkeit Russlands vom Rohstoffhandel ist demütigend“

EM: Welche Rolle spielt Wladimir Putin, der Verfechter des starken Staates und der gelenkten Demokratie im Modernisierungskonzept Russlands?

Rahr: Unter dem Eindruck der schweren Auswirkungen der Wirtschaftskrise auf Russland verstärkt sich der Eindruck, dass auch Putin selbst eingesehen hat, dass sein Konzept der engen Verflechtung von Staat und Wirtschaft in eine Sackgasse geführt hat. In Russland ist das Modernisierungskonzept derzeit alternativlos. Putin unterstützt dies durch den Plan, über 5000 Unternehmen zu privatisieren. Russland braucht nach der Krise Gelder aus dem Ausland. Die Staatsholdings haben ihre Chance nicht genutzt, deshalb scheinen die Voraussetzungen für einen nun beschleunigten marktwirtschaftlichen Reformprozess in Russland günstig, obwohl das Problem der staatliche Verwaltungsapparat bleibt.

Russland hat die Modernisierung und technologische Aufrüstung der russischen Wirtschaft zur höchsten Priorität erklärt. Dies sei eine Frage des „Überlebens“. Russland ist durch die Krise härter getroffen worden als die meisten anderen Staaten, dafür sind die Gründe im Inland zu suchen. Anstelle einer auf Rohstoffen basierten Ökonomie gehe es um den Aufbau einer „intelligenten“ und „grünen“ Ökonomie. Von dieser Prämisse ausgehend wird eine tiefgreifende Umgestaltung der russischen Gesellschaft gefordert. Die Abhängigkeit Russlands vom Rohstoffhandel ist „demütigend“, die Wirtschaftsstruktur „primitiv“ und die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit „beschämend niedrig“. Um diese Rückständigkeit aufzubrechen, müssen der staatliche Einfluss auf die Wirtschaft reduziert, Forschung und Entwicklung massiv gefördert, die endemische Korruption bekämpft, die Infrastruktur modernisiert, der Rechtsstaat ausgebaut und das Bildungssystem umfassend reformiert werden.

EM: Ist davon schon etwas zu sehen? Welche Wege wird Russland auf sein Ziel hin beschreiten?

Rahr: Russland will sich in Forschung und Entwicklung wieder an die Spitze bringen. Es spricht sich für vereinfachte Visaverfahren für Spitzenforscher, großzügige Stipendien und die finanzielle Unterstützung innovativer Unternehmen aus. Insbesondere will es das Programm zur Gründung eines prominenten Forschungs- und Entwicklungszentrums nach Vorbild des Silicon Valley zu einem erfolgreichen Ende bringen. Die Investitionsbedingungen in Russland sollen so gut sein wie bei den Wettbewerbern. Die Bürokratie, insbesondere Zertifizierungsprozesse, sollen keine Hürden für Investoren sein und stattdessen neue Abläufe zur Genehmigung von Investitionsprojekten in Russland erarbeiten. Doch Chancen der erfolgreichen Modernisierung sind nur in Kooperation mit dem Westen möglich. Der Druck auf Russland, sich für westliche Investoren nachhaltig zu öffnen, ist groß. Ohne radikale Veränderungen der eigenen Unternehmenskultur kann Russland die Korruption aber nicht besiegen.

EM: Eine abschließende Frage noch: Sie sind nicht nur Autor, sondern auch Politikberater. Welche Politiker suchen Ihren Rat? Gehört Angela Merkel auch dazu?

Rahr: Die DGAP gilt als Think Tank des Auswärtigen Amtes. Meine Kollegen und ich sprechen täglich mit Abgeordneten aller Parteien, Spitzenbeamten der Regierung, Diplomaten und Journalisten. Manche hören auf unseren Rat und kooperieren mit uns beim Aufbau wichtiger außenpolitischer Netzwerke. Die Bundeskanzlerin hat die DGAP einmal besucht und uns Experten aufgefordert, politische Fragen „einfach“ und nicht „zu wissenschaftlich“ zu erklären. Ich hoffe, Frau Merkel wird einen Blick in mein neues Russlandbuch hineinwerfen, denn das Werk entspricht ihren Anforderungen.   

*

Siehe auch: „Gelesen“ – Rezension zu „Der kalte Freund – Warum wir Russland brauchen: Die Insider-Analyse“ von Alexander Rahr.

 

Das Interview führte Hans Wagner

Moscou étoffe son projet d'« Union eurasienne »

www.euractiv.com

Moscou étoffe son projet

d'«Union eurasienne »

 

Des experts proches du Kremlin ont étoffé un récent projet du premier ministre russe, Vladimir Poutine, visant à créer une « Union eurasienne » composée de la Russie et d'autres Etats post-soviétiques.

Vladimir Poutine, qui devrait redevenir président de la Fédération de Russie l'an prochain (voir « Contexte »), a présenté ses ambitions géopolitiques, selon un article dans les Izvestia.

Lors d'une table ronde organisée à Moscou par le parti au pouvoir, Russie Unie, ces idées ont été étoffées, a rapporté la presse russe aujourd'hui (17 novembre).

En dehors des pays de l'ex-URSS, l'« Union eurasienne » devrait rassembler des pays qui sont historiquement ou culturellement liés à la Russie et qui sont « loyaux aux intérêts de la Russie », ont expliqué les experts.

Le politologue russe Dmitri Orlov a indiqué que les pays concernés pourraient être la Bulgarie, la Finlande, la Hongrie, la Mongolie, la République tchèque et le Vietnam, ainsi que deux pays qui ne se trouvent ni en Europe, ni en Asie, à savoir Cuba et le Vénézuéla.

Un représentant de Russie Unie aurait nié que ces pays aient été approchés. Toutefois, Boris Grizlov, le président de la Douma d'Etat, la chambre basse du parlement russe, a déclaré que « des instruments et des arguments historiques plaidaient en faveur de l'établissement de ce projet eurasien rassemblant 250 millions de personnes. La population de la Fédération de Russie est de 143 millions d'habitants.

Selon M. Grizlov, l'un de ces arguments est l'histoire commune de ces pays et s'agissant des « instruments », il a mentionné la langue russe comme « langue de la communication internationale », ainsi que la coopération économique. Il a précisé qu'il ne s'agissait pas de bâtir un Etat, mais bien une union d'Etats souverains.

L'ambassadeur de la Russie auprès de l'OTAN, Dmitri Rogozin, a été cité affirmant que ce projet n'avait pas vraiment été conçu pour unir des terres, mais plutôt des populations et des citoyens grâce à « organe public commun ».

M. Rogozin a également argué que la Russie devrait porter la plus grande attention aux 200 000 Serbes du Kosovo qui ont récemment demandé la citoyenneté russe.

Belgrade considère ce geste comme un signe de déception à Moscou quant au destin des Serbes du Kosovo qui accusent les autorités de Belgrade de ne pas protéger leurs intérêts vis-à-vis de la majorité albanaise ethnique qui peuple l'ancienne province serbe.

M. Rogozin a également plaidé pour que le russe devienne l'une des langues officielles de l'UE et a affirmé qu'il défendrait cette cause en rassemblant un million de signatures dans le cadre du programme récemment lancé de l'Initiative citoyenne européenne (ICE).

Meksat Kunakunov, un conseiller du président du parlement au Kyrgyzstan, a cité M. Poutine disant : « Ceux qui ne regrettent pas l'époque de l'URSS n'ont pas de cœur. Ceux qui rêvent de revenir à l'URSS n'ont pas de cerveau. » Il a quant à lui ajouté : « Ceux qui doutent que nous pourrions créer une nouvelle union sont des imbéciles. »

EurActiv.com - traduit de l'anglais par Amandine Gillet

Vers l'Eurasie!

Vers l'Eurasie !

Alexandre LATSA

Ex: http://fr.rian.ru/

La semaine dernière, j’ai écrit une tribune dans laquelle je soutenais que l’Europe de l’ouest aurait intérêt à sortir du giron atlantiste pour construire une alliance économique et politique avec le bloc euro-oriental en création autour de l’alliance douanière Russie/Biélorussie/Kazakhstan. Il me semble que pour une union européenne endettée, en panne d’élargissement, et très dépendante sur le plan énergétique, cette orientation pourrait apporter de nouveaux marchés à l’exportation, la sécurité énergétique, un potentiel de croissance économique important et aussi une vision politique nouvelle.

Suite a la publication de ce texte, un de mes lecteurs, David, m’a envoyé le commentaire suivant : "j'ai du mal à saisir ce que ton union eurasienne pourrait faire avec l'UE (…) Tu vois l'Europe aller jusqu'au Kazakhstan"?

La question de David est fondamentale, à mon avis. La première réponse que j’ai envie de lui faire est la suivante: L’Europe n’est pas que l’UE, dont la dernière vague d’élargissement date de 2004, et sachant qu’aucune autre vague d’élargissement n’est à ce jour sérieusement envisagée.  L’espace européen compte 51 états, et l’UE n’en est qu’à  27 membres. L’UE n’est à mon avis en rien une finalité, mais une étape dans la construction d’une grande Europe continentale, allant de Lisbonne a Vladivostok, une Europe par nature eurasiatique puisqu’étalée géographiquement en Europe et en Asie.

Les discussions sur les limites de l’élargissement de l’UE ont amené à des contradictions: La Russie ne serait pas européenne peut on souvent lire, alors que généralement pour les mêmes commentateurs, l’Ukraine, la Biélorussie ou la Turquie devraient à contrario  intégrer l’Europe. Il faudrait en effet expliquer en quoi la Russie ne serait pas européenne, si l’Ukraine, la Biélorussie ou encore la Turquie le sont. Aujourd’hui, ni l’UE à 27 en état de quasi banqueroute, ni la Russie seule n’ont cependant la force et les moyens de pouvoir faire face aux géants que sont l’Amérique sur le déclin, ou les deux grands de demain, l’Inde et surtout la Chine, quasi-assurée de devenir la première puissance mondiale au milieu de ce siècle. La Russie comme les états européens de l’ouest sont donc aujourd’hui et chacun de leur côté engagés dans une politique de création d’alliances afin de renforcer leurs positions régionales, et leur influence globale. 

Après l’effondrement de l’Union Soviétique, l’extension vers l’est de l’union européenne semblait inévitable. Cette extension, accompagnée d’un élargissement de l’OTAN, s’est faite dans un esprit de confrontation avec le monde post soviétique. Mais la renaissance de la Russie ces dernières années et le choc financier de 2008 ont lourdement modifié la situation. La crise financière terrible que connaît l’union européenne est sans doute la garantie la plus absolue que l’UE ne s’agrandira plus, laissant certains états européens sur le seuil de la porte, Ukraine en tête. Andrei Fediachine le rappelait il y a quelques jours: "En cette période de crise, peu de puissances européennes veulent penser à une éventuelle adhésion à l’UE d’un autre pays pauvre de la périphérie orientale (…l’Ukraine…) Qui plus est l’extension à un pays de près de 46 millions d’habitants qui connaît constamment une crise politique et économique". 

Quand à la Russie, membre à part de la famille européenne, il serait bien naïf de penser que sa reconstruction ne se fasse pas via une consolidation maximale des relations avec les états de son étranger proche, c'est-à-dire dans l’espace post soviétique, et dans une logique eurasiatique.

Alors que l’Europe de l’ouest sert actuellement de tête de pont à l’Amérique, qui lui impose un réel bouclier de Damoclès avec le bouclier anti-missile, il est grand temps d’envisager une collaboration entre l’Europe et l’espace post soviétique et de s’intéresser à ce qui se passe à l’est, autour de cette nouvelle union douanière animée par la Russie. La semaine dernière a d’ailleurs été riche en événements de très grande importance. La récente condamnation de l’égérie de la révolution orange à sept ans de prison a sans doute contribué à éloigner un peu plus l’Ukraine de l’union européenne et la rapprocher un peu plus de l’union douanière animée par la Russie. Pendant que le président russe se trouvait la semaine dernière en Ukraine, l’union européenne annulait une rencontre avec le président ukrainien alors même que les discussions concernant la création d’une zone de libre échange avec l’Ukraine étaient en cours. Au même moment les 11 états de la CEI (l’Arménie, l'Azerbaïdjan, la Biélorussie, le Kazakhstan, le Kirghizstan, la Moldavie, l'Ouzbékistan, la Russie, le Tadjikistan, le Turkménistan et donc l'Ukraine) ont signé un accord sur la création d’une zone de libre échange. Le même jour le Premier ministre Mykola Azarov a affirmé que l’Ukraine réfléchissait désormais a une adhésion à l'Union douanière Russie-Bélarus-Kazakhstan, ne jugeant pas contradictoire la potentielle appartenance a ces deux zones de libre échange.

Plus à l’est, c’est de Moscou qu’est venu la plus forte onde de choc puisque le premier ministre Vladimir Poutine a annoncé la plausible constitution d’une union eurasienne a l’horizon 2015. Le premier ministre a du reste rappelé que la coopération dans le cadre de la Communauté économique eurasiatique (CEEA) était la priorité absolue pour la Russie. Ce projet d’union eurasienne s’appuie sur l’Union douanière en vigueur avec la Biélorussie et le Kazakhstan, et a laquelle peuvent adhérer tous les Etats membres de la Communauté économique euro-asiatique. Le Kirghizstan (union douanière) et l’Arménie (union eurasienne) ont du reste déjà affirmé leur soutien à ces projets d’intégration eurasiatique.

L’organisation en cours, au centre du continent eurasiatique n’est pas qu’économique ou politique, mais également militaire, avec la création en 2001 d’une structure de collaboration militaire eurasiatique: l’organisation de la coopération de Shanghai. Cette organisation comprend 6 membres permanents que sont la Russie, la Chine, le Kazakhstan, le Kirghizistan, le Tadjikistan et l'Ouzbékistan. L’Inde, l’Iran, la Mongolie et le Pakistan sont des membres observateurs, tandis que le Sri Lanka et la Biélorussie ont le statut de partenaires. L’OCS rassemble donc aujourd’hui 2,7 milliards d’habitants.

Cette année, c’est l’Afghanistan qui a demandé le statut d’observateur tandis que la Turquie (seconde puissance militaire de l’OTAN) à demandé elle à adhérer complètement a l’organisation. Des états arabes comme la Syrie ont l’année dernière également manifesté leur intérêt envers la structure. On peut aujourd’hui légitimement se demander quand est ce que des états européens choisiront d’adhérer à l’OCS, pour compléter cette intégration continentale.

Cette évolution globale traduit le glissement inéluctable vers un monde multipolaire qui ne sera plus sous domination occidentale. Pour les européens de l’ouest, il est temps de regarder vers l’est et leur continent. Le nouveau pôle eurasiatique, qui s’organise autour de la Russie, est probablement le plus prometteur.

Il progetto Eurasiatico, una minaccia al Nuovo Ordine Mondiale

 

Il progetto Eurasiatico, una minaccia al Nuovo Ordine Mondiale

di Elena Ponomareva - 11/10/2011

Fonte: aurorasito.wordpress

Si potrebbe essere tentati di considerare il documento del premier russo Vladimir Putin, “Un nuovo progetto per l’integrazione del Eurasia: Il futuro in divenire“, che è stato pubblicato sulle Izvestia del 3 ottobre 2011, come un programma tracciato sommariamente da un concorrente delle elezioni presidenziali; ma dopo un controllo, sembra essere solo una parte di un quadro più ampio. L’articolo di opinione, ha momentaneamente acceso ampie polemiche in Russia e all’estero, ed ha evidenziato lo scontro di posizioni in corso sullo sviluppo globale…

 

Indipendentemente dalla interpretazione dei dettagli, la reazione dei media occidentali al progetto di integrazione presentato dal premier russo, è uniformemente negativo e riflette con estrema chiarezza una ostilità aprioristica verso la Russia e le iniziative che avanza. Mao Zedong, però, era solito dire che affrontare la pressione dei propri nemici è meglio che essere in una condizione in cui non si preoccupano di tenerti sotto pressione.
Aiuta a capire perché, al momento, i titoli in stile Guerra Fredda spuntano costantemente sui media occidentali e perché la recente presentazione dell’integrazione eurasiatica di Putin, è percepita dall’Occidente come una minaccia. La spiegazione più ovvia è che, se attuato, il piano diverrebbe  una sfida geopolitica al nuovo ordine mondiale, al dominio della NATO, del FMI, dell’Unione europea e degli altri organismi sovranazionali, e al primato palese degli Stati Uniti. Oggi, una sempre più assertiva Russia suggerisce, ed è pronta ad iniziare a costruire, un’ampia alleanza basata su principi che forniscono una valida alternativa al neoliberismo e all’atlantismo. E’ un segreto di pulcinella, che in questi giorni l’Occidente sta mettendo in pratica una serie di progetti geopolitici di vasta portata, per riconfigurare l’Europa sulla scia dei conflitti balcanici e, sullo sfondo della crisi provocata in Grecia e a Cipro, assemblare il Grande Medio Oriente sulla base di cambiamenti di regime in serie, in tutto il mondo arabo e, come progetto relativamente nuovo, la realizzazione del progetto per l’Asia, il cui recente disastro in Giappone, è stata una fase attiva.
Nel 2011, l’intensità delle dinamiche geopolitiche è senza precedenti dal crollo dell’Unione Sovietica e del blocco orientale, con tutti i principali paesi e organismi internazionali che vi contribuiscono. Inoltre, l’impressione attuale è che la forza militare, in qualche modo, sia diventata uno strumento legittimo nella politica internazionale. Solo pochi giorni fa, Mosca ha attirato una  valanga di critiche dopo aver posto il veto alla risoluzione del Consiglio di Sicurezza dell’ONU che potrebbe autorizzare la replica dello scenario libico in Siria. Come risultato, l’inviata permanente degli USA all’ONU, S. Rice, ha rimproverato la Russia e la Cina per il veto, mentre il ministro degli esteri francese, Alain Juppé, ha dichiarato che “è un giorno triste per il popolo siriano. E’ un giorno triste per il Consiglio di Sicurezza“. Durante l’acceso dibattito al Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite il 5 settembre, il rappresentante siriano ha redarguito Germania e Francia, ed ha accusato gli USA del genocidio perpetrato in Medio Oriente. Dopo di che, S. Rice ha accusato la Russia e la Cina di sperare di vendere armi al regime siriano, invece di stare dalla parte del popolo siriano, e ha abbandonato precipitosamente la riunione, e l’inviato francese Gérard Araud ha rilevato che “Nessun veto può cancellare la  responsabilità delle autorità siriane, che hanno perso qualsiasi legittimità uccidendo il proprio popolo“, lasciando l’impressione che uccidere i popoli, come in Jugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq e Libia, dovrebbe essere un privilegio della NATO.

 

I “partner” occidentali di Mosca si indignano quando la Russia, di concerto con la Cina, pone ostacoli sulla strada del nuovo ordine mondiale. La Siria, anche se un paese di notevole valenza regionale, giunge ad emergere nell’ordine del giorno solo fugacemente, ma l’ambizioso piano di Putin per l’intera Eurasia – “per raggiungere un più alto livello di integrazione – una Unione Euroasiatica” – avrebbe dovuto aspettarsi di evocare le preoccupazioni profonde e durature dell’Occidente. Mosca sfida apertamente il dominio globale da parte dell’Occidente “suggerendo un modello di una potente unione sovranazionale che può diventare uno dei poli del mondo di oggi, pur essendo un efficace collegamento tra l’Europa e la dinamica regione Asia-Pacifico“. Senza dubbio, il messaggio di Putin che “la combinazione di risorse naturali, di capitale e di forte potenziale umano, renderà l’Unione Euroasiatica competitiva nella gara industriale e tecnologico e nella corsa al denaro degli investitori, in nuovi posti di lavoro e negli impianti di produzione all’avanguardia” e che “insieme con altri protagonisti e istituzioni regionali come l’Unione Europea, USA, Cina e l’APEC, garantirà la sostenibilità dello sviluppo globale“, sembra allarmante per i leader occidentali.

 

Né il crollo dell’URSS e del mondo bipolare, né la conseguente proliferazione di “democrazie” filo-occidentali, ha segnato un punto finale nella lotta per il primato mondiale. Ciò che seguì fu un periodo di interventi militari e rovesciamenti di regimi sfidanti, con l’ausilio della guerra dell’informazione e l’onnipresente soft power occidentale. In questo gioco, l’Eurasia rimane il primo premio in linea con l’imperativo geopolitico di John Mackinder, per cui “Chi governa l’Est Europa comanda l’Heartland, chi governa l’Heartland comanda l’Isola-Mondo, chi governa l’Isola-Mondo controlla il mondo“.
Alla fine del XX secolo gli USA sono diventati il primo paese non eurasiatico a combinare i ruoli di potenza più importante del mondo e di arbitro finale negli affari eurasiatici. Nel quadro della dottrina del nuovo ordine mondiale, gli Stati Uniti e l’Occidente nel suo complesso, vedono l’Eurasia come una zona di importanza fondamentale per il loro sviluppo economico e crescente potere politico. Il dominio globale è un obiettivo dichiarato apertamente e costantemente perseguito della comunità euro-atlantica e dalle sue istituzioni militari e finanziarie – la NATO, il FMI e la Banca Mondiale – insieme con i media occidentali e le innumerevoli ONG. Nel processo, l’establishment occidentale rimane pienamente consapevole del fatto che, nelle parole Z. Brzezinski, il “primato globale dell’America è direttamente dipendente da quanto tempo e quanto efficacemente la sua preponderanza sul continente eurasiatico è sostenuta“. Sostenere la “preponderanza“, a sua volta, significa assumere il controllo di Europa, Russia, Cina, Medio Oriente e Asia Centrale.
L’aperta egemonia occidentale in Europa, Asia centrale e, quindi, in Medio Oriente e anche in Russia, conta quale risultato indiscutibile degli ultimi due decenni, ma al momento la situazione appare fluida. Gli osservatori occidentali, cinesi e russi prevedono un fallimento imminente del modello di globalizzazione neoliberista integrata nel nuovo ordine mondiale, ed è in arrivo il tempo, per la classe politica, di adottare una visione.

 

Aprendo nuove opportunità per proteggere gli originali modelli di sviluppo nazionali dalla pressione atlantista, e per mantenere una reale sicurezza internazionale, il nuovo progetto di integrazione di Putin mantiene una promessa importante, per la Russia e i suoi alleati, e presenta quindi ai nemici della Russia un problema serio. Né la Russia, né alcun altra repubblica post-post-sovietica può sopravvivere nel mondo di oggi da sola, e la Russia come attore chiave geopolitico dell’Eurasia, con una potenzialità economica, politica e militare senza precedenti in tutto lo spazio post-sovietico, può e deve, giocare l’offerta di una architettura mondiale alternativa.

L’allergia dell’Occidente al piano di Putin è dunque spiegabile, ma, a prescindere dalla opposizione che il progetto può incontrare, la debolezza di alcuni dei suoi elementi, e la potenziale difficoltà nel metterlo in pratica, il progetto di integrazione eurasiatica nasce dalla vita nello spazio geopolitico e culturale post-sovietico ed è affine alle attuali tendenze globali. Sopravvivere, conservando le basi economiche e materiali dell’esistenza nazionale, mantenendo vive le tradizioni e costruendo un futuro sicuro per i figli, sono gli obiettivi che le nazioni eurasiatiche possono realizzare solo se rimangono allineate con la Russia. In caso contrario, l’isolamento, le sanzioni e gli interventi militari le attendono…
 
E’ gradita la ripubblicazione con riferimento alla rivista on-line della Fondazione per la Cultura Strategica.
 
Traduzione di Alessandro Lattanzio -  SitoAurora

Tante altre notizie su www.ariannaeditrice.it

Poutine relance l’idée d’une Union Eurasiatique

Andrea PERRONE:

Poutine relance l’idée d’une Union Eurasiatique

Dans un article publié dans le quotidien Izvestia, Poutine, nouveau candidat au Kremlin, souligne la nécessité de créer un espace économique commun de l’Atlantique au Pacifique

L’Eurasie, c’est l’avenir, a dit le premier ministre russe Vladimir Poutine, qui vient de relancer son projet d’une “Union Eurasiatique”, c’est-à-dire d’une union de toutes les anciennes républiques soviétiques en un espace économique unique et commun.

Il a annoncé ce projet dans un article intitulé “Projet d’intégration pour la nouvelle Eurasie: le futur en train de naître aujourd’hui”, et publié dans le quotidien de langue russe Izvestia. Le nouveau candidat à la présidence russe prévoit également, dans cet article, l’entrée possible du Kirghizistan et du Tadjikistan dans l’Union douanière existant déjà entre la Russie, la Biélorussie et la Kazakstan. Cette union recevrait pour nom “Communauté économique eurasiatique” et prendrait effet dès le 1 janvier prochain: elle se développera graduellement pour devenir un espace économique commun qui abolira toutes les barrières encore en place aujourd’hui. Dans son article, Poutine souligne que la Communauté aura une législation uniformisée et autorisera la libre circulation des citoyens de tous les pays qui en feront partie. Le nouveau candidat au Kremlin explique ensuite en détail quelles seront les perspectives que cette union rendra possibles, et déplore qu’en Occident on la stigmatise déjà comme un retour au passé. Poutine déclare alors que cette interprétation occidentale est “ingénue”. “Nous proposons un modèle d’union supranationale puissante capable de devenir l’un des pôles du monde moderne et de déployer un rôle efficace”. Cette union, ensuite, constituera un pont “entre l’Europe et la dynamique région de l’Asie-Pacifique”, le tout en une époque de globalisation accélérée. Depuis le 1 juillet 2011, a rappelé le premier ministre russe, “tout contrôle a été aboli sur la circulation des marchandises aux frontières intérieures de nos trois pays”. Cette mesure a permis de parachever un système douanier unique, dont les perspectives sont claires et permettront rapidement de réaliser de plus vastes initiatives commerciales. Et, ajoute Poutine, au départ de cette union douanière, “nous ferons un pas en avant vers un espace économique commun; nous sommes en train de créer un marché colossal, avec plus de 165 millions de consommateurs, avec une législation uniforme et une libre circulation des capitaux, des services et des forces de travail”.

C’est là un projet, précise Poutine, qui trouve ses racines dans l’actuelle union douanière entre la Russie, la Biélorussie et le Kazakstan: “La création d’une union douanière et d’espaces économiques communs ouvrent la porte à l’émergence, dans l’avenir, d’une union économique eurasiatique”. Grâce à cela, poursuit Poutine, “entrer dans cette Union Eurasiatique apportera des bénéfices économiques mais permettra aussi à tous les pays qui en feront partie, de s’intégrer à l’Europe plus rapidement, en partant d’une position de force”.

Poutine: “Le parcours pour en arriver à ce point fondamental a commencé il y a vingt ans, lorsque, après l’effondrement de l’Union Soviétique, on a créé la “Communauté des Etats Indépendants”. En règle général, nous pouvons dire que nous avions trouvé là un modèle qui a contribué à sauver une myriade de liens spirituels, de liens de civilisation, qui avaient uni nos peuples. Aujourd’hui nous agissons pour sauver la production, l’économie et les autres rapports, sans lequels notre vie serait inconcevable”, a conclu le premier ministre russe.

Le projet soutenu avec force par Poutine existe déjà dans les faits: il a été amorcé par l’Union douanière entre la Russie, la Biélorussie et la Kazakstan, qui, a affirmé Poutine, sera déjà complètement formalisée en 2012; une intégration plus ample verra ensuite le jour un an plus tard, en 2013. Telle qu’elle est conçue par le nouveau candidat au Kremlin, l’Union Eurasiatique est destinée à faire de sérieux bonds en avant à partir du 1 janvier prochain, par la création d’une énorme marché à trois, avec plus de 165 millions d’habitants, où citoyens et entreprises pourront se mouvoir librement pour asseoir la modernisation d’un vaste espace économique capable d’entrer en compétition avec l’UE mais aussi de dialoguer avec le Vieux Continent pour favoriser les échanges commerciaux et le rapprochement, tant sur le plan politique que sur le plan économique.

Andrea PERRONE

( [e-mail] )

(article paru dans “Rinascita”, Rome, 5 octobre 2011, http://www.rinascita.eu ).

Hermann Parzinger: "Die frühen Völker Eurasiens"

Die frühen Völker Eurasiens

Der international renommierte Vor- und Frühgeschichtsforscher Hermann Parzinger legt mit diesem höchst informativen, reich bebilderten Band ein Grundlagenwerk über Geschichte und Kultur der frühen Völker zwischen Ural und Pazifik vor.
Die Ausstellungen über Skythen und Mongolen haben das Interesse von Hunderttausenden Besuchern auf sich gezogen, und doch stellen diese beiden Völker nur einen kleinen Ausschnitt der zahlreichen Kulturen dar, die in dem gewaltigen Territorium zwischen Ural und Pazifik von der Jungsteinzeit bis zum Mittelalter entstanden sind. Den Völkern in diesem Gebiet kommt eine entscheidende Bedeutung für die Frühgeschichte der Alten Welt insgesamt zu, und so erscheinen sie als ein fester Bestandteil unseres gemeinsamen kulturellen Erbes. Nach dem Fall des Eisernen Vorhangs konnte der Austausch zwischen westlichen Wissenschaftlern und den Forschern auf dem Gebiet der ehemaligen Sowjetunion intensiviert werden, so daß mit dem Werk von Hermann Parzinger erstmals eine große Synthese des heutigen Wissensstandes über die archäologische Erforschung dieses Gebiets vorgelegt werden kann. Im Zentrum der Darstellung stehen die Verbreitungsgeschichte der Völker, ihre materielle Kultur, ihre Siedlungs- und Wirtschaftsweise, ihre Bestattungsbräuche und ihre künstlerischen Ausdrucksformen. All dies wird systematisch erschlossen und in enger Verbindung von Text und Bildern präsentiert. Auf diese Weise ist eine differenzierte und zugleich anschauliche Darstellung eines bedeutenden Kulturraums der Menschheitsgeschichte entstanden.

Afbeelding en tekst: Verlag C.H. Beck.

Poutine dessine les contours d’une « Union eurasienne »

4.10.2011: www.ruvr.ru

L'Union douanière et l'espace économique commun mis en place par la Russie, la Biélorussie et le Kazakhstan serviront de base à la création d'une Union économique eurasienne, indique le Premier ministre russe Vladimir Poutine dans son article "Un nouveau projet d'intégration pour l'Eurasie - un avenir qui naît aujourd'hui", publié ce mardi dans le quotidien Izvestia.

"La création de l'Union douanière et de l'espace économique commun jette les fondements de la future Union économique eurasienne. Parallèlement, le cercle des membres de l'Union douanière et de l'espace économique commun s'élargira progressivement grâce à l'implication complète du Kirghizstan et du Tadjikistan", souligne-t-il.

"Nous ne nous arrêterons pas là et nous fixons un objectif ambitieux - celui de conférer une nouvelle dimension, plus élevée, à l'intégration vers l'Union eurasienne", précise le Premier ministre russe.

 

"Nous proposons un modèle d'union supranationale puissante, capable de devenir l'un des pôles du monde contemporain tout en servant de lien efficace entre l'Europe et la région dynamique d'Asie-Pacifique. Cela signifie entre autres qu'il faut commencer à coordonner plus étroitement les politiques économique et monétaire, et créer une union économique efficace", explique-t-il.

"Il ne s'agit pas de restituer d'une manière ou d'une autre l'URSS ", fait remarquer le chef du gouvernement russe. "Il serait naïf de tenter de reconstruire ou de calquer ce qui appartient déjà au passé. Ce qui est impératif, c'est de parvenir à une étroite intégration sur une nouvelle base politique et économique, avec un nouveau système des valeurs".

Selon Vladimir Poutine, l'Union eurasienne est un "projet ouvert, et d'autres partenaires, en premier lieu les pays de la Communauté des Etats Indépendants y sont les bienvenus". "Nous ne voulons pas forcer le pas à qui que ce soit. Cela doit être une décision souveraine d'un pays, dictée par ses propres intérêts nationaux à long terme", souligne-t-il dans son article.

"Certains de nos voisins expliquent leur réticence à participer aux projets d'intégration avancés dans l'espace postsoviétique par le fait que ceux-ci seraient contraires à leur choix européen. A mon avis, c'est un faux argument ".

" Nous ne voulons pas nous isoler ou prendre le contrepied de qui que ce soit. L'Union eurasienne sera créée selon les principes intégrationnistes universels, en tant que partie intégrante de la Grande Europe, unie par des valeurs communes de la liberté, de la démocratie et des lois de marché ", ajoute le Premier-ministre russe.

C'est en 2003 que la Russie et l'Union européenne ont décidé de mettre en place un espace économique commun et de coordonner les règles économiques sans créer de structures supranationales. Dans l'article du journal Izvestia, Poutine souligne que la Russie a proposé "de réfléchir ensemble à la création d'une communauté économique harmonieuse qui s'étalerait de Lisbonne à Vladivostok". "Ces propositions ne sont pas restées en suspens. Elles sont étudiées en détail par les collègues européens ", précise-t-il.

"Outre les avantages économiques évidents, l'adhésion à l'Union eurasienne permettra à chacun de ses membres de s'intégrer plus rapidement et sur des positions plus fortes dans l'Europe", assure Vladimir Poutine dans le quotidien.

L’avenir de l’Eurasie se joue en Mer de Chine

L’avenir de l’Eurasie se joue en Mer de Chine

par Jure VUJIC

Comme l’a si bien déclaré Z. Brzezinski, l’Eurasie est le pivot mondial du supercontinent. La puissance qui dans les prochaines décennies exercera sur cette masse continentale l’hegemon, exercera corrélativement une grande influence sur les peuples et les deux zones économiques les plus riches et les plus productives du monde : l’Europe occidentale et l’Asie du sud-est.

D’autre part, compte tenu de la proximité géographique de l’Eurasie, la puissance hégémonique en Eurasie exercera de même une grande influence sur l’Afrique et le Moyen Orient. La Chine et l’Inde en tant que puissance émergentes, la renaissance impériale de la Russie en tant qu’hegemon régional, l’émergence du Japon et de la Corée du sud dans le jeu des grandes puissances, laissent présager un éventuel nouveau partage des cartes géopolitiques dans la région. L’ Europe occidentale, avec sa stratégie de défense et sa PÉSC malgré sa dépendance vis-à-vis des mots d’ordre atlantistes de Washington, semble néanmoins consciente de l’enjeu géopolitique eurasiatique.

C’est dans cette optique que l’UE entend promouvoir, dans la région et les pays de Union, davantage de multilatéralisme effectif, afin d’éviter un cloisonnement de cette région et son isolement par la politique européenne du voisinage et la toute nouvelle Union méditerranéenne. Les intérêts géo-économiques et financiers de l’Union dans la région, les enjeux de la globalisation sont trop grands pour que l’Europe soit marginalisée par le jeu des grandes puissances en Eurasie. En suivant les thèses bien connues de Mackinder à propos du heartland, il est aujourd’hui davantage plus clair que les États-Unis et les autres puissances régionales atlantistes entendent parfaire la bien connue stratégie de défense du néo-containement par un contrôle accru des mers et de la zone littorale qui s’étend de Suez à Shangai, et notamment à cause de l’émergence de nouveaux acteurs régionaux d’envergure comme le Japon, la Chine, et l’Inde. C’est dans cette perspective que Bill Émmot l’éditoraliste de The Economist affirme que les nouveaux pouvoirs eurasiatiques renforcent leurs pouvoirs maritimes sous la forme d’installations militaires localisées, pour les mettre au service de la protection de leurs intérêts économiques, la défense de leurs routes stratégiques et afin élargir leurs zones d’influence.“

La stratégie américaine d’encerclement de la Chine

Depuis des décennies et surtout depuis la guerre froide, les États-Unis se posent en pouvoir dominant sur le littoral asiatique méridional.Afin d’améliorer son dispositif hégémonique dans la région et de décourager toute puissance montante continentale en Asie centrale, le système de sécurité maritime américain repose actuellement sur des régions sécuritaires dites pivots : d’une part le canal de Panama qui relie l’Atlantique et le Pacifique, deuxièmement les lily pads qui relient les installations militaires maritimes de San Diego à Hawaï jusqu’à Guam, et de Guam au Japon et la Corée du Sud, et enfin troisièmement, la grande barrière qui s’étend le long du littoral du sud-est asiatique. Grâce à cette barrière maritime qui s’étend du nord de Borneo en passant par Singapour, les États Unis sont assurés d’une présence géostratégique en Asie du sud-est.

Le système de sécurité maritime américain comprend deux têtes de ponts stratégiques : Taïwan et le Japon. Les États Unis ont conclu en octobre 2008 un contrat avec Taïwan pour la vente de de missiles intercepteurs et d’hélicoptères Apaches pour 4.4 milliards d’euro. En chien de garde de la grande barrière sécuritaire maritime, Taïwan a mis la Chine dans une position défensive. Le second pilier du dispositif défensif américain est le Japon qui abrite la plus importante base navale de l’American Seventh Fleeth et possède une armée efficace. La modernisation militaire de la Chine et la montée en puissance maritime de la Corée du Sud ont forcé les cercles militaires et stratégiques japonais à repenser leur doctrine militaire. C’est ainsi que le vice-amiral Hideaki Kaneda à la tête de la force japonaise maritime d’autodéfense explique, en affirmant que la Chine a changé de style de défense maritime vers un sea-power plus agressif, ce qui a poussé le Japon à reformuler sa stratégie maritime nationale. L’armée japonaise vient de se doter d’armements sophistiqués, d’hélicoptères Hyuga qui accroissent les capacités opérationnelles maritimes.

Tokyo utilise le JMSDF (Force japonaise maritime d’autodéfense) en support aux opérations en Afghanistan et en Irak. D’autre part le Japon a acquis une nouvelle force de frappe avec le développement de la garde côtière qui est engagée dans la diplomatie maritime avec leurs partenaires dans l’Asie du Sud-Est. La Corée du sud, allié stratégique des USA dans la grand barrière maritime, vient de construire des bases navales maritimes tout près de la Chine et du Japon. La Corée du Sud, qui a le plus grand budget militaire dans le monde en proportion de son PIB, vient de réorganiser et de moderniser son armée avec la mise sur pied de trois escadrons mobiles stratégiques qui seront opérationnels en 2020 et qui seront constitués de bâtiments équipés de missiles AEGIS combat system. Paul Kennedy dans The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers a déclaré que le Japon et la Corée du Sud se doteront d’un certain degré d’autonomie face à leur allié les États-Unis, mais continueront d’occuper une place prépondérante dans le dispositif de défense américain de la grande barrière maritime.

La stratégie chinoise du collier de perles

La Chine constitue une menace géopolitique certaine pour le Japon et la Corée du Sud. Sa croissance économique a doublé depuis 1990 ; afin de soutenir cette croissance vertigineuse Pékin devra augmenter sa consommation de pétrole de 150% d’ici 2020. Actuellement plus de 6000 navires chinois naviguent dans l’Océan Indien pour approvisionner leur pays en pétrole. Il va de soit que d’ici 2025, la Chine devra importer de considérables ressources énergétiques du Moyen-Orient et de l’Afrique. Les géostratégies maritimes américaine et japonaise buttent uniquement sur la voie maritime chinoise, laquelle passe par la mer de Chine avec ses ramifications le long du détroit de Malacca. 80% des transports maritimes pétroliers empruntent cette artère stratégique. Afin d’assurer la sécurité de ses routes maritimes d’approvisionnement énergétique, la Chine devra contourner les États-Unis et le Japon à l’est. La Russie concentre sa puissance maritime au nord, alors que l’Inde contrôle le flanc sud maritime de l’Océan Indien. En conséquence, la Chine devra renforcer son indépendance et la puissance de son pouvoir naval militaire, en particulier dans l’Océan Indien. La Stratégie maritime chinoise est double : d’une part, elle doit contenir la présence américaine dans le détroit de Taïwan, d’autre part, à l’avenir, elle devra assurer sa poussée maritime vers l’Océan Indien en encerclant l’Inde.

C’est dans le cadre de cette nouvelle stratégie maritime que la Chine vient de s’équiper de sous-marins russes Kilo-class. La deuxième composante du programme de modernisation navale chinois et d’encerclement stratégique de l’Inde est constituée de ce que l’on appelle le collier de perles maritime. Ce collier maritime relie l’installation navale chinosie de Sanya dans le sud avec lîle de Hainan, et d’autre part avec le Moyen-Orient. D’autres colliers maritimes secondaires s’étendent vers le Sri Lanka et dans les Maldives, reliant la baie de Bengale avec Gwadar dans la mer d’Arabie et complétant le triangle stratégique autour de l’Inde. La Chine redoute actuellement que les États-Unis et leurs alliés encerclent la Chine et l’espace maritime privilégié chinois, et c’est pourquoi les thèses d’Alfred Mahan à propos de la nécessité de la sécurisation des routes de transports sont actuellement très en vogue dans les milieux stratégiques militaires chinois. Les perles (étapes) du collier chinois, du Pakistan à Bornéo, vont devenir des couloirs stratégiques dans le littoral qui relie l’Afrique au Moyen-Orient. Afin de diversifier ses routes d’approvisionnement et d’éviter des goulots d’étranglements dans le dispositif du collier de perles, les ressources énergétiques pourront être acheminées par Sittwe et Gwadar, par route et voie ferrée le long de la frontière chinoise avec la Birmanie et le Pakistan en pénétrant dans les provinces chinoises de Yunnan ou le Xingjina. Lorsque la géostratégie chinoise sera consolidée dans l’océan indien, le futur collier de perles pourra s’ouvrir aux Seychelles en étendant la poussée stratégique chinoise vers l’Afrique. Ce n’est pas un hasard si Pékin a annoncé en décembre 2008 la volonté de construire une base aérienne, afin de de sécuriser son collier de perle et de consolider la présence stratégique maritime chinosie dans l’océan indien.

Le contre encerclement de l’Inde et le projet indo-atlantiste

Comme la Chine, l’Inde est extrêmement dépendante des routes maritimes commerciales. 77% des importations indiennes de pétrole proviennent du Moyen-Orient et de l’Afrique. Le Brigadier Arun Sahgal, directeur de l’Institut indien United Service Institution de New Delhi, qualifie la politique géopolitique chinoise de stratégie d’encerclement. En effet, le Nord de l’Inde est directement voisin de la Chine ; à l’Ouest le rival régional pakistanais, avec lequel la Chine développe ses relations, à l’est le Bangladesh pro-chinois et la junte birmane, alors qu’au sud se trouve le collier de perles chinois qui entoure l’Inde tel un serpent maritime géostratégique. Pour certains géopoliticiens et stratèges indiens et américains, une grande coalition des États côtiers et insulaires permettrait d’opérer un contre-encerclement de la Chine. Cette stratégie Indo-Américaine permettrait d’assurer un contre-encerclement par une ceinture géostratégique autour des rimlands asiatiques : l’Inde au sud-ouest de la Chine, la Corée du Sud au Nord-est, le Japon et Taïwan à l’Est, et les Philippines et Guam au sud-est, ce qui obligerait la Chine à adopter une posture géostratégique défensive. Cette stratégie indo-américaine pourrait menacer à long terme la construction d’une alliance eurasienne stratégique maritime et continentale.

L’Inde anticipe de même la menace d’un renforcement des relations entre le Pakistan et la Chine, et a entamé une pénétration géostratégique en Asie centrale : en 2006, New Delhi a étendu son influence dans cette région de l’Eurasie en ouvrant un premier aéroport militaire indien dans cette région, au Tadjikistan, un pays qui borde le Pakistan au Nord et la Chine à l’ouest, et qui offre à l’Inde un pont avancé dans la région. L’Inde renforce son potentiel militaire naval et a construit une nouvelle installation maritime militaire stratégique à Karwar au sud-ouest de la côte indienne, ainsi qu ‘une nouvelle base aéronavale à Uchipuli dans le sud-est, et un poste d’observation à Madagascar lui permettant de concentrer son commandement naval dans les îles d’Andaman. L’Inde a pris place dans la profondeur de la mer de Chine du sud, en pénétrant dans la baie vietnamienne de Cam Ranh, laquelle lui ouvre la voie à une combinaison géostratégique navale et aérienne permettant de projeter sa force de frappe dans la mer arabe, le golfe de Bengale, le long de l’Océan Indien et la partie ouest du Pacifique. Consciente de ces menaces d’encerclement et de contre-encerclement de la profondeur eurasiatique continentale sur les franges maritimes du continent européen et asiatique, la Russie se livre à un redéploiement de sa stratégie militaire eurasiste le long du littoral eurasien et africain, qu’illustre la décision d’ouvrir des bases militaires navales en Syrie, en Libye et au Yémen. Ces décisions sont accompagnées d’un vaste programme de modernisation navale, par des projets de construction d’avions de combats de nouvelle génération et un renforcement des capacités technologiques et logistiques.

Tribulations géopolitiques dans la zone côtière eurasiatique

Il est désormais évident que les stratégies d’encerclement et de contre-encerclement américaines, japonaises, sud-coréennes, chinoises, indiennes et russe se concentrent sur la zone côtière eurasienne, en tant que zone géopolitique pivot pour le contrôle de l’hinterland, la profondeur stratégique de la masse continentale eurasienne. Dans cet ensemble géopolitique émergeant, la ceinture littorale eurasienne passe par des axes géostratégiques composés par le canal de Suez et Shanghai, car ces axes séparent des pouvoirs émergents eurasistes : la Chine, le Japon et la Corée du sud à l’Est, l’Inde au Sud, la Russie au Nord, alors que l’UE se situe à l’extrême ouest, et les USA sont présents dans la région par la présence de bases navales. La revue stratégique de Défense française en 2008 annonçait déjà que le centre de gravité stratégique global glissait vers l’Asie. Dans le cadre d’une reconfiguration multipolaire du monde, au XXIème siècle, la zone Suez-Shanghai jouera le rôle géostratégique de gateway entre les divers pouvoirs continentaux et maritimes de l’Eurasie.

Le jeu sino-américain et la stratégie du linkage en mer de Chine

Point de passage entre la mer de Chine, l’Asie du Sud-Est et l’Asie Orientale, la mer des Philippines offre des possibilités incontournables à l’armée américaine pour s’assurer du contrôle de toute cette zone stratégique. Mais la Chine est la puissance régionale incontestée de la zone. Elle fait figure de menace en raison de son implication dans toutes les zones de conflits, de ses multiples revendications territoriales et de ses réticences à entrer dans un processus de règlement multipolaire. En effet, la Chine cherche à étendre sa zone économique exclusive, notamment sur les archipels de Paracels, Spratly, Pratas et Macclesfield. Au total, depuis les années 90, le renouveau de l’intérêt porté par la Chine à cette mer ne s’est pas démenti. Mais, cela n’est en rien comparable à l’intérêt que Pékin porte à Taïwan.

La Chine est hyper sensible à l’égard de Taïwan, qu’elle considère comme sa 22ème province. Elle ne concède aucun compromis sur la position d’une Chine unique. Bien que les États-Unis aient accepté cette position, la Chine est convaincue que l’aide fournie par les États-Unis à Taïwan lui donne la confiance de s’opposer aux revendications de Pékin ; ce qui entraîne la méfiance de la Chine à l’égard des États-Unis. Il est certain que, de son attitude dépendront la paix et la sécurité de cette partie de monde. Il est aussi certain qu’avec le développement économique, la Chine sera de plus en plus dépendante de son approvisionnement en pétrole et de son commerce maritime.

L’enjeu stratégique de la mer des Philippines

Le rôle éminent joué en Asie, sur le plan militaire, par les États-Unis, au cours des cinquante dernières années, leur a permis de mettre en place un dispositif aux articulations majeures dont la mer des Philippines offre des possibilités qui demeurent incontournables. En effet, les États-Unis sont actuellement, en Asie, la nation la plus puissante, à la fois politiquement, économiquement et militairement. Leur présence actuelle tient principalement à la menace qu’exerce la Corée du Nord dans la péninsule coréenne et au réveil de la Chine. En Asie du Sud-Est, les États-Unis ne sont plus présents de manière permanente, depuis qu’ils ont dû abandonner leurs deux bases des Philippines, en novembre 1992. Néanmoins, dans toute la région sauf, peut-être la Chine, il existe une reconnaissance générale des États-Unis comme seul et important acteur ayant la capacité d’assurer l’équilibre stratégique. Ainsi les États-Unis participent largement au maintien de la sécurité dans cette région du monde. Le commandement du Pacifique, dont l’État major est à Hawaï, est en charge de l’ensemble des forces américaines stationnées entre la côte ouest des États-Unis et la mer des Philippines.

Le contrôle de la mer des Philippines permet à l’armée américaine d’assurer le soutien logistique de ses forces largement disséminées dans la région asiatique et de donner la liberté d’action aux flottes déployées dans la région des Philippines. Disposer à nouveau de bases aux Philippines présente aux yeux des Américains un double intérêt. Le premier est le relais entre les océans Pacifique et Indien, lequel n’est assuré aujourd’hui que par Singapour, où un millier d’hommes s’occupent du ravitaillement et de l’entretien des bâtiments et avions américains. Mais Singapour est une petite île aux capacités limitées et qui se trouve à l’entrée du détroit de Malacca. Les Américains lorgnent le complexe aéroportuaire de Général-Santos qu’ils ont récemment aménagé loin des regards indiscrets dans une baie bien abritée de l’île philippine de Mindanao. Général-Santos est davantage à l’écart que la baie de Subic de la mer de Chine du Sud, des eaux qui sont l’objet d’une querelle ouverte notamment entre la Chine, le Vietnam et les Philippines et dont les États-Unis ne paraissent pas vouloir se mêler. Le deuxième intérêt est de disposer en Asie de l’Est, en cas de conflit en Extrême-Orient, d’un point d’appui solide à l’extérieur du Japon et de la Corée du Sud. Le complexe de Subic et Clark remplissait autrefois cette fonction. Les Philippines pourraient de nouveau le faire si les « manœuvres conjointes » en cours, qui peuvent s’étaler de six mois à un an, débouchent sur un engagement plus durable. Cette possibilité ne peut être exclue si l’on s’en tient aux pressions constantes des Américains sur les Philippins pour aboutir à une « normalisation » des relations militaires qui feraient du vote de 1991 un accident de l’histoire. La mer des Philippines occupe une place stratégique sur le plan militaire aussi bien pour les puissances régionales que pour les États-Unis d’Amérique.

La Chine, quant à elle, cherche à utiliser sa puissance maritime croissante pour contrôler, non seulement l’exploitation des eaux riches en hydrocarbures de cette zone, mais aussi les voies maritimes, parmi les plus fréquentées au monde. Afin de contrer l’influence chinoise en mer jaune et en Chine méridionale, les États-Unis entendent redéployer une ceinture maritime militaire autour de la Chine en s’associant à des exercices maritimes et aériens avec la Corée du Sud, au large de la côte est de la péninsule coréenne. Les liens militaires entre les États-Unis et l’unité d’élite des forces armées indonésiennes s’inscrivent dans le cadre de cette politique navale renouvelée. Ces jeux de stratégie militaire constituent surtout un avertissement lancé à la Corée du Nord sur la force de l’engagement de l’Amérique en Corée du Sud, suite au naufrage du bâtiment de guerre sud-coréen le Cheonan. Mais ils confirment surtout que les engagements de l’armée américaine en Irak et en Afghanistan n’empêchent pas les États-Unis de défendre leurs intérêts nationaux vitaux en Asie. Le deuxième théâtre de ces jeux stratégiques s’est sitUE en mer Jaune, dans les eaux internationales, très proches de la Chine, démontrant encore une fois l’engagement des États-Unis pour la liberté des mers en Asie. S’ensuivit la visite d’un porte-avions américain au Vietnam, le premier depuis la fin de la guerre, il y a 35 ans. La Corée du Nord, s’est violemment opposée à ces jeux stratégiques, menaçant même d’une réponse « physique ». La Chine a non seulement qualifié l’intervention de Mme Clinton au sujet des îles Spratly « d’attaque », mais a aussi organisé des manœuvres navales non prévues en mer Jaune avant les exercices conjoints américano-coréens.

Le théâtre géostratégique de la mer de Chine

La mer de Chine méridionale devient ainsi un théâtre géopolitique parmi les plus critiques de la planète. En effet, se superposent ici les projections d’influence de la Chine à caractère expansif et le rôle régional des États Unis à caractère défensif. Les premières remettent en cause la stabilité régionale, le deuxième préfigure un « soft-containement » d’un type nouveau. A partir du discours d’Obama à Tokyo en novembre 2009, la politique de la nouvelle Administration américaine vise à définir les États Unis comme « une nation du Pacifique ». Cette déclaration, énoncée dans le but de « renouveler le Leadership américain dans le monde », s’adresse non seulement aux alliées historiques de la région, mais également aux pays de l’ASEAN (The Association of Southeast Asian Nations). L’ASEAN constitue un Forum Stratégique de toute première importance pour la stabilité, la paix et le développement économique en Éxtrême Orient et les USA ont demandé d’y adhérer. Dans une perspective de mouvement de l’échiquier asiatique, l’activisme chinois en politique étrangère influence en profondeur les enjeux stratégiques des principaux acteurs régionaux dans la mer de Chine méridionale, dont les ressources naturelles sont disputées par Taïwan, les Philippines, la Malaisie, l’Indonésie, Brunei, Singapour et le Vietnam.

Cette zone est désormais inclue, d’après le New York Times, dans le périmètre des « intérêts vitaux » de la Chine au même titre que le Tibet et Taïwan, et ceci bien qu’aucune déclaration officielle n’ait fait étalage de cette position. La superposition de deux zones d’influence chino-américaine sur le même espace a été confirmée par la Secrétaire d’État, Mme Hillary Clinton à Washington, le 23 juillet 2010, lors d’une déclaration dans laquelle elle a fait référence à des « intérêts nationaux » des États-Unis concernant la liberté de navigation et les initiatives de « confidence building » des puissances de la région à l’encontre d’une prétendue « Doctrine Monroe » chinoise dans la mer de Chine méridionale. Une partie des pays du Sud-Est comptent, de manière explicite, sur la présence des États-Unis pour contre-balancer l’activisme chinois. Rien ne serait plus dangereux pour la politique étrangère de Kung-Chuô, qu’un pareil alignement sur les déclarations américaines, car la Chine n’a aucun intérêt à l’internationalisation de litiges concernant les eaux territoriales. Or le Linkage entre la mer de Chine méridionale et la façade maritime du Pacifique est inscrite dans l’extension des intérêts de sécurité chinois.A travers les mers du sud et les détroits, transite 50% des flux mondiaux d’échange, ce qui fait de cette aire maritime un théâtre de convoitises et de conflits potentiels, en raison des enjeux géopolitiques d’acteurs comme la Corée du Sud et le Japon qui constituent des géants manufacturiers et des pays dépendants des exportations.Une des clés de lecture de cette interdépendance entre zones géopolitique à fort impact stratégique est le développement des capacités navales, sous-marines et de surface, de la flotte chinoise.

L’importance des routes maritimes eurasiatiques

L’importance stratégique des routes maritimes eurasiatiques pour l’économie de l’Europe est grandissante, compte-tenu de l’accéleration de l’industrialisation et du développement commercial de la Chine, de l’Inde et de la Corée du Sud. Parmi les 15 plus grands partenaires de l’UE, 7 d’entre eux (Chine, Japon, Corée du Sud, Inde, Taïwan, Singapour et Arabie Saoudite) sont situés le long de la côte eurasiatique. Le volume d’importation de l’UE via ces pays est passé de 268.3 milliards d’euros en 2003 à 437.1 milliards d’euro en 2007. Par ailleurs, 90 % du commerce maritime de l’UE passe par les voies maritimes, alors que le commerce maritime avec l’Asie constitue 26.25% du total du commerce maritime transcontinental.

Les points de choc et les flash point stratégiques

En raison des risques d’interruption d’approvisionnement en énergie, et plus particulièrement en gaz (comme cela a été le cas plusieurs fois ces dernières années dans la crise du gaz entre la Russie et l’Ukraine), l’UE doit compter sur une diversification croissante des routes énergétiques d’approvisionnement. Il en est ainsi également du commerce maritime cargo dans le cadre des relations commerciales entre l’Europe et l’Asie, lequel doit emprunter des routes maritimes instables et des zones maritimes côtières de Suez à Shangai. Les navires de commerce doivent suivre des routes maritimes qui longent le continent africain, à travers l’océan Pacifique et l’océan atlantique, en passant par des zones géographiques précaires appelées points de frottements. Elles peuvent être définies comme des chaînes. Les navires pétroliers européens qui s’approvisionnent au Moyen-Orient passent par le détroit d’Hormuz, alors que les produits manufacturés d’Asie du Sud -est passent par le détroit de Malacca. Tous les pavillons européens doivent passer par le tunnel maritime stratégique du canal de Suez et de Bab-el Mandeb et le Golfe d’Aden. La localisation géographique de ces points stratégiques, tout près de la corne de l’Afrique, du Moyen-Orient et de l’Asie du sud-est, est d’autant plus sensible dans le contexte d’embrasement du monde arabe et d’intervention occidentale en Libye.

Vers un projet eurasiste pluri-océanique

L’Europe devra prendre conscience de l’importance stratégique des zones maritimes eurasiennes et asiatiques, moyen-orientales et indo-océaniques, et plus particulièrement celles qui se trouvent au carrefour du canal de Suez et de Shangaï, non seulement pour la croissance de son économie mais aussi pour la sécurité militaire et commerciale de sa profondeur continentale euro-sibérienne. Aujourd’hui, la majeure partie des zones eurasiennes côtières à risque est sécurisée par la flotte américaine, mais la dépendance de l’Europe à l’égard des États- Unis sur le plan stratégique et militaire ne fera qu’accroître à long-terme sa faiblesse stratégique commerciale et géopolitique. Le développement d’une stratégie eurasiatique maritime pluri-océanique (avec le développemnt des capacités de frappe et de défense navales appropriées) dans la zone située entre Suez et Shangai, le renforcement d’une géopolitique multipolaire et des partenariats privilégiés avec la Chine, la Russie, l’Inde, Le Brésil, l’Afrique puissances multipolaires émergentes, constituent les véritables défis géostratégiques de l’Europe-puissance de demain.

La dialectique atlantisme/eurasisme, dont les néo-eurasiens actuels font usage dans leurs polémiques anti-américaines, oublie que l’Amérique ne tient pas sa puissance aujourd’hui de sa maîtrise de l’Atlantique, océan pacifié où ne se joue pas l’histoire qui est en train de se faire, mais de son retour offensif dans l’Océan du Milieu, ce qui illustre bien la concentration de ces capacités opérationnelles maritimes en mer de Chine. L’atlantisme ne saurait se réduire à la seule maîtrise des Açores, petit archipel portugais au centre de l’Atlantique, car il ne faut pas oublier que ce qui a précipité la désagrégation de l’URSS, puissance eurasienne, c’est la maîtrise de Diego Garcia, île au centre de l’Océan Indien, d’où partiront plus tard les forteresses volantes pour bombarder l’Afghanistan et l’Irak. La présence de l’Amérique à Diego Garcia est en contradiction avec les intérêts de l’Europe puissance et de la Russie et leurs possibilités de s’ouvrir demain des fenêtres sur les espaces orientaux où se joue le destin du monde.

Article printed from geostrategie.com: http://www.geostrategie.com

Boreas Rising

Boreas Rising:
White Nationalism & the Geopolitics of the Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis, Part 1

By Michael O'MEARA

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/ 

 “History is again on the move.”
—Arnold Toynbee

For a half-century, we nationalists stood with the “West” in its struggle against the Asiatic Marxism of the Soviet bloc. There was little problem then distinguishing between our friends and our foes, for all evil was situated in the collectivist East and all virtue in the liberal West.

Today, things are much less clear. Not only has the Second American War on Iraq revealed a profound geopolitical divide within the West, the social-political order associated with it now subverts our patrimony in ways no apparatchik ever imagined. Indeed, it seems hardly exaggerated to claim that Western elites (those who Samuel Huntington calls the “dead souls”)[1] have come to pose the single greatest threat to our people’s existence.

For some, this threat was discovered only after 1989. Yet as early as the late forties, a handful of white nationalists, mainly in Europe, but with the American Francis Parker Yockey at their head, realized that Washington’s postwar order, not the Soviet Union, represented the greater danger to the white biosphere.[2] Over the years, particularly since the fall of Communism, this realization has spread, so that a large part of Europe’s nationalist vanguard no longer supports the West, only Europe, and considers the West’s leader its chief enemy.[3]

For these nationalists, the United States is a kind of anti-Europe, hostile not only to its motherland, but to its own white population. The Managerial Revolution of the thirties, Jewish influence in the media and the academy, the rise of the national security state and the military-industrial complex have all had a hand in fostering this anti-Europeanism, but for our transatlantic cousins its roots reach back to the start of our national epic. America’s Calvinist settlers, they point out, saw themselves as latter-day Israelites, who fled Egypt (Europe) for the Promised Land. Their shining city on the hill, founded on Old Testament, not Old World, antecedents, was to serve as a beacon to the rest of humanity. America began—and thus became itself—by casting off its European heritage. The result was a belief that America was a virtuous land, dedicated to liberty and equality, while Europe was mired in vice, corruption, and tyranny. Then, in the eighteenth century, this anti-Europeanism took political form, as the generation of 1776 fashioned a new state based on Lockean/Enlightenment principles, which were grafted onto the earlier Calvinist ones. As these liberal modernist principles came to fruition in the twentieth century, once the Christian, Classical vestiges of the country’s “Anglo-Protestant core” were shed, they helped legitimate the missionary cosmopolitanism of its corporate, one-world elites, and, worse, those extracultural, anti-organic, and hedonistic influences hostile to the European soul of the country’s white population.[4]

This European nationalist view of our origins ought to trouble white nationalists committed to a preserving America’s European character, for, however slanted, it contains a not insignificant kernel of truth. My intent here is not to revisit this interpretation of our history, but to look at a development that puts it in a different racial perspective. So as not to wander too far afield, let me simply posit (rather than prove) that the de-Europeanizing forces assailing America’s white population are only superficially rooted in the Puritan heritage. The Low Church fanatics who abandoned their English motherland and inclined America to a biblical enterprise, despite their intent, could not escape their racial nature, which influenced virtually every facet of early American life. Indeed, the paradox of America is that it began not simply as a rejection but also as a projection of Europe. Thus, beyond their ambivalent relationship to Europe, Americans (until relatively recently) never had any doubt that their race and High Culture were European. As such, they showed all the defining characteristics of the white race, taming the North American continent with little more than rifles slung across their backs, and doing so in the European spirit of self-help, self-reliance, and fearlessness. As Francis Parker Yockey writes: “America belongs spiritually, and will always belong to the [European] civilization of which it is a colonial transplantation, and no part of the true America belongs to the primitivity of the barbarians and fellaheen outside of this civilization.”[5]

As long, then, as Americans were of Anglo-Celtic (or European) stock, with racially conscious standards, their Calvinist or liberal ideology remained of secondary importance. Our present malaise, I would argue, stems less from these ideological influences (however retarding) than from a more recent development—the Second World War—whose world-transforming effects were responsible for distorting and inverting our already tenuous relationship to Europe. For once our motherland was conquered and occupied (what the apologists of the present regime ironically refer to as its “liberation”) and once the new postwar system of transnational capital was put in place, a New Class of powers with a vested interest in de-Europeanizing America’s white population was allowed to assume command of American life. The result is the present multiracial system, whose inversion of the natural order negates the primacy of our origins and promises our extinction as a race and a culture. The only possibility of escaping its annihilating fate would seem, then, to be another revolutionary transformation of the world order—one that would throw the existing order into crisis and pose an alternative model of white existence. The “Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis” formed during the recent Iraq war, I believe, holds out such a possibility.

Genesis of an Axis

As part of its Mobiles Géopolitique series, the Franco-Swiss publisher L’Age d’Homme announced in April 2002 the release of Paris-Berlin-Moscou: La voie de l’indépendance et de la paix (Paris-Berlin-Moscow: The Way of Peace and Independence). Authored by Henri de Grossouvre, the youngest son of a prominent Socialist party politician, and prefaced by General Pierre Marie Gallois, France’s premier geostrategic thinker, Paris-Berlin-Moscou argued that Europe would never regain its sovereignty unless it threw off American suzerainty and did so in alliance with Russia.

In recommending a strategic alliance between France, Germany, and Russia for the sake of a Eurasian federation stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, Grossouvre’s thesis seemed entirely utopian. For although the prospect of such an alliance had long animated the imagination of revolutionary nationalists, it seemed more fantasy than possibility, even when proposed by a well-connected and reputable member of the governing elites. Fantasy, however, rather unexpectedly took hold of the international arena. Within months of the book’s publication, its thesis assumed a life of its own, as the new Likudized administration in Washington started beating the drums for another war on Iraq.

The axis and the war it sought to avoid will be looked at in the following sections. Here, a few words on Grossouvre’s book are in order, for, besides being one of those novel cases where life seemed to imitate art, it stirred the European public, was extensively reviewed, led to the organization of several international conferences attended by diplomats, military leaders, and parliamentarians, and culminated in a website with over two thousand pages of documentation.[6] Its effect on the European—especially on the anti-liberal—spirit has been profound. If the axis it proposes is stabilized as an enduring feature of the international order (and much favors that), a realignment as significant as 1945 could follow.

Paris-Berlin-Moscou begins by acknowledging the common values linking America and Europe, the so-called Atlantic community, as well as the US role in guaranteeing European security during the Cold War. On both these counts, the author’s establishment ties are evident, for no anti-liberal views the Atlantic relationship in quite such uncritical terms. Nevertheless, in arguing that these two factors no longer justify Europe’s dependence on the United States, he breaks with the prevailing system (or at least what was the prevailing system) of strategic thought.

In Grossouvre’s view, Europe’s geopolitical relationship to the United States was fundamentally altered between 1989 and 1991, when Eastern Europe threw off its Soviet yoke, Germany reunified, and Russia called off the Communist experiment begun in 1917. Then, as Europe’s strategic dependence on the US came to an end, so too did its heteronomy.[7] Moreover, it is only a matter of time, Grossouvre predicts, before Russia recovers, China develops, and US power is again challenged. In the meantime, US efforts to perpetuate its supremacy, defend its neo-liberal system of global market relations, and stifle potential threats to its dominance are transforming it into a force of international instability. But even if this were not the case, Grossouvre contends that Europeans would still need to separate themselves from America’s New World Order (NWO), for their independence as a people is neither a luxury nor a vanity, but requisite to their survival.[8] For as Carl Schmitt contends, it is only in politically asserting itself that a people truly exists—conscious of its place in history, oriented to the future, and secure in its identity.[9]

Europe’s ascent—and here Grossouvre most distinguishes himself from the reigning consensus—will owe little to the European Union (EU). Although its GNP is now approaching that of the US; its share of world imports and exports is larger; its manufacturing capacity and productivity are greater; its population is larger, more skilled, and better educated; its currency, the euro, sounder; and its indebtedness qualitatively lower, the EU does not serve Europe in any civilizational sense.[10] Its huge unwieldy bureaucracy serves only Mammon, which means it lacks a meaningful political identity and hence the means to play an international role commensurate with its immense economic power. It indeed caricatures the “European idea,” representing a technocratic economism without roots and without memory, focused on market exchanges and financial orthodoxies that are closer in spirit to America’s neo-liberal model than to anything native to Europe’s own tradition. (As one French rightist argues, “Every time the technocrats in Brussels speak, they profane the idea of Europe.”)[11] The EU’s growth has, in fact, gone hand in hand with the weakening of its various member states—and the corresponding failure to replace them with a continental or federal alternative.[12] Given its current enlargement to twenty-five members, political unity has become an even more remote prospect, particularly in that many of the new East European members lack any sense of the European idea.

A strong centralized state, however, is key to Europe’s future. Since the Second World War, power is necessarily continental: Only a Großraum (large space), a geopolitically unified realm animated by a “distinct political idea,” has a role to play in today’s world.[13] Yet even with the dissolution of the East-West bloc, a continental state is not likely to emerge from the EU’s expanding market system. If earlier state-building is any guide (think of Garibaldi’s Italy, Kara-George’s Serbia, Pearse’s Ireland, or Washington’s America), political unification requires a vision, a mobilizing project, emanating from a history of blood and struggle. As Jean Thiriart writes: “One does not create a nation with speeches, pious talk, and banquets. One creates a nation with rifles, martyrs, jointly lived dangers.”[14] For Grossouvre, this mobilizing vision is De Gaulle’s Grande Europe: a political-civilizational Großraum pivoted on a Franco-German confederation (encompassing Charlemagne’s Francs de l’Ouest et Francs de l’Est), allied with Russia, and forged in opposition to the modern Carthage.

The three great continental peoples, he believes, constitute the potential “core” around which a politically federated Europe will coalesce. Like De Gaulle, who refused to accept his country’s defeat in 1940 and who fought all the rest of his life against the conquerors of 1945, Grossouvre views the entwined cultures of the French, Germans, and Russians as fundamentally different from les Anglo-Saxons (the English and the Americans), whose thalassocratic, Low Church, and market-based order favors a rootless, economic definition of national life. Accordingly, for most of her history, with the tragic exception of the 1870–1940 period, France’s great enemy was “perfidious Albion,” not Germany.[15] Then, after 1945, this larger historical relationship was resumed, as numerous cooperative ventures succeeded in blunting nationalist antagonisms—to the point that war between them is now inconceivable.[16] Finally, in 1963, when De Gaulle and Konrad Adenauer signed the Treaty of Elysée, their reconciliation was formalized on the basis of an institutionalized system of social, economic, and political collaborations. Their supranational commitment to Europe has since had a powerful synergetic effect, influencing virtually every significant measure undertaken in the name of continental unity. The complementary nature of these closely related peoples has, in fact, triumphed over the political disunity that came with the Treaty of Verdun (843).[17] While a confederation between France and Germany is probably still on the distant horizon, the history of the last 60 years suggests that their national projects are converging.[18] Until then, they are likely to continue to speak with a single voice, for France and Germany are more than two states among the EU’s twenty-five. In addition to being the crucible of European civilization, their combined populations (142 million), their economic power (41 per cent of the EU), and, above all, their capacity to transcend national interests make them special—the nucleus, the motor, the vanguard of a potentially united Europe. Whatever political organization the EU eventually achieves will undoubtedly be one of their doing.

A somewhat different convergence is also under way in the East. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and Germany’s ensuing reunification shifted Europe’s center of gravity eastward. The EU’s enlargement to Eastern Europe this year moved it even farther in this direction. The consolidation of Europe’s eastward expansion hinges, though, on Russia, whose white, Christian people, as the historian Dieter Groh argues, represents one of the great primeval stirrings of the European conscience.[19] (It was the Roman Catholic Church, in its schism with Orthodox Christianity in 1054, not Russia’s history, culture, or racial disposition that kept it from being recognized as a European nation.) France has ancient ties with Russia and today shares many of the same geopolitical interests. But it is Germany that is now most involved in Russian life. She is Russia’s chief trading partner, her banks are the chief source of Russian investment capital, and her 1800 implanted entrepreneurs the leading edge of Russian economic development.[20] Thanks to these ties, along with bimonthly meetings between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Germany’s Gerhard Schröder, Russia is presently engaged in numerous joint ventures with the EU. Together, they have put seven communications satellites into orbit, developed a global positioning system (Galileo) to rival the American one (GPS), signed numerous agreements in the field of aerospace research, given one another consultative voice in the other’s military operations, upgraded and expanded the roads, canals, and railways linking them, brokered a series of deals related to gas and energy, and established an elaborate system of cultural exchanges. Visa-free travel between Russia and the EU is expected by 2007. And though Russia is too big to be integrated into the EU, she is nevertheless developing relations with it that portend ones of even greater strategic significance.

Russia also sees its future in Europe. Since the collapse of Communism and the imposition of what critical observers characterize as a “Second Treaty of Versailles,” it has been on life-support.[21] The economy is in shambles, the state discredited, society afflicted with various pathologies, and its former empire shattered. The appointment of Vladimir Putin in 1999 and his subsequent election as president in 2000 and again in 2004 represent a potential turnaround (even if he is not the ideal person to lead Russia). Full recovery is probably still far off, but it has begun and Europe—its capital, markets, and expertise—is necessary to it. Putin also believes Europe’s growing estrangement from America’s unilateral model of hegemony will eventually lead it into a collective security pact with Russia.[22] Having distanced himself from the pro-American regime of the corrupt Yeltsin, whose liberal market policies were an excuse to plunder the accumulated wealth of the Russian people, and having had his various efforts at rapprochement rebuffed by the Bush administration (which continues to encroach on Russia’s historical spheres of interest), this Deutsche im Kreml now looks to exploit his German connections to gain a wedge in European affairs.[23]

His Eurocentric policies are already assuming strategic form, for Russia’s vast oil reserves have the potential of satisfying all of Europe’s energy needs. (As russophobes say, Russia will build her hegemony in Europe with pipelines.) To consolidate these emerging East-West exchanges, Russia has recently received a €400 million grant to modernize its institutional, legal, and administration apparatus to accord with the EU’s. At the same time, tariffs on Russian imports have been slashed (50 percent of Russian exports now go to the EU) and the EU is sponsoring Russia’s admission to the World Trade Organization. Putin’s arrest of the oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, one of the principal proponents of US-style “casino capitalism,” and the seizure of his massive Yukos oil concern, the resignation of the last Yeltsin holdovers, especially Alexander Voloshin; and an ongoing series of internal reforms, however incomplete, represent further steps toward a restoration of Russian state power.[24] Finally, Russia possesses the military capacity, even in its debilitated state, to guarantee Europe’s security, for in a period when America’s “new liberal imperialism” runs roughshod over European concerns, threatening endless conflicts detrimental to their interests, Russia suddenly becomes a credible defense alternative.[25]

Grossouvre concludes that an axis based on France’s political leadership, Germany’s world class economy, and Russia’s military might represent the potential nucleus of a future Eurasian state. Five distinct advantages, he argues, would follow from such a rapprochement: It would guarantee Europe’s independence from America, correct certain imbalances in the globalization process, enhance the EU’s security, solve its energy needs, and complement the different qualities of its allied members. If such an axis draws the chief continental powers into a more enduring alliance, it will inevitably reshape the international order, making the white men of the North—the Boreans—the single most formidable force in the world.[26] It should come as no surprise, then, that Grossouvre’s most strident critics are to be found in those former left-wing Jewish ranks (as represented by Bernard-Henri Lévy, André Gluckmann, Alain Finkielkraut, etc.), who, like our home-grown neocons, champion the raceless, deculturated policies of Washington’s New World Order.

Notes

1. Samuel P. Huntington, Who Are We? The Challenge to America’s National Identity (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004), pp. 264ff.

2. Francis Parker Yockey, The Enemy of Europe (Reedy, W.V,: Liberty Bell Publications, 1981). In this same period, a related argument can be found in the works of Maurice Bardèche, Julius Evola, Otto Strasser, and, later, Jean Thiriart.

3. For example: Claudio Finzi, “‘Europe’ et ‘Occident’: Deux concepts antagonistes,” Vouloir (May 1994); Guillaume Faye, Le système à tuer les peuples (Paris: Copernic, 1981).

4. For example, Robert de Herte (Alain de Benoist) et Hans-Jürgen Nigra (Giorgio Locchi), “Il était une fois l’Amérique,” Nouvelle Ecole 27–28 (Fall 1975); Robert Steuckers, “La menace culturelle américaine” (January 16, 1990), http://foster.20megsfree.com ^[2]; Reinhard Oberlercher, “Wesen und Verfall Amerikas” (n.d.), http://www.deutsches-kolleg.org ^[3]

5. Francis Parker Yockey, “The Destiny of America” (1955), http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/06/the-destiny-of-america/ ^[4]

6. See http://www.paris-berlin-moscou.org ^[5]

7. Emmanuel Todd, Après l’empire: Essai sur la décomposition du système américain (Paris: Gallimard, 2002); Charles A. Kupchan, The End of the American Era: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the 21st Century (New York: Knopf, 2002).

8 Henri de Grossouvre, Paris-Berlin-Moscou: La voie de l’indépendence et de la paix (Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme, 2002), p. 47.

9 Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, tr. by G. Schwab (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 53.

10 Robert Went, “Globalization: Can Europe Make a Difference?,” EAEPE 2003 conference paper, http://eaepe.infomics.nl/papers/Went.pdf ^[6]

11. Louis Vinteuil, “Discours sur l’Europe” (July 20, 2004), http://www.voxnr.com

12. Pierre-Marie Gallois, Le consentement fatal: L’Europe face aux Etats-Unis (Paris: Seuil, 2001).

13. In 1943, at the height of the Second World War, Pierre Drieu La Rochelle wrote: “The national era has come to an end and an age of [continental] empires is dawning.” See Révolution Nationale: Articles 1943–44 (Paris: L’Homme Libre, 2004), p. 7. Theoretically, the notion of a European Großraum was worked out in Carl Schmitt, Der Nomos der Erde im Völkerrecht des Jus Publicum Europaeum (Cologne: Greven Verlag, 1950); its most impressive programmatic formulation is Jean Thiriart, Un empire de 400 millions d’hommes: L’Europe (Brussels, 1964).

14. Jean Thiriart, For the European Nation-State (Paraparaumu, NZ: Renaissance Press Pamphlet,  n.d.).

15. Pauline Schnapper, La Grande Bretagne et l’Europe: Le grand malentendu (Paris: Eds. Presses de Sciences Po, 2000); Christian Schubert, Grossbritannien: Insel zwischen den Welten (Munich: Olzog, 2004).

16. Brigitte Sauzay, “L’Allemagne et la France: Quel avenir pour la coopération?” (n.d.), http://geogate.geographie.uni-marburg.de ^[7]

17. This treaty divided Charlemagne’s empire, separating the Germanic tribes of the West from those of the East. In one respect, the fratricidal history of nineteenth and twentieth century nationalism was a history of this separation.

18. Blanine Milcent, “La ‘Françallemagne’ attendra,” L’Express, December 11, 2003.

19. Dieter Groh, Russland und das Selbstverständis Europas (Neuwied: Luchterhand Verlag, 1961). Also see Georges Nivat, Russie-Europe: La fin du schisme (Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme, 1993); Andreas-Renatus Hartmann, “Die neue Nachbarschaftspolitik der Europäischen Union” (April 16, 2004), http://www.boschlektoren.de ^[8]

20. Klaus Thörner, “Das deutsche Spiel mit Russland” (February 2003), http://www.diploweb.com

21. Nikolai von Kreitor, “Russia and the New World Order” (1996). Published years before the Iraq war, Kreitor’s article is perhaps the single most important analysis to have been made of the international situation leading up to the war. My views here are much indebted to it.

22. Wladimir Putin, “Russland glaubt an die große Zukunft der Partnerschaft mit Deutschland,” Die Zeit (April 10, 2002).

23. Alexander Rahr, “Ist Putin der ‘Deutsche’ im Kreml?” (September 2002), http://www.weltpolitik.com ^[9]

24. Jacques Sapir, “Russia, Yukos, and the Elections” (February 2004), worldoil.com ; “Poutine restaure l’Etat: Un entretien avec Jacques Sapir,” Politis 774 (November 6, 2002); Wolfgang Strauss, “Putin oder Chodorkowski: 14. März, eine Niederlage Amerikas” (March 29, 2004), http://staatsbriefe.de ^[10]

25. One sign of this capacity is the fact that in 2003, Russia became the world’s number one arms exporter. See P. Schleiter, “Defense, securité, relations internationales” (April 25, 2004), http://www.polemia.com ^[11]; also Yevgeny Bendersky, “Keep a Watchful Eye on Russia’s Military Technology” (July 21, 2004), http://www.pinr.com ^[12]

26. The notion of a possible northern imperium of white men is taken from Guillaume Faye, Le coup d’Etat mondial: Essai sur le Nouvel Impérialisme Américain (Paris: L’Æncre, 2004), pp. 183ff. On the myth of the Boreans (or Hyperboreans), see Jean Mabire, Thulé: Le soleil retrouvé des hyperboréens (Lyon: Irminsul, n.d.).

Boreas Rising:
White Nationalism & the Geopolitics of the Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis, Part 2

A Defensive Alignment

The Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis arose in reaction to the Second American War on Iraq. It needs thus to be understood in the context of that war, which the Bush administration treated as the second phase of its war on terror, the first being the invasion of Afghanistan and the assault on the Taliban regime harboring bin Laden’s al-Qa’ida (both of which, incidentally, were, via the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI, made in the USA).[1] However much it resembled the Anglo-Afghan and Russo-Afghan wars of the nineteenth century, the American assault on Afghanistan did not provoke the kind of opposition that Iraq would, for there was still enormous sympathy for the US after “9/11.” “Victory,” moreover, came quickly, as it had for all former conquerors. The Taliban were chased from Kabul and the warring tribes associated with the US-supported Northern Alliance, which did most of the fighting on the ground, soon gained control of the countryside. While Afghanistan has since reverted to a pre-state form of regional, tribal rule (ideal for narco-terrorists) and most al-Qa’ida fighters succeeded in dispersing, the Bush administration was nevertheless able to broadcast publicly satisfying TV images of swift, forceful action.[2]

Buoyed up by the nearly effortless rout of the medieval Taliban, Bush adopted the policies recommended by his neoconservative advisers,[3] whose neo-Jacobin assertion of American power not only has nothing to do with fighting Islamic terrorism, but cloaks a Judeo-liberal vision of global domination which threatens to turn the entire Middle East into something akin to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. Key to their vision is Iraq, whose threat to Israel has been repackaged by such Jewish propaganda mills as the Project for the New American Century as a threat to US security. Besides promoting a peculiar blend of liberal statist and Zionist strategic concerns that represents a turn (not a break) in US foreign policy, the Krauthammers, Wolfowitzes, and other sickly neocon types advising the administration seek to “Sharonize” Washington’s strategic culture. To this end, military force is designated the option of choice, and a moralistic Manichaeanism which pits the US and Israel against the world’s alleged evils is used to legitimate the most dishonorable policies.[4] As the former wastrel of the Bush dynasty signed on to this Likud-inspired agenda, he began making a case for extending his antiterror crusade to Mesopotamia. Iraq’s “Hitler-like tyrant,” he claimed, had links with al-Qa’ida and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capable of reaching the United States.

While America’s TV-besotted masses had little difficulty swallowing his unsubstantiated argument, the rest of the world balked.[5] At this point in early 2002, the two shores of the Atlantic began pulling apart. German chancellor Gerhard Schröder was the first major European figure to oppose Bush’s war plans. He was soon joined by French president Jacques Chirac. In July 2002 they issued a joint declaration formally rejecting the US proposal, stating that the UN’s embargo and its inspectors were doing their job and that the proposed attack would only distract from the “real war on terror.” By September, Russia (whose economic situation required the good graces of Washington) hinted that it too would veto a UN resolution sanctioning war. Then, on February 10, 2003, Putin joined Chirac and Schröder in issuing a declaration condemning what one senior US intelligence officer later called “an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat.”[6]

The Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis thus originated as a temporary coalition organized around a single point of agreement. Convinced that Bush had failed to make his case for war, the French, Germans, and Russians thought the evidence for al-Qa’ida links and WMD was unconvincing (we know now, by the government’s own admissions, that it was a tissue of lies, distortions, and manipulations).[7] Their coalition was nevertheless more than a response to a momentary disturbance in the world system. As one high-level Russian analyst characterized it, the coalition was a “rebellion against a unilateral America unwilling to accommodate European interests.”[8] As such, it announced a possible geopolitical power shift from the Atlantic to Eurasia.

Globalism at Gunpoint

Since the Cold War’s end, international relations have undergone changes as fundamental as those following the world-historical realignment of 1945.[9] The neoconservatives influencing Bush, in their preemptive crusade for what is tendentiously labeled “global democracy,” have been anxious to take advantage of these “shifting tectonic plates in international politics . . . before they harden again.”[10] As Robert Kagan and William Kristol, two of the chief neocon publicists, argue: There is a danger today that an unassertive US will lose control of the world order it created in 1945. Beginning with the fall of the Soviet Union, when the field was cleared of possible rivals, they believe the US should have consolidated its “benevolent hegemony,” turning the unipolar moment into the unipolar era. Instead, George I and Clinton allegedly failed to exploit the moment, further ensnaring the US in multilateral relations that compromised its power and interests.[11]

Against this trend, the Bush administration has carried out what some characterize as a “revolution in foreign policy.” Without abandoning Washington’s objective of developing a global market system based on American-style liberal-democratic principles, it now employs hegemonist methods, codified in the new Bush Doctrine, that change the way the US asserts its power abroad.[12] In this vein, the administration dismisses international laws and institutions, as it asseverates America’s unilateral right to alter the world system however it wishes, including attacking and overthrowing states deemed a threat to its security. Traditional strategies of deterrence and containment have consequently been supplanted by a proactive policy of prevention and preemption, just as ad hoc coalitions are given precedence over established alliances and collective security arrangements, regime change over negotiations with “failed” states, and ideological goals over previous notions of the national interest.[13]

The entire tenor of American power has thus altered, but against those who claim Bush has abandoned the core assumptions of the liberal internationalist tradition, the conservative Andrew J. Bacevich points out that his foreign policy innovations are largely methodological in character. For the past half century, no matter which party occupied the White House, US policy has pursued a single overarching goal: “global openness”—as in Hay’s “Open Door” imperialism—which promotes the movement of goods, peoples, and fashions into and out of world markets for the sake of US capitalist concerns.[14] Moreover, in assuming responsibility for this integrated international trading system—this “empire”—the US wins the right not only “to sell Big Macs and Disney products round the world,” but to govern the system itself.

While Bacevich’s argument is an excellent foil to those seeking to portray Bush as a revolutionary—somehow different from the Democrats who have manipulated the United States into most of the 20th century wars and played a leading role in semantically transforming “democracy” and “human rights” into the totalitarian double-speak of the NWO—Bacevich nevertheless ignores the different ways in which the two parties implement their liberal internationalist principles. Republicans, especially since Reagan, are inclined to see the growth of US national power as the precondition for sustaining their imperial system, while Democrats look to the universalization and institutionalization of their liberal principles. This disposes Republicans to a unipolar model of liberal internationalism based on military supremacy, unlike Democrats, who favor a world-government model emphasizing the economic facets of globalization and the need for international regulation. (Lately, though, the Democratic world-government types, if such influential liberal internationalists as those associated with Richard Haas of the Council on Foreign Relations and Helmut Sonnenfeldt of the Brookings Institution are any guide, seem increasingly disposed to the unipolar model; John Kerry’s neocon cloning of Bush’s foreign policy also suggests a shift toward the Republican vision.) But whether pursued by Republicans or Democrats, this liberal internationalist agenda, with its emphasis on the antitraditional and anti-Aryan forces of free trade, free markets, and open societies, has been a bane to white people everywhere—for it wars against “the fundamental value of blood and race as creators of true civilization.”[15]

In pressing into areas which were off-limits during the Cold War, Washington’s imperial market system has become increasingly aggressive. Under Clinton, the Weinberger/Powell Doctrine of avoiding military engagements unless absolutely necessary was discarded, as the “unipolar moment” ushered in by the Soviet collapse was treated as a blank check for “intervening practically wherever and whenever it chose.” In this spirit, Clinton’s Secretary of State contemplated invading Iraq and disparaged the principle of national sovereignty. Her distinction between war and the use of military force has since reoriented US policy, as military interventions overseas cease being labeled wars and become armed forms of “humanitarianism.”[16] Finally, the Clinton Doctrine of Enlargement, in championing the worldwide spread of US-style democracy and free markets (that is, the globalist assault on national identity and national institutions), privileged unilateralism (rechristened “assertive multilateralism”) over containment and disarmament.[17]

Although he avoided Bush’s swaggering brand of leadership, Clinton was only slightly less coercive in promoting the totalitarian ideology of openness.[18] It is hardly irrelevant that Iraq was bombed nearly every day of his administration, that Bosnia was turned into a US military protectorate, and that unilateral military action, in one of the great “war crimes” of the 20th century, was taken against Serbia. Though smaller in scale than Operation Iraqi Freedom, the terrorist air assault on this proud little country (whose historical role was the defense of the white borderlands) aimed at “spreading democracy” for the sake of openness. Symptomatic of the “openness” Washington favors, the Albanian Liberation Front (UCK), an Islamic, drug-smuggling, terrorist mafia with links to al-Qa’ida, was armed and trained by Clinton’s government and a quarter million Christian Serbs, whose nationalist aspirations represented an affront to the New World Order, were ethnically cleansed from Kosovo.[19] These interventions by the Clintonistas also played a leading role in destabilizing the international state system, giving rise to new stateless groups whose megaterrorism is historically unprecedented. The horror of 9/11 and the unfathomable massacre of Russian children at Beslan, not to mention numerous lesser affronts to our humanity, have roots in Clinton’s Yugoslavian intervention. Bush has simply accelerated this process, which is nourishing new, more nihilistic forms of terrorism.[20]

Although he came into office complaining of Clinton’s immodest foreign policy, Bush II has actually gone further, introducing methods which removed the existing restraints on Washington’s use of military force and whatever reservation it might have in violating national sovereignty.[21] Like Clinton, he is a man beholden to alien and dishonorable interests, and inspired by a juvenile notion of power. His “faith-based foreign policy,” like the alley-cat policies of his predecessor, privileges the liberalization of global trade relations, imposes the cosmopolitan imperatives of his corporate supporters on virtually every issue pertinent to the nation’s biocultural welfare, rejects the American tradition of “isolationism,” and runs roughshod over whoever resists an order hostile to ethnocultural particularisms (unless they take innocuous folkloric forms). He might differ with Clinton in favoring a missile defense system, a different approach to China, and a Likudnik rather than a Laborite Zionism, but he is no less committed to a global system of market democracies “open to trade and investment, and policed by the United States.” As one Marxist puts it: “Playboy Clinton, Cowboy Bush, same policy.”[22] With his “Judeo-Protestant” rhetoric of American exceptionalism and his willingness to remove the velvet glove from America’s mailed fist, Bush’s “jackbooted Wilsonianism” differs from that of his predecessor mainly in linking economic globalization to “military modernization.”

As the neoconservatives Thomas Barnett and Henry Gaffney argue, the Bush Doctrine ought to be viewed as a necessary complement to the globalizing process. They claim that before 9/11 globalization (which much of the world identifies with Americanization) was mainly economic, thought best left to business. The collapse of the Twin Towers has since (allegedly) triggered a more serious reflection on America’s role as globalism’s “system administrator.” In their view, bin Laden’s al-Qa’ida, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and all the “rogue states”—Bush’s “axis of evil”—act as “dangerous disconnects” from a world based on interdependence and a single framework of economic governance. (Although they refrain from taking their argument to its logical conclusion, globalization here is inadvertently revealed as the harbinger of global terror.)[23] Faced with these threats to its one-world system, the market not only needs to be policed, the US has a responsibility to maintain its harmonious functioning. Bush’s unilateralist use of force, in applying military power whenever violent “disconnects” interrupt the international flow of labor, raw materials, and energy, Barnett and Gaffney argue, aims at ensuring the security and operability of the globalizing process.[24] But what they do not mention is that once economic globalization is joined with “military globalization,” the globalizing process is not so much ensured as altered, becoming less a neutral extension of economic trends (not that it ever was simply that) and more a classic expression of imperial power. In Iraq, for instance, the American army had no sooner occupied Baghdad than its neoconservative viceroy, Paul Bremer, began to dismantle the Iraqi state, privatize the economy, open the borders to unrestricted imports (unless they came from France or Germany), and, within two weeks of his arrival, had declared that Iraq was “now open for business.”[25]

September 11, then, did not change the long-range goal of US foreign policy (global openness), only the way in which it was pursued. The restraints on military force, already compromised under Clinton, were formally thrown off and a proactive doctrine of preemption superseded the more reactive methods of containment and disarmament. At the same time, Clinton’s human rights rhetoric and “humanitarian” militarism were jettisoned for the bellicose language of “strategic vital interests” and “imperial responsibilities.” It would be misleading, however, to think the transatlantic rift was due solely to Bush’s militaristic assertion of US global interests. Long before 9/11, real policy differences had begun to emerge: over trade; agriculture; armament exports; relations with Cuba, Iran, and Korea; the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; the Echelon economic espionage system monitoring European faxes, e-mails, and phone calls; the Kyoto Protocol; globalization; the abrogation of the ABM treaty; the euro and the dollar, etc. All these differences, in one way or another, reflected Europe’s unwillingness to remain a pawn on Washington’s global chessboard.[26] In the year leading up to Iraq, as Europe sought to check Bush’s unilateralist moves, the transatlantic relationship went into crisis, forcing France and Germany to assert their autonomy sooner than they might otherwise have intended.[27]

Notes

 

1. Alexandre del Valle, Islamisme et Etats-Unis: Une alliance contre l’Europe (Laussanne: L’Age d’Homme, 1999).

2. Justin Raimondo, “Afghanistan: The Forgotten War” (June 21, 2004), http://antiwar.com; Elaine Sciolino, “NATO Chief Offers Bleak Analysis,” New York Times, July 3, 2004.

3. Louis R. Browning, “Bioculture: A New Perspective for the Evolution of Western Populations,” The Occidental Quarterly 4(1) (Spring 2004).

4. There is still no satisfactory treatment of neocon foreign policy. One of the better recent ones, although highly flawed, especially in ignoring its Jewish roots, is Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: Neo-Conservativism and the Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). On neoconservatism’s racial basis, see Kevin MacDonald, “Understanding Jewish Influence III: Neoconservatism As a Jewish Movement,” The Occidental Quarterly 4(2) (Summer 2004). The previous, and in many ways, still existing strategic basis of U.S. policy is perhaps best represented by Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (New York: Basic Books, 1997). On the larger historical contours of U.S. foreign policy, see Walter A. McDougall, Promised Land, Crusader State: The American Encounter with the World since 1776 (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1997).

5. John Le Carré, “The United States Has Gone Completely Mad,” London Times, January 15, 2003. With some irony, one Russian general, Leonid Ivashov, characterized the U.S. media coverage of the war debate (and not simply that of Fox News) as something one might expect in a “police state.” See Johannes Voswinkel, “Schmallippig im Kreml,” Die Zeit (15/2003). For one of the more interesting critiques of the controlled media’s role in mobilizing the population behind Bush’s crusade, see David Miller, “Caught in the Matrix” (April 26, 2004), http://www.scoop.co.nz ^[2]

6. The anonymous author of Imperial Hubris (2004), quoted in Julian Borgen, “Bush Told He Is Playing into Bin Laden’s Hands,” The Guardian, June 19, 2004.

7. Andrew Buncombe, “Carter Savages Bush and Blair,” The Independent, March 27, 2004; David Corn, The Lies of George W. Bush (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2004); F.-B. Huyghe, “Pour en finir avec les ADM” (February 2004), http://vigirak.com ^[3]; the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “WMD in Iraq” (January 2004), http://www.ceip.org ^[4]

8. Viatcheslav Dachitchev, “La Turkie doit-elle faire partie de l’Europe?” (July 8, 2004), http://www.voxnr.com ^[5]

9. Gabriel Kolko, “The U.S. Must Be Contained: The Coming Elections and the Future of American Global Power” (March 12, 2004), http://www.counterpunch.org ^[6]; Robert L. Hutchins, “The World after Iraq” (April 8, 2003), http://www.cia.gov

10. Norm Dixon, “What’s behind War on Terrorism? (September 2002), www.globalresearch.ca ^[7]

11. Robert Kagan and William Kristol, “The Present Danger,” The National Interest 59 (Spring 2000).

12. The Bush Doctrine was elaborated in three key documents, which can be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov ^[8].  They are: “Presidential Speech of 17 September 2001,” “President Bush Delivers Graduation Speech at West Point” (June 1, 2002), “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America” (September 2002).

13. François Géré, “La nouvelle stratégie des Etats-Unis” (May 2002), http://www.diploweb.com ^[9]; Ivo H. Daalder and John M. Lindsay, America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2003), p. 13; Chalmers Johnson, “Sorrows of Empire” (November 2003), http://www.fpif.org ^[10]

14. Andrew J. Bacevich, American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002).

15. Julius Evola, Three Aspects of the Jewish Problem (N.P.: Thomkins & Cariou, 2003), p. 36.

16. Thomas W. Lippman, Madeleine Albright and the New American Diplomacy (Boulder: Westview Press, 2004). In his treatment of the subject, James Mann suggests (correctly, in my view) that the move to military assertiveness begins, haphazardly, with George I. See Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet (New York: Viking, 2004), pp. 179–97.

17. Phillipe Grasset, “Finalement, Clinton sera-t-il réélu?” (June 25, 2004), http://www.dedefensa.org ^[11]

18. Nikolai von Kreitor, “American Political Theology” (n.d.), http://foster.20megsfree.com ^[12]; Mann, Rise of the Vulcans, pp. 214–15.

19. Michael A. Weinstein, “Containment or Concessions: The Eclipse of Regime Change” (June 28, 2004), http://www.yellowtimes.org ^[13]; Hunt Tooley, “The Bipartisan War Machine” (September 17, 2003), http://www.mises.org ^[14]; Pierre M. Gallois, La sang du pêtrole: Bosnie (Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme, 1996).

20. Brendan O’Neill, “Beslan: The Real International Connection” (8 September 2004), http://www.spiked-online.com ^[15]; David Halberstam, War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton and the Generals (New York: Scribner, 2001).

21. Bacevich, American Empire, p. 199; Daalder and Lindsay, America Unbound, pp. 36–40.

22. Samir Amin, “Le contrôle militaire de la planète” (February 17, 2003), http://www.alternatives.ca ^[16]

23. “Globalization inevitably generates global terror. For if the U.S. claims the entire planet as its sphere of vital interests, then all the territory of the U.S. becomes a possible sphere of vital interests for global terrorists.” See Alexander Dugin, “Premiers signes de l’apocalypse” (October 18, 2004), http://www.voxnr.com ^[17]

24. Thomas Barnett and Henry Gaffney, “Operation Iraqi Freedom Could Be the First Step toward a Larger Goal: True Globalization,” Military Officer 1(5) (May 2003); also Thomas Barnett, The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the 21st Century (New York: Putnam, 2004). Cf. Alain Joxe, “Les enjeux stratégiques globaux après la guerre d’Iraq” (May 27, 2003), http:www.ehess.fr ^[17]

25. Naomi Klein, “Baghdad Year Zero: Pillaging Iraq in Pursuit of a Neocon Utopia,” Harper’s Bazaar (September 2004).

26. Charles A. Kupchan, “The End of the West,” The Atlantic Monthly (November 2002).

27. Europe’s growing alienation from the U.S. is thus not just about the latter’s unilateralist bullying. In addition to the above cited issues, it also touches on the drug-running, mafia, terrorist, and espionage networks that the U.S. operates in Europe. For example, see Rémi Kaufer, L’arme de la désinformation: Les multinationales américains en guerre contre l’Europe (Paris: Grasset, 1999); Xavier Rauffer, Le grand réveil des mafias (Paris: Lattés, 2003); Karl Richter, Tödliche Bedrohung USA: Waffen und Szenarien der globalen Herrschaft (Tübingen: Hohenrain Verlag, 2004); Alexander del Valle, Guerres contre l’Europe (Paris: Syrtes, 2001); Robert Steuckers, “Espionage par satellites, guerre cognitive, manipulation par les mafias” (November 2003), http://www.centrostudaruna.it; Thierry Meyssen, “Propagande états-unien” (January 2, 2003), http://www.reseauvoltaire.net ^[18]

Boreas Rising:
White Nationalism & the Geopolitics of the Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis, Part 3

A Promising Rapprochement

In the last instance, the US-European rift of 2002–2003 followed from the Cold War’s end, which destroyed the rationale for the transatlantic alliance and hence the restraints on European autonomy. For without the Red Army on the Elbe, Europe was no longer obliged to take orders from the West Wing. Because NATO has outlived its usefulness and Bush’s unipolar security system made no accommodation to Europe’s post-Cold War status, the more self-confident Europeans have begun to distance themselves from Washington.

However headline-capturing, their modest assertion of autonomy has nevertheless been carried out in ways that are thoroughly inadequate to Europe’s independence, based as they are on principles of jurisprudence and ethics, rather than on more consequential forms of power. In Robert Kagan’s now famous characterization, Europeans are from Venus and Americans from Mars, with the former acting as if the world were governed by abstract Kantian principles, ignorant of or unwilling to acknowledge the violent Hobbesian reality which Americans, especially after 9/11, have been forced to confront.[1] In other words, Europeans look to negotiations, diplomacy, and international law to resolve international disputes, while Americans emphasize the importance of military force. These differing “perspectives and psychologies of power,” the anti-white Kagan suggests, explain something of what divides the two shores of the Atlantic.[2] But perhaps more debilitating than Europe’s “Kantianism” (which will not last) is the fact that its increasingly autonomous foreign policy is less an expression of its political identity (although it is that) than a symptom of its liberal evasion of what such an identity ought to entail.

In France, for instance, which is the sole continental country to have defended the European idea in the last half century, as well as maintained a nuclear arsenal and professional army worthy of a “power,” opposition to US unilateralism has been framed largely in liberal internationalist terms that draw attention away from the state’s failed domestic policies. Since De Gaulle’s death, France has been in decline. The population is aging, millions of inassimilable Muslim immigrants are colonizing its lands, and virtually all the major institutions are in need of reform. Having eyes only for the “poor immigrant,” the metastasizing state bureaucracy imposes unrealistic social laws that hamper production and serve as a force for national decline. At the same time, the historical sources of nationalism have been dissolved, the native French dispirited by the institutionalization of multiculturalism, and the country’s extraordinary military and diplomatic apparatus, the necessary basis of both French and European power, if not neglected, then underfunded.[3] The hoopla that comes with France’s resistance to Bush simply focuses attention away from these failures and toward geopolitical developments that are potentially key to Europe’s future, but whose import is limited by the state’s misconceived domestic policies. As Julius Evola puts it: “The measure of freedom is power.”[4] And because Europeans are now uncomfortable with the exercise of power, their freedom is necessarily limited.

It is worth recalling that Jacques Chirac was responsible for the totalitarian mobilization against the presidential candidacy of the nationalist Jean Marie Le Pen in 2002.[5] Like much of the European governing class, he is a product of the same plutocratic system that subordinates national interests to international finance, indifferent to everything associated with his people’s blood and soil.[6] Such a system, as our own experiences reveal, is incapable of producing anything other than mediocrities. In this spirit, Chirac’s opposition to Washington’s unipolar order orients to a multipolar model based on liberal market principles hostile to Europe’s unique bioculture. As Guillaume Faye points out, Chirac’s opposition to the Iraq war was motivated less by his Gaullist nationalism (which he routinely betrays) than by his pacifist and Third World politics.[7] With the 2007 presidential elections in view, his foreign policy seems, in fact, aimed at the new Muslim electorate, which thrives on his anti-American, Third World, and multilateralist posturing.[8]

Faye also claims that American power is ultimately a reflex of Europe’s refusal of power.[9] Like many commentators, he stresses that US power in this period is greatly exaggerated and goes unchecked mainly for want of challengers. Revealingly, Chirac has, for all his opposition to Bush, done little to rearm Europe and what he does do he does for the worst of reasons, neglecting Grande Europe in the name of a legalistic idealism that contradicts the biocultural foundations of European life. Rather than fixating on the illegalities and incivilities of American unilateralism (which has proven to be a paper tiger in Iraq), he and other establishment leaders would make a greater contribution to Europe’s destiny if they devoted more attention to its military, restored the basis of its national identity, and addressed the real dangers coming from the South. Worse, they wholeheartedly subscribe to the American model of ethnopluralism, communitarianism, and multiculturalism. Just as US leaders think nothing of sending troops halfway around the world to fight a war whose immediate beneficiary is Israel, ignoring the more serious security threat posed by the Third World’s incessant assaults on the country’s southern border, European elites (and the demonstrators massed behind them) trumpet their solidarity with the Islamic Middle East, whose immigrants are presently rending the fabric of European life. There are good reasons for opposing Bush’s war, but the liberal ones motivating Chirac cannot but come back to haunt the continent.

Germany’s relationship with the US is significantly different than France’s, but no less infused with noxious anti-identitarian influences. Germany was virtually remade by the Americans after 1945 and throughout the Cold War remained subservient to them. Yet Germany is slowly beginning to throw off her tutelage. Schröder nevertheless adheres to values and policies that qualify as examples of Kagan’s Kantianism (i.e., pure liberalism). More than Chirac, he upholds Washington’s earlier liberal internationalism, criticizing Bush for violating its principles.[10] (As one journalist for the Süddeutsche Zeitung writes: “We [Germans] owe a great debt to the US for contributing to our transformation into truly democratic citizens after World War II. . . . They [Americans] must forgive us if we have difficulty letting go some of the lessons we have learned.”)[11] It was thus his pacifism—his Social Democratic opposition to power per se—rather than any geopolitical ambition for a powerful Europe that seems to have prompted his opposition to the Iraq war.[12] And in this, alas, he resembles much of the German population, which prefers bourgeois comforts to those virtues that made earlier generations great. Finally, Schröder, like Chirac, supports Turkey’s admission to the EU and panders to the new “German Turk” electorate. He might therefore have been the first German chancellor since Hitler to frontally oppose Washington, but he has no intention of letting the old anti-liberal dream of white renaissance out of the bag.[13]

Despite the mediocre stature of these politicians, which makes them ill-suited to the great tasks at hand, I would argue that the “force of things”—the realities of power and the dictates of survival—is greater than those charged with carrying them out.[14] This seems especially evident in Europe’s rapprochement with Russia. For as France and Germany become increasingly alienated from the US, they lean eastward—even though French and German elites have much more in common with their American than their Russian counterparts.[15]

A rapprochement between the three great European peoples promises great things. As Karl Haushofer once said: “The day when Germans, Frenchmen, and Russians unite will be the last day of Anglo-Saxon [i.e., liberal] hegemony.”[16] Bush—and this is why his administration seems destined to achieve world-historical significance—has brought about what a century of US geostrategists have sought to prevent. Conversely, it is hardly coincidental that even at the Cold War’s height, a wing of the French military looked to Russia as a possible ally. In 1955, the prominent geostrategist, Admiral Raoul Castex, published an article titled “Moscou, rempart de l’Occident?” (Moscow, rampart of the West?), in which he wondered if Russia might not one day become “the vanguard of the white world’s defense.”[17] Today, in a period when Grande Europe—from Dublin to Vladivostok—is at peace, white nationalists in Europe and America again pose Castex’s question and again affirm the possibility that Russia has a leading role to play in the white race’s defense. Indeed, the question now possesses a qualitatively greater weight than it did a half century ago, before the Third World hordes, abetted by the West’s liberal elites, began their colonization of our lands. Russia, moreover, is not just the last white nation on earth, but the only one to have shown the slightest interest in defending its ethnoracial identity. (Our russophobic nationalists might be reminded that the former Soviet Union was the sole white power to define nationality racially.) Its heritage of nationalism, socialism, and anti-liberalism also lends it something of that “Prussian socialism” which Spengler and Yockey saw as the one viable antidote to Western liberalism.[18] In courting Russian support in their conflict with the US, French and German elites might think Putin will be converted to their misconceived Kantianism, but in the great racial-civilizational battles that lie ahead, it is far more likely that Russia’s ethnonationalism will prevail.[19]

America’s Future

Since the rise to world power of the United States, white America has been in decline. For most of the twentieth century, but especially since the end of the Second World War, the country’s overlords have taken one step after another to de-Europeanize its white population. To this end, white culture and identity have been socially re-engineered. White communities, schools, and businesses have been forced to integrate with races previously considered inferior and inimical. And, for the last 40 years, whites have been expected to replace themselves with Third World immigrants. As the biocultural identity of white Americans gives way to a universal, transnational, and global one (the ideological analogue of the New World Order), they are further alienated from who they are.[20] Against this de-Europeanization and the postnational, multiracial regime succeeding it, the small, isolated pockets of white resistance confront a seemingly impossible task—similar to the one King Canute faced when he tried to hold back the ocean tide. Because of this, I would argue that only a catastrophe will save white America. Only a catastrophic collapse of the political, institutional, and cultural systems associated with imperial America—call it the managerial state, liberal democracy, corporate capitalism, the NWO, or whatever label you prefer—holds out any possibility that a small, racially conscious vanguard of white Americans will succeed in defending their people’s existence.[21] With the Iraq war, Bush—”this Buster Keaton of the apocalypse”—has opened a Pandora’s box of catastrophes. He, in fact, has done more to discredit, weaken, and vilify the existing systems of liberal subversion than any previous president, inadvertently creating conditions that should give white Americans another chance to regain control of their destiny. In this spirit, his administration acts as “a lightning rod for catastrophes.”  As one foreign observer notes: “The paradox of the present situation is that the worse the crisis becomes, the more Washington reinforces the position that evokes so much resistance.”[22] Indeed, his “war on terror creates more monsters than its destroys.”[23] Lacking the cognitive and normative tools to deal with a complex area like the Mideast, the president ends up managing the Iraqi occupation “by the seat of his pants.”[24] And as he does, the real dangers threatening the country are totally ignored: the dangers posed by the mestizo and Asiatic colonization of our lands, the growth of US Muslim communities, the denationalization of the economy and the looming fiscal crisis of the state, the Zionist domination of the political and information systems, the replacement of truth with propaganda and disinformation, the deculturation and miscegenation of our people, and the unrelenting assault on everything associated with the “freedoms” he allegedly defends in Mesopotamia. Instead of inaugurating a new era of unchallenged American power and enhancing national security, Bush seems set on preparing their demise.[25] Since the murderous terror of 9/11, his administration has shattered the myth of American military omnipotence, tarnished the country’s moral authority, alienated its allies, squandered its once formidable diplomatic powers, created the basis of an anti-US realignment, and undermined America’s image not only as a force for democracy and order, but as a secure economic haven. This latter tendency is now causing overseas investors to think twice about sending their capital to the US, which, combined with the ballooning expenses of the Iraq war, is hastening the dollar’s decline and the country’s economic deterioration. But more than undermining American power and prestige, the Bush administration has discredited the liberal civilizational model associated with the United States, provoking, in the process, a worldwide revulsion against the “American way of life.”[26]

The simple-minded, dishonorable, and raceless character of Bush’s government—riddled with Israeli spies and unsavory influence peddlers and premised on the belief that truth is irrelevant to its political calculus—seems to epitomize nothing so much as the debilitated state of our governing classes and their inability to serve as a nation-bearing stratum. That for the first time in American history Europe is not the focus of US strategic thinking, but rather Israel, should say it all.[27] It would be misleading, though, to think the failures at the highest level of state are simply the result of an unusually incompetent administration or its alien controllers. For even the “opposition” party produces candidates who are but variants of the reigning mediocrity.[28] This suggests that the system itself is bankrupt. Not coincidentally, the telltale signs of blockage, symptomatic of regimes heading toward the abyss (or “staying the course,” as George II says), appear now with increased frequency. The great bard of our decline, H. Millard, likens America to a runaway train. “The Israel firsters, neurotics, low IQ PTA types, political opportunists, easily susceptible dupes, genocidal blenders, party loyalists, war profiteers, and opportunists of various stripes” who are at the controls either have no idea of what they are doing or an unwillingness to profess it publicly.[29]

Contrary to the pipedreams of both our conservatives and liberals, there will be no going back.[30] Like the Soviet Union in the 1980s, the US has become bogged down in a protracted war at the very moment its economy is in steep decline. The slash-and-burn policies Bush has introduced will also be extremely difficult to retract, no matter who captures the White House in 2008. But even if there were a desire to retract them, the means are lacking. For example, in 1956, when Dwight Eisenhower warned France and England not to retake the Suez Canal, after Egypt nationalized it, he was able to threaten the stability of their national currencies. Today, the dollar is itself threatened.[31] For all the fabled shock and awe of US power in this period, the country is qualitatively weaker than it was a generation ago, when it was able to rein in the largest European empires. This erosion of its economic, diplomatic, moral, and even military power, combined with the near universal opposition to its increasingly unilateral and militaristic foreign policy, cannot but provoke a geopolitical realignment. The prospect of the Iraq war spreading to Iran and elsewhere will simply compound these destabilizing forces.[32] Increased conflict abroad, growing dissent at home, and deep division within the government itself are also likely to foster decisional paralysis, further exacerbating the crisis.

But however this crisis plays out, America and Europe seem set on a collision course.[33] Already wary of Washington, France and Germany (along with Spain, Belgium, and Italy, once Berlusconi goes) will eventually have no choice but to reposition themselves in opposition to it, for their strategic imperatives are increasingly at odds. This is certain to trigger new conflicts and new alignments, compelling Europeans to reaffirm their sovereignty—and their distinct strategic identity. As they do, their cooperation is bound to deepen and their nationalist consciousness to grow. At the same time, certain mentalities will be forced to change and certain taboos to fall, including the postmodern ones that leave Europe powerless. The collapse of the Cold War alliance system also throws open the strategic-political parameters of the international arena. The future, as a consequence, now holds out several possible alternatives. The Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis may still lack credibility, but this is probably less important than the effect it has had—and will continue to have—on the European spirit. It thus promises a possible renewal. The big question is whether or not Europeans have the will and acumen to realize it.

Fundamental to virtually all schools of geopolitical thought is the notion that the augmentation of power in one part of the world inevitably comes at the expense of another part. If the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis continues to affect the continent and shift power out of the Atlanticist camp, this cannot but destabilize the United States, for without its omnipotent dollar and its domination of global markets, it will no longer be able to consume more than it produces, to live on credit, to afford the social-welfare measures that buy off the Africans and tame the Mexicans, to sustain the social-engineering schemes discriminating against the talents and energies of its white majority, to afford the police, the drugs, the TVs, and the computer toys that narcotize its cretinized masses. The institutionalization of such an axis is also likely to dislodge America’s dominant place in the world system, setting off economic disruptions that will make it impossible for whites to live in the old way, to lose themselves in vacuous material comforts, to accept the lies that fly in the face of reality. Once this point is reached, European-Americans will be forced to act like people elsewhere who are suddenly thrown into a do-or-die situation.[34]

Like the “American Century” Henry Luce announced in 1941, the “New American Century” of Washington’s current generation of schemers and chiselers promises an even greater holocaust of our people. The future they envisage might indeed be called the New Anti-White Century. For like the order issuing from their Second World War, the one planned for the period following Iraq will not serve white America, only the alien, plutocratic, and cosmopolitan interests aligned in the current Washington-London-Tel Aviv axis.

No one should be surprised, then, that when the inevitable collapse comes, white America’s front fighters will not mourn the eclipse of the so-called American Century, for they are nationalists not in the nineteenth century sense. They do not fight for the petty-statism of the so-called “nation-state”—which is now made up of peoples from many different nations. The American, German, and French states—none of these entities any longer represent the descendants of those who founded them. As Sam Francis puts it, “the state has become the enemy of the nation.”[35] And as a thousand years of European history demonstrate, whenever the state and the nation come into conflict, the latter inevitably proves the stronger. I think it is no exaggeration to claim that only on the ruins of the existing political order will white America be reborn—and reborn not as another constitutional “nation-state” which elevates abstract rights above biocultural imperatives, but as a northern imperium of white peoples who, as Bismarck exhorted, “think with their blood.”

Those who would dismiss the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis as a temporary happenstance, a product of convenience, inflated with purely speculative significance, should be reminded that the 21st century will decide if white people have a future or not. From this perspective, collapse and realignment are necessities—and necessities have a way of engendering the imagination appropriate to them. For when the world’s population reaches ten billion, when China, India, and all Asia challenge the white man’s dominance, when the colored multitudes crossing our borders are magnified by ten or a hundred, when oil is depleted and raw materials are used up, when all the forests have been cut down and all the cultivable lands claimed, and—hopefully—when the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis has established an alternative realm of white existence, the ensuing chaos cannot but sunder whatever misbegotten allegiance white Americans have had to the present system. Then, in alliance with their kinsmen in Europe and Russia, they—if they are to survive as a people—will have no choice but to accept that they are made not in the multihued images of a deracinated humanity, but in that of the luminous Boreans, whose destiny opposes the darkening forces of Bush’s America.

Let us prepare for the coming collapse.

Notes

1. Robert Kagan, Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order (New York: Knopf, 2003), p. 3. Actually, the unreferenced metaphor originates with Denis MacShane, “Europe and America Need Each Other More Than Ever,” http://www.post-gazette.com ^[2]

2. Kagan, Of Paradise and Power, p. 28.

3. Guillaume Faye, La colonisation de l’Europe: Discours vrai sur l’immigration et l’Islam (Paris: L’Æncre, 2000); Nicolas Baverez, La France qui tombe (Paris: Perrin, 2004).

4. Julius Evola, Imperialismo pagano: Il fascismo dinanzi al pericolo euro-cristiano (Padua: Ar, 1996), p. 45.

5. Yves Daoudal, Le tour infernal: 21 avril–5 mai (Paris: Godefroy de Bouillon, 2003).

6. Yves-Marie Laulan, Jacques Chirac et le déclin français 1974–2002 (Paris: François-Xavier de Guilbert, 2001); Emmanuel Ratier, Le vrai visage de Jacques Chirac (Paris: Facta, 1995).

7. Faye, Le coup d’Etat mondial, p. 113.

8. Omer Taspinar, “Europe’s Muslim Streets,” Foreign Policy (March–April 2003).

9. As Schröder says: “Es gibt nicht zu viel Amerika, es gibt zu wenig Europa.” See “Die Krise, die Europa eint: Ein Gespräch mit Gerhard Schröder,” Die Zeit (14/2003). Cf. Philippe Grasset, “Le dilemme stratégique des U.S.A: Sa faiblesse militaire” (June 15, 2004), http://www.dedefensa.org

10. Günter Maschke, “Vereinigte Staaten sind die Macht der Unordnung,” Deutsche Stimme (June 2003).

11. Quoted in Richard Lambert, “Misunderstanding Each Other,” Foreign Affairs (March–April 2003).

12. Alexander Rar, “Europa ist Zerspaltet” (December 15, 2003), http://evrazia.org ^[3]

13. Edouard Husson, “Crise allemande, crise européenne?” (March 2003), http://www.diploweb.com ^[4]

14. As Joseph de Maistre said of the revolutionaries of 1789: “Ce ne sont point les hommes qui mènent la révolution, c’est la révolution qui emploie les hommes.” See Considérations sur la France (Lyon: Vitte, 1924), p. 7.

15. Maja Heidenreich, “Europa und Russland: Eine rückblickende und analysierende Darstellung” (n.d.), http://www.boschlektoren.de/ ^[5]

16. Quoted in Sacha Papovic, “De la dialectique géopolitique” (August 2003), http://www.voxnr.com.

17. Cited in “Russie-France-Allemagne” ( n.d.), http://www.paris-berlin-moscou.org ^[6]

18. Oswald Spengler, Preussentum und Sozialismus (Munich: Beck, 1919); K. R. Bolton, ed., Varange: The Life and Thoughts of Francis Parker Yockey (Paraparaumu, NZ: Renaissance Press, 1998), pp. 36–38. Also N. N. Alexeiev, “Raisons spirituelles de la civilisation eurasiste” (1998), http://www.voxnr.com ^[7]

19. W. Joseph Stoupe, “The Inevitability of a Eurasian Alliance” (August 17, 2004), http://atimes.com ^[8]

20. James Kurth, “The War and the West,” Orbis (Spring 2002).

21. Guillaume Faye, Avant-Guerre: Chronique d’un cataclysme annoncé (Paris: L’Æncre, 2002).

22. Philippe Grasset, “Comment Rumsfeld devient le garante de l’aventure irakienne” (May 11, 2004), http://www.dedefense.org ^[9]

23. François-Bernard Huyghe, Quatrième guerre mondiale: Faire mourir et faire croire (Paris: Rocher, 2004), p. 9.

24. D. Priest and T. E. Ricks, “Growing Pessimism on Iraq: Doubts Increase within U.S. Security Agencies,” The Washington Post, September 29, 2004.

25. Philippe Grasset, “La destruction méthodique de la puissance américaine” (September 27, 2004), http://www.dedefensa.org ^[10]; Guatam Adhikari, “The End of the Unipolar Myth,” International Herald Tribune, September 27, 2004.

26. Philippe Grasset, “Comment l’américainisme est en train d’apparaître pour ce qu’il est: un problème de civilisation” (September 1, 2004), http://www.dedefensa.org ^[10]

27. Brent Scowcroft, George I’s national security adviser, has publicly criticized George II for being “inordinately influenced by Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. ‘Sharon just has him wrapped around his little finger’, Scowcroft said. ‘I think the president is mesmerized.’“ See “Key GOP Figure Raps Bush on Mideast,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 17, 2004.

28. Ehsan Ahari, “How Bush, Kerry Are One and the Same” (September 2, 2004), http://www.latimes.com ^[11]

29. H. Millard, “Ridin’ the Runaway Train Named America” (2004), http://www.newnation.org ^[12]

30. Françoise Vergniolle de Chantal, “Les débats américains sur la relations transatlantiques” (2004), http://robert-schuman.org ^[13]

31. Ian Williams, “Deterring the Empire” (May 13, 2003), http://www.alternet.org ^[14]

32. David Wood, “U.S. to Sell Precision-Guided Bombs to Israel” (September 23, 2004), http://www.newhousesnews.com ^[15]

33. Ian Black, “The Transatlantic Drift,” The Guardian, September 20, 2004; Philippe Grasset, “L’UE: Une stratégie de rupture avec l’Amérique” (September 20, 2004), http://www.dedefensa.org ^[10]

34. Faye, Avant-Guerre.

35. Sam Francis, “When the State Is the Enemy of the Nation” (July 19, 2004), http://www.vdare.com ^[16] This is not to say that the state is inherently the enemy of the nation—only that this is the case with the existing liberal state. On the difference between statism and nationalism, see Walker Connor, Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994).

---

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

Pour un grand empire turkmène contre Staline

Wolfgang KAUFMANN:

Pour un grand empire turkmène contre Staline

 

L’historien allemand Jörg Hiltscher a analysé les plans secrets des Turcs pendant la seconde guerre mondiale

 

Au début du mois de juillet 1942, tout semblait accréditer que la Wehrmacht allemande courait à la victoire définitive: l’Afrika Korps de Rommel venait de prendre Tobrouk et se trouvait tout près d’El Alamein donc à 100 km à l’ouest du Canal de Suez; au même moment, les premières opérations de la grande offensive d’été sur le front de l’Est venaient de s’achever avec le succès escompté: la grande poussée en avant en direction des champs pétrolifères de Bakou pouvait commencer. Tout cela est bien connu.

 

Ce qui est moins connu en revanche est un fait pourtant bien patent: au moment où les Allemands amorçaient leur formidable “Vormarsch” de l’été 42, un autre déploiement de troupes de grande envergure avait lieu au Sud-Ouest des frontières géorgiennes et arméniennes. Sur l’ordre du chef de l’état-major de l’armée turque, Fevzi Çakmak, 43 divisions, totalisant 650.000 hommes, avançaient vers les régions orientales de l’Anatolie. Il ne s’agissait évidemment pas de défendre l’intégrité territoriale de la Turquie contre une attaque potentielle de Staline car celui-ci ne pouvait opposer, dans la région transcaucasienne, que 80.000 soldats (dont des bataillons féminins et des milices arméniennes).

 

Çakmak agissait surtout comme un militant des cercles panturquistes, qui rêvaient d’une alliance avec les forces de l’Axe victorieuses, surtout l’Allemagne et le Japon, pour réaliser leurs propres ambitions de devenir une grande puissance. Ces ambitieux étaient grandes, et même fort grandes, comme l’atteste une note des affaires étrangères de Berlin, rédigée après une conversation avec le panturquiste Nouri Pacha: “De tous les territoires jusqu’ici soviétiques, ils revendiquent en premier lieu l’Azerbaïdjan et le Daghestan située au nord de ce dernier; ensuite, ils réclament la Crimée, de même que toutes les régions situées entre la Volga et l’Oural”. Une revendication complémentaire concernait “le Turkestan, y compris la partie occidentale de l’ancien Turkestan oriental, appartenant officiellement à la Chine mais se trouvant actuellement sous influence soviétique”. En plus de tout cela, Nouri réclamait “les régions peuplées d’ethnies turcophones dans la partie nord-occidentale de l’Iran, jusqu’à la ville d’Hamadan et une bande territoriale frontalière dans le nord de la Perse, depuis la pointe sud-orientale de la Mer Caspienne le long de l’ancienne frontière soviétique”. Nouri n’oubliait pas non plus de revendiquer “la région irakienne de Kirkouk et Mossoul”, de même “qu’une bande territoriale située dans le protectorat français de Syrie”.

 

En tentant de créer un grand empire de cette ampleur, la Turquie se serait bien entendu placée entre toutes les chaises... D’une part, elle serait entrée en conflit avec l’Allemagne et avec le Japon, parce que Berlin et Tokyo briguaient certaines de ces régions. D’autre part, tout ce projet constituait une déclaration de guerre implicite à l’URSS et à la Grande-Bretagne. Pour cette raison, il s’est tout de suite formé à Ankara une forte opposition aux aventuriers panturquistes, regroupés autour de Çakmak et du Premier Ministre Refik Saydam, surtout que plusieurs indices laissaient accroire qu’ils préparaient un putsch pour s’emparer de tout le pouvoir.

 

Cette situation explique pourquoi Saydam, dans la nuit du 7 au 8 juillet 1942 a eu une soudaine et très mystérieuse “crise cardiaque”, qui le fit passer de vie à trépas, et que son ministre de l’intérieur et chef des services secrets, Fikri Tuzer, qui partageait la même idéologie, a connu le même sort, quelques jours plus tard. A la suite de ces deux “crises cardiaques” providentielles, le Président anglophile et neutraliste, Ismet Inönü, fut en mesure de chasser tous les autres panturquistes du cabinet et d’isoler Çakmak. Ensuite, Inönü annonça lui-même officiellement devant la grande assemblée nationale turque qu’il disposait des moyens nécessaires pour éliminer les orgueilleux qui nuisaient aux intérêts de la Turquie.

 

Ces événements sont étonnants à plus d’un égard: si les panturquistes avaient réussi leur coup, ils auraient peut-être pu changer le cours de la guerre car la Turquie, pendant l’été 1942, disposait d’une armée d’1,2 million d’hommes, et étaient par conséquent le poids qui aurait pu faire pencher la balance. Pourtant l’historiographie a généralement ignoré ces faits jusqu’ici;  ce qui est encore plus étonnant, c’est que Hitler n’a pas appris grand chose de cette lutte pour le pouvoir à Ankara. Le Führer du Troisième Reich n’a pas été correctement informé des vicissitudes de la politique turque parce que les quatorze (!) services de renseignement allemands qui s’occupaient de glaner des informations sur la Turquie se sont montrés totalement inefficaces.

 

Le travail de l’historien Jörg Hiltscher mérite dès lors un franc coup de chapeau. Sa thèse de doctorat est enfin publiée; elle concerne, comme nous venons de le voir, la politique intérieure et extérieure de la Turquie pendant la seconde guerre mondiale. Elle démontre aussi l’inefficacité de la direction nationale-socialiste face aux questions turques. La façon de travailler de Hiltscher mérite d’être évoquée dans cette recension: notre historien a fourni un effort sans pareil, lui qui travaille dans le secteur privé; il a dépouillé et exploité près de 200.000 documents, sans avoir jamais reçu le moindre centime d’une instance publique ou d’un quelconque autre mécène. Ce qui nous laisse aussi pantois, c’est la rigueur et l’acribie avec lesquelles il a dressé un synopsis du chaos que représentait les services de renseignements du Troisième Reich. Il est le seul à l’avoir fait jusqu’ici.

 

Face à l’intensité de ce travail, nous pouvons affirmer que le titre de la thèse de Hiltscher est un exemple d’école de modestie exagérée car jamais il ne dévoile à ses lecteurs le caractère inédit et unique de ses recherches. La retenue dont Hiltscher fait preuve contraste avec l’emphase dont font montre certains historiens universitaires fats, comme Peter Longerich, qui ressassent éternellement les mêmes banalités et puisent toujours aux mêmes sources (cf. “Junge Freiheit”, n°14/2011) mais vendent leurs recherches comme de formidables exploits scientifiques ouvrant des pistes nouvelles.

 

Wolfgang KAUFMANN.

(article paru dans “Junge Freiheit”, n°33/2011; http://www.jungefreiheit.de/ ).

La contesa geopolitica sino-statunitense

La contesa geopolitica sino – statunitense

Giacomo Giabellini

 

Ex: http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/ 

 

Che la prorompente ascesa di svariati paesi abbia assestato un duro colpo all’assetto mondiale incardinato sull’unipolarismo statunitense è un fatto che pochi oseranno contestare.

La resurrezione della Russia sotto l’autoritaria egida di Putin affiancata all’affermazione della Cina al rango di grande potenza costituiscono i due principali fattori destabilizzanti in grado di ridisegnare i rapporti di forza a livello internazionale.

 

Se la Russia, tuttavia, ha potuto contare sulla monumentale eredità sovietica, la Cina ha fatto registrare un progresso politico ed economico assolutamente straordinario.

 

Il lungimirante progetto di ristrutturazione messo a punto in passato da Deng Xiao Ping ha inoppugnabilmente svolto un ruolo cruciale nell’odierno riscatto cinese e tracciato un solco profondo entro il quale sono andati a collocarsi tutti i suoi successori, da Jang Zemin a Hu Jintao, passando per Jang Shangkun.

 

Come tutti i paesi soggetti a forte sviluppo economico, la Cina si trova a dover soddisfare una crescente seppur già esorbitante domanda di idrocarburi.

 

Per farlo, è costretta ad estendere la propria capacità di influenza ai paesi produttori Medio Oriente e a quelli dell’Africa orientale attraverso i territori dell’Asia centrale e le vie marittime che collegano il Golfo Persico al Mar Cinese Meridionale.

 

In vista di tale scopo, la diplomazia cinese ha escogitato una efficace strategia diplomatica imperniata sul principio della sussidiarietà internazionale e profuso enormi sforzi per dotarsi di un esercito capace di sostenere gli ambiziosi progetti egemonici ideati dal governo di Pechino.

 

L’Organizzazione per la Cooperazione di Shangai – che raggruppa Cina, Russia, Kazakistan, Kirghizistan, Tajikistan, e Uzbekistan e che annovera Iran, Pakistan, India e Mongolia in qualità di osservatori – patrocinata dalla Cina ha promosso una partnership strategica tra i paesi aderenti ad essa atta a favorire un’integrazione continentale in grado di far ricadere cospicui vantaggi su tutto l’insieme.

 

In aggiunta, va sottolineato il fatto che è in fase di consolidamento l’asse Mosca – Pechino nello scambio tra armamenti e petrolio.

 

La Cina acquista gran parte delle proprie forze militari dalla Russia dietro congrui conguagli e costituisce il primo cliente per il mercato bellico russo.

 

Caldeggia la realizzazione di una pipeline che attinga dai giacimenti russi e faccia approdare petrolio ai terminali cinesi, trovando però l’opposizione della Russia, incapace di far fronte tanto alla domanda cinese quanto a quella europea.

 

In compenso, Mosca sostiene la realizzazione del cosiddetto “gasdotto della pace”, un corridoio energetico finalizzato a far affluire il gas iraniano in territorio cinese attraverso Pakistan ed India, in grado di orientare gli idrocarburi iraniani verso est e consentendo in tal modo alla Russia di assestarsi su una posizione assolutamente dominante ed incontrastata sul solo mercato europeo.

 

Ruggini vecchie e nuove hanno impedito la rapida realizzazione dei progetti in questione portando il governo di Pechino ad individuare soluzioni alternative.

 

Non a caso, uno dei grandi scenari in cui si gioca attualmente la partita tra gli Stati Uniti in declino ma decisi a vender cara la pelle e la rampante Cina in piena ascesa economica è l’Africa, che grazie alle sue immense risorse di idrocarburi (e materie prime) costituisce l’oggetto del desiderio tanto dell’una quanto dell’altra potenza.

 

La Storia insegna sia che la scoperta di giacimenti di idrocarburi nelle regioni povere costituisce il reale movente dei conflitti che vedono regolarmente fazioni opposte combattere aspramente, quasi sempre a danno della popolazione, per garantirsene il controllo sia che dietro di esse si celano direttamente o indirettamente quelle grandi potenze interessate ad estendere la propria egemonia geopolitica.

 

Sudan, Nigeria, Congo, Angola, Yemen, Myanmar (l’elenco è sterminato).

 

La penetrazione di Pechino in Africa è proceduta gradualmente, ma il consolidamento di essa è stato reso possibile solo grazie ai passi da gigante fatti registrare dalla marina cinese.

 

Dietro suggerimento dell’influente ammiraglio Liu Huaqing, il governo di Pechino aveva infatti sostenuto il progetto riguardante l’adozione di sottomarini classe Kilo e di incrociatori classe Sovremenniy, oltre al potenziamento dei sistemi di intelligence e delle tecnologie militari necessarie a supportare una flotta efficiente ed attrezzata di tutto punto per fronteggiare qualsiasi tipo di minaccia.

 

Il Primo Ministro Hu Jintao e suoi assistenti di governo hanno inoltre potuto approfittare della risoluzione ONU di fine 2008 finalizzata alla repressione della pirateria del Corno d’Africa per insinuare la propria flotta fino al Golfo Persico e al largo del litorale di Aden, don licenza di sconfinare in aperto Mediterraneo attraverso il Canale di Suez.

 

La pirateria, ben supportata dal caos politico che governa la Somalia, in questi ultimi anni ha esteso consistentemente il proprio raggio d’azione arrivando a lambire le coste dell’Indonesia e di Taiwan ad est e del Madagascar a sud.

 

Ciò ha effettivamente sortito forti ripercussioni sui traffici marittimi internazionali, portando circa un terzo delle cinquemila imbarcazioni commerciali che transitavano annualmente per quella via a propendere per il doppiaggio del Capo di Buona Speranza pur di evitare di imboccare il Canale di Suez.

 

Ciò ha comportato un dispendio maggiore di denaro dovuto alla dilatazione dei tempi di trasporto e rafforzato le ragioni della permanenza della flotta cinese lungo le rotte fondamentali.

 

Tuttavia l’opera di contrasto alla pirateria – sui cui manovratori e membri effettivi ben poca luce è stata fatta – si colloca in un piano del tutto secondario nell’agenda cinese, interessata prioritariamente ad assumere il controllo delle rotte marittime fondamentali e dei paesi che si su di esse si affacciano.

 

Di fondamentale importanza a tale riguardo risultano gli stretti di Malacca e Singapore, specialmente in forza della quantità di petrolio che vi transita, ben tre volte superiore a quella che transita attraverso il Canale di Suez.

 

Circa quattro quinti dei cargo petroliferi provenienti dal Golfo Persico destinati alla Cina passa per lo Stretto di Malacca, mentre gran parte di quelli diretti al Giappone passano per quello di Singapore.

 

E’ interessante notare come, di converso, gli Stati Uniti e i loro alleati abbiano agito pesantemente per destabilizzare i paesi che costituiscono l’asse portante della strategia cinese.

 

La secessione del Sudan del Sud dal governo centrale di Khartoum ha minato l’integrità della Repubblica del Sudan privandola dell’area ricca di petrolio e compromettendone gran parte degli introiti legati alle esportazioni.

 

Nel fomentamento dei dissidi si è intravista la mano pesante di Israele, che per ammissione dello stesso ex direttore dello Shin Bet Avi Dichter aveva sostenuto attivamente le forze indipendentiste del sud.

 

Un’operazione atta a privilegiare le etnie e le tribù meridionali invise alla preponderanza araba del resto del paese, che segna una logica soluzione di continuità rispetto alla classica strategia antiaraba propugnata da Tel Aviv, interessata costantemente a stringere legami con i paesi regionali non arabi.

 

Gli Stati Uniti, dal canto loro, avevano rifornito di aiuti i paesi limitrofi al Sudan affinché sovesciassero il governo centrale di Khartoum fin dall’era Clinton, mentre attualmente si sono “limitati” a stanziare corpose iniezioni di denaro a contractors privati incaricati di addestrare le frange secessioniste.

 

La Cina era il principale sponsor del presidente sudanese Omar Hassan El Bashir, con il quale erano stati regolarmente barattati tecnologie, armamenti e infrastrutture in cambio di petrolio.

 

Un altro paese fortemente destabilizzato in relazione alla sua posizione strategicamente cruciale è lo Yemen, cui gli Stati Uniti hanno richiesto con insistenza la concessione dell’isola di Socotra per installarvi una base militare che, se unita alla Quinta Flotta stanziata nel vicino Bahrein, formerebbe la principale forza militare dell’intero Golfo Persico.

 

L’isola si situa a metà strada tra il Mar Rosso e l’Oceano Indiano ed occupa una posizione che coincide con il crocevia delle rotte commerciali che collegano il Mediterraneo, mediante il Canale di Suez, al Golfo di Aden e al Mar Cinese Meridionale.

 

Myanmar è stato invece oggetto di una vera e propria rivoluzione colorata, quella “color zafferano” che deve il suo nome al colore delle vesti indossate dai monaci buddhisti protagonisti delle rivolte antigovernative.

 

Non è un segreto che la giunta militare guidata dall’enigmatico generale Than Shwe si sia resa responsabile di efferatezze che la rendono difficilmente difendibile, ma siccome gli stati non hanno mai conformato il proprio operato alle tavole della legge morale non stupisce che il sostegno statunitense accordato alle frange rivoltose non abbia nulla a che vedere con la tutela dei diritti umani, ma risponda a ben precisi obiettivi geopolitici.

 

Il dominio degli stretti di Malacca e Singapore consente infatti di esercitare un controllo diretto sugli approvvigionamenti energetici destinati alla Cina.

 

La Cina ha però effettuato le proprie contromosse, fornendo il proprio appoggio politico all’isolato governo di Rangoon e raggiungendo con esso accordi commerciali e diplomatici di capitale importanza strategica.

 

Pechino ha rifornito la giunta militare al potere di armamenti e tecnologie militari, ha stanziato fondi sostanziosi per la costruzione di numerose infrastrutture come strade, ferrovie e ponti.

 

In cambio, ha ottenuto il diritto di sfruttare i ricchi giacimenti gasiferi presenti sui fondali delle acque territoriali ex birmane oltre a quello di dislocare le proprie truppe e di installare basi militari nel territorio del Myanmar.

 

Alla luce dei fatti, risulta che il Myanmar corrisponda a un segmento fondamentale del “filo di perle” concepito da Pechino, l’obiettivo strategico che prevede l’installazione di basi militari in tutti i paesi del sud – est asiatico che si affacciano sull’oceano indiano.

 

Tale obiettivo è oggettivamente favorito dall’evoluzione dei rapporti tra Pakistan e Stati Uniti, in evidente rotta di collisione.

 

Islamabad ha mal digerito tanto le accuse di connivenza con il terrorismo rivolte ai propri servizi segreti (ISI) quanto le sortite unilaterali compiute dai droni statunitensi in territorio pakistano e ha giocato sulla centralità mediatica di cui è stato oggetto il poco credibile blitz che avrebbe portato all’uccisione di Osama Bin Laden per esternare pubblicamente la propria ferma protesta nei confronti dell’atteggiamento di Washington, che ha a sua volta replicato aspramente per bocca del Segretario alla Difesa Robert Gates e poi  per il suo successore Leon Panetta.

 

Ciò ha spinto Pechino a scendere in campo al fianco del Pakistan, suscitando il plauso del Presidente Ali Zardari.

 

Tuttavia le relazioni tra Cina e Pakistan erano in fase di consolidamento da svariati mesi e hanno prodotto risultati letteralmente allettanti.

 

La realizzazione del porto sia civile che militare di Gwadar, dal quale è possibile dominare l’accesso al Golfo Persico,  è indubbiamente il più importante di essi.

 

Il progetto in questione comprende inoltre la costruzione di una raffineria e di una via di trasporto in grado di collegare lo Xinjiang al territorio pakistano.

 

Un valore aggiunto al porto di Gwadar  è già stato inoltre conferito dall’intesa raggiunta con Islamabad e il governo di Teheran relativa alla realizzazione di un corridoio energetico destinato a far approdare il gas iraniano ai terminali cinesi.

 

In tal modo  lo sbocco portuale di Gwadar promette di divenire una dei principali snodi commerciali per l’energia iraniana, attirando Teheran verso l’orbita cinese e consentendo quindi al governo di Pechino di inanellare un’ulteriore gemma alla propria “collana di perle”.

 

 

 

La chiara vocazione eurasiatica del progetto cinese ha ovviamente suscitato forti preoccupazioni presso Washington, che non mancherà di lastricare di mine la nuova “via della seta” finalizzata a compattare il Vicino e Medio Oriente all’Asia orientale e suscettibile di sortire forti contraccolpi sulla politica energetica europea, destinata a legarsi indissolubilmente alla Russia.

 

Indiolateinamerika und Eurasien: Die Säulen des neuen multipolaren Systems

Indiolateinamerika und Eurasien: Die Säulen des neuen multipolaren Systems

Tiberio GRAZIANI

Ex: http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/

Das US-Abenteuer in Georgien sowie die eklatante Wirtschafts- und Finanzkrise, die das westliche System derzeit heimsucht, zeigen, daß die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika an diesem Punkt in der Geschichte nicht in der Lage sind, die Führungsrolle zu übernehmen. Auf Grundlage beispielsweise der Dichotomien Ost—West, Nord—Süd, Mitte—Peripherie etc. scheinen keinerlei künftige geopolitische Szenarien von Bedeutung herauszuarbeiten zu sein. Betrachten wir die kontinentalen sowie multikontinentalen Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede der globalen Akteure, so zeigen sich uns die Säulen, auf denen ein neues internationales System für Indiolateinamerika und Eurasien ruhen kann.

Von der Regierungsunfähigkeit der USA

Die jüngste Diskussion um Georgien setzt dem Gerede um die sogenannten „unipolaren“ Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika und vor allen Dingen der Behauptung, diese hätten ein wirkungsvolles geopolitisches System — das heißt ein multipolares System — geschaffen, endlich ein Ende.

Dies sehen nicht nur die meisten jener Beobachter und Berichterstatter so, die — während sich der Niedergang der „unverzichtbaren Nation“ (so ein Syntagma der US-Außenministerin Madeleine Albright) vollzieht — im Zuge der Herbstkrise zwischen Moskau und Tiflis wiederholt eine neue Bipolarität beschworen und Formulierungen aus der Zeit des „kalten Krieges“ entstaubt haben. In Wahrheit sind wir von einem erneuten Aufleben des alten bipolaren Systems weit entfernt; die Nachkriegszeit von 1945 bis 1989 ist von einem ideologischen Widerstreit gekennzeichnet gewesen (nämlich zwischen den Antithesen Kapitalismus—Kommunismus und Totalitarismus—Demokratie), der nun aber nicht so sehr an den lymphatischen Knotenpunkten des bipolaren Gleichgewichtes aufgelöst, sondern vielmehr dadurch entschieden worden ist, daß die heutigen großen Nationen mit kontinentalen Ausmaßen, wie zum Beispiel China, Indien und Brasilien, die aufgrund ihrer wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung und dank des geopolitischen Bewußtseins, das sie unter ihrer jeweiligen politischen Führung rund ein Jahrzehnt lang kultiviert haben, gediehen sind und heute danach streben, auf der weltweiten Bühne in politischer, wirtschaftlicher und sozialer Hinsicht verantwortungsvolle Rollen zu übernehmen.

Wir müssen sogleich hinzufügen, daß das Ende der US-dominierten unipolaren Hegemonie keineswegs die militärische Vorherrschaft berührt, die Washington in weiten Teilen der Welt besitzt. Doch Washingtons Macht in geopolitischer Hinsicht ist heute geringer als noch vor einigen Jahren. Ich möchte allerdings darauf hinweisen, daß diese Hegemonie heute für die internationale Stabilität vielleicht noch gefährlicher ist, als dies in der Vergangenheit der Fall war, gerade weil sie wackelig und empfindlich ist und Washington und das Pentagon leicht aus dem Gleichgewicht geraten können, wie die georgische Krise ja auch gezeigt hat.

Die tiefe Strukturkrise der US-Wirtschaft^{1 [1]} hat nur dazu beigetragen, den Prozeß der Machteinbuße des „westlichen Systems“, der seit Mitte der 90er Jahre zu beobachten ist, zu beschleunigen. Mit den Auswirkungen, die dieser Prozeß auf die Vereinigten Staaten haben wird, auf die „einzige Weltmacht“, haben sich in den ersten Jahren unseres Jahrhunderts Autoren wie Chalmers Johnson^{2 [2]} und Emmanuel Todd^{3 [3]} in ihren jeweiligen Analysen befaßt; hierin zeigen die Verfasser auf, wohin dieser Prozeß bald führen wird und wie die Zersetzung des US-Systems vonstatten geht.

Johnson, ein profunder Kenner Asiens im allgemeinen und Japans im besonderen, meint, daß die USA in den Jahren 1999/2000 nicht in der Lage gewesen seien, ihre Beziehungen mit den Ländern Asiens souverän aufrechtzuerhalten, während man doch deutlich „die fortgesetzten Bemühungen ihres Landes, die ganze Welt zu beherrschen“^{4 [4]} verfolgen konnte. Zu den Veränderungen, die sich bereits sichtbar abzeichnen und die geopolitische Situation der nahen Zukunft erahnen lassen, zählt Johnson auch „Chinas zunehmende Orientierung am Vorbild der asiatischen Staaten mit hohem Wirtschaftswachstum“.^{5 [5]} Der gleiche Autor weiß von der mitleidslosen Analyse David P. Calleos zu berichten,^{6 [6]} der bereits im Jahre 1987 die Auflösung des internationalen Systems schilderte und die Ansicht vertrat, daß die Vereinigten Staaten am Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts eine „raubgierige Hegemonialmacht“ seien „mit wenig Sinn für Ausgewogenheit“.

Sowohl der Franzose Todd als auch der Amerikaner Johnson sind der Ansicht, daß die USA aufgrund der Kriege im Mittleren Osten und in Jugoslawien zu einem Unsicherheitsfaktor für das gesamte internationale System geworden sind; Todd zufolge wirken sich unter anderem die ökonomischen Verflechtungen der Vereinigten Staaten deutlich nachteilig aus, wie ja auch das negative Wirtschaftswachstum des letzten Jahrzehnts unzweifelhaft zeigt.

Einige Jahre später, im Januar 2005, wird ein so aufmerksamer und brillanter Beobachter wie Michael Lind von der New America Foundation („Stiftung Neues Amerika“) in einem wichtigen Artikel in der Financial Times argumentieren, daß einige eurasische Länder (in erster Linie China und Rußland) sowie Südamerika „in aller Stille“ Maßnahmen in die Wege leiten, die den nordamerikanischen Einfluß „verringern“ sollen.^{7 [7]}

Luca Lauriola hat sich dem erst kürzlich — 2007 — im wesentlichen angeschlossen;^{8 [8]} in den Worten Claudio Muttis: „Lauriola bringt einige Argumente vor, die man wie folgt zusammenfassen kann: 1.) Die USA stellen nicht mehr die große Weltmacht dar; 2.) die technologische Großmacht Rußland ist heute mächtiger, als die die USA es sind; 3.) die strategische Verständigung zwischen Rußland, China und Indien bietet eine geopolitische Alternative zu den USA; 4.) die USA stecken mitten in einer schweren Finanz- und Wirtschaftskrise, die den Auftakt zu einem veritablen Kollaps bildet; 5.) in dieser Lage steht die US-Macht so ‚einsam und verlassen‘ da, daß Moskau, Peking und Neu-Delhi versucht sein werden, Reaktionen zu provozieren, die zu globalen Katastrophen führen können; 6.) die Administration Bush schreitet beharrlich auf den Abgrund zu, während die Regierung der Welt vorgaukelt, alles sei in bester Ordnung; 7.) die Lebensbedingungen der Mehrzahl der US-Bürger sind mit denen in manchen Entwicklungsländern vergleichbar; 8.) das Bild, das sich uns heute von den USA bietet, ist keineswegs eine historische Ausnahme, vielmehr zeigt sich in der US-Geschichte eine klare Kontinuität (vom Völkermord an den native Americans bis zum Terrorismus, wie er in Vietnam praktiziert wurde); 9.) in den USA hält die gleiche messianische Lobby die politischen Zügel in Händen, die schon früher in der Sowjetunion die Nomenklatura gestellt hat.“^{9 [9]}

Aber warum steht die Supermacht USA nicht einmal mehr sagen wir zwanzig Jahre vor ihrem Kollaps? Warum soll ein globaler Akteur wie die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika nicht in der Lage sein, sich weiter an der Macht zu halten und seine offen verkündete „Neue Ordnung“, seine New Order, in demokratischer und liberaler Manier durchzusetzen?

Die Antworten auf diese Fragen sind im großen und ganzen nicht nur einfach in den Untersuchungen von Wirtschaftswissenschaftlern und/oder in politischen Widersprüchen des westlichen Systems zu finden. Sie sind meiner Meinung nach vielmehr in der Auslegung und Anwendung geopolitischer Lehrsätze durch die US-Macht zu suchen. Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika — eine thalassokratische Weltmacht — waren schon immer bestrebt, ihre Einflußsphäre auch auf den südamerikanischen Subkontinent auszudehnen. Es ist dies eine geopolitische Praxis, die ich bereits an anderer Stelle als „chaotisch“ bezeichnet habe;^{10 [10]} darunter ist eine Geopolitik der „fortwährenden Störung“ empfindlicher Territorien zu verstehen, um diese dem eigenen Einfluß zu unterstellen und sie schlußendlich dem eigenen Hoheitsgebiet einzuverleiben. Dieses Vorgehen zeugt allerdings von der Unfähigkeit, jene wahrhaft gegliederte internationale Ordnung zu verwirklichen, die diejenigen durchsetzen müssen, deren Trachten auf eine weltweite Führerrolle, eine globale leadership, gerichtet ist.

Zwei italienische Geopolitiker, Agostino Degli Espinosa (1904–1952) und Carlo Maria Santoro (1935–2002), haben in ganz verschiedenen Epochen und mit großem zeitlichen Abstand voneinander — der erste in den 1930ern, der zweite in den 1990ern — den USA übereinstimmend einen wichtigen Zug attestiert, nämlich die Unfähigkeit zu regieren und zu verwalten.

Vor vielen Jahrzehnten, im Jahre 1932, schrieb Agostino Degli Espinosa: „Amerika will gar nicht regieren, es will vielmehr auf die einfachste Art und Weise herrschen, die man sich denken kann, nämlich mittels der Dollar-Herrschaft“, und er fährt fort, „das bedeutet nicht nur, daß seine Gesetze oktroyiert und sein Wille durchgesetzt wird; sondern das bedeutet das Diktat eines Gesetzes, dem der Geist der Menschen oder der Völker in solcher Weise anhaftet, daß Regierende und Regierte ein spirituelle Einheit bilden.“^{11 [11]}

Carlo Maria Santoro hat vor über sechzig Jahren noch einmal unterstrichen, daß die US-Amerikaner sich die „maritime Macht […] überhaupt nicht ausmalen, ja nicht einmal konzeptionell vorstellen können, nicht Eroberung und Verwaltung noch die hierarchische Unterteilung, wie die großen Kontinentalreiche“ sie aufwiesen.^{12 [12]}

Die thalassokratische Besonderheit der USA, die Santoro hervorgehoben hat, und die Unfähigkeit zum Regieren, die schon Degli Espinosa so meisterhaft erläuterte, weisen deutlicher als jede andere Analyse auf den künftigen Niedergang amerikanischer Macht hin. In diesem Zusammenhang müssen natürlich weitere kritische Elemente bezüglich der Expansion des US-Imperialismus berücksichtigt werden: Militäreinsatz, öffentliche Ausgaben, geringe diplomatische Kompetenz.

Der historische Tag, an dem die Führungsunfähigkeit der USA offen zutage trete, sei nun gekommen, behauptete der französische Wirtschaftswissenschaftler Jacques Sapir jüngst. Dem Direktor der Hochschule École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS) zufolge habe sich bereits in der Krise von 1997 bis 1999 gezeigt, „que les États-Unis étaient incapables de maîtriser la libéralisation financière internationale qu’ils avaient suscitée et imposée à nombreux pays“^{13 [13]}. Sapir sieht in der Globalisierung selbstverständlich einen Aspekt der US-Expansion, denn er versteht die Anwendung der amerikanischen Politik im großen Maßstab als eine Politik der freiwilligen finanziellen und merkantilen Öffnung.^{14 [14]} Zu diesem Zeitpunkt, da nun das liberale US-amerikanische Süppchen mittels des Diktats des Internationalen Währungsfonds weiteren Patienten eingeflößt werden soll — obwohl dies doch schon in Indonesien mißlang und sich auch Kuala Lumpur nachdrücklich dagegen gewehrt hat —, unterstreicht Sapir, daß es Pekings verantwortungsvolle Wirtschaftspolitik ist, die die Stabilität im Fernen Osten garantiert.

Es sei hier festgehalten, daß die Beschleunigung des ökonomischen und politischen Schrumpfungsprozesses der USA (2007/08) in eine Zeit fällt, da die Führung der Nation nach wie vor in Händen einer Machtclique liegt, die sich auf die Ideen des neokonservativen think tank beruft. Die Neocons haben bekanntlich Washington in den letzten Jahren — spätestens seit 1998, dem Jahre des Beginns der „Revolution in Military Affairs“ — soweit wie möglich zu einer aggressiven und expansionistischen Außenpolitik gedrängt; es war dies eine Politik, die sich eng an die Prinzipien des Alten Testamentes (— der messianische Impuls bildet einen festen Bestandteil des US-Patriotismus wie auch eine Konstante des US-Nationalcharakters —) sowie an die trotzkistische Theorie von der „permanenten Revolution“ gehalten hat, wobei letztere allerdings eine besondere — nämlich konservative — Beugung hat hinnehmen müssen. Diese Theorie ist nicht nur gewissermaßen das theoretische Substrat der Strategie des permanent war, des „beständigen Krieges“, welche Vizepräsident Dick Cheney lanciert und welche die Bush-Administration im Laufe der letzten beiden Legislaturperioden (2000–08) so eifrig umgesetzt hat, weshalb in Washington die „Geopolitik des Chaos“ aufgeblüht ist.

 

Indiolateinamerika und Eurasien

Die USA empfinden sich von der Notwendigkeit der geostrategischen Ordnung (über die in Eurasien Rußland und China die Kontrolle ausüben, in der südamerikanischen Hemisphäre dagegen Brasilien, Argentinien sowie die Karibik) und einer grundlegenden Wirtschafts- und Finanzkrise eingeengt; sie scheinen verwirrt und schwanken einerseits zwischen einer Außenpolitik noch aggressiverer Art und mit noch mehr Muskelspiel als in der jüngsten Vergangenheit und andererseits einer realistischen Neueinschätzung ihrer eigenen globalen Rolle. Derweil werden sich die größten eurasischen Nationen — allen voran Rußland und China — und die wichtigsten südamerikanischen Nationen — Argentinien und Brasilien — ihres wirtschaftlichen, politischen und geostrategischen Potentials in immer stärkerem Maße bewußt.

Dies setzt voraus, daß politische Analytiker und Entscheidungsträger neue Paradigmen zur Anwendung bringen, um die Gegenwart zu interpretieren. Die Auslegungsschemata der Vergangenheit, die auf der Grundlage der Dichotomien Ost—West, Nord—Süd, Zentrum—Peripherie fußen, scheinen keine Gültigkeit mehr zu haben. Eine Analyse der Gegenwart wird von Nutzen sein, um alle notwendigen Elemente zu erfassen, um die geopolitischen Szenarien der Zukunft zu umreißen, um sich einer kontinentalen wie auch multipolaren Sichtweise zu befleißigen, um Bündnisse wie auch Spannungen zwischen den globalen Akteuren auszumachen; hier richten wir unsere Aufmerksamkeit auf die interkontinentalen Achsen zwischen beiden Hemisphären unseres Planeten.

Die BRIC-Achse (Brasilien, Rußland, Indien und China), die neue geoökonomische Achse zwischen Eurasien und Indiolateinamerika, ist mittlerweile eine wohldefinierte, attraktive Tatsache und wird in naher Zukunft verschiedene eurasische und südamerikanische Nationen verbinden. Wenn sich diese Achse nicht kurz- bis mittelfristig konsolidiert, wird der britische „westliche“ Traum von einer euroatlantischen Gemeinschaft, „von der Türkei bis Kalifornien“^{15 [15]}, weitergeträumt werden, und die Weltmacht USA — als Kopf der Triade Nordamerika, Europa und Japan — wird weiterhin herrschen.

Auf dem jüngsten Gipfeltreffen der Außenminister der BRIC-Staaten (im Mai 2008 in Jekaterinburg/Rußland) wurde die Absicht bekräftigt, die wirtschaftlichen und politischen Beziehungen zu den neuen aufstrebenden Ländern enger zu gestalten; in den USA faßte man dies als veritablen Affront auf. Man sollte das Treffen der „Großen Fünf“ (Brasilien, Indien, China, Mexiko und Südafrika) in Sapporo auch in Verbindung mit dem G8-Gipfel in Tōyako im Juli 2008 sehen.

Mit dem Amtsantritt von Ministerpräsident Wladimir Putin in Rußland im August 1999 begannen sich zwischen Rußland und einigen südamerikanischen Ländern dauerhafte wirtschaftliche Beziehungen anzubahnen, die in den letzten Jahren intensiviert wurden und eine gewisse politische Dimension angenommen haben.

China zeigte sein Interesse an Südamerika bereits im April 2001 mit dem historischen Besuch von Staatspräsident Jiang Zemin in mehreren südamerikanischen Nationen auf dem Subkontinent. China, stets auf der Suche nach Rohstoffen und Energieressourcen für die industrielle Entwicklung, ist der Auffassung, daß es in seinen bevorzugten und strategischen Partner-Staaten Brasilien, Venezuela und Chile erheblichen Investitionsbedarf gibt, damit die grundlegende Infrastruktur geschaffen werden kann (heute gibt es rund 400 bis 500 Handelsvereinbarungen zwischen Peking und den wichtigsten südamerikanischen Ländern einschließlich Mexikos).

Das Interesse Rußlands und Chinas an Südamerika wächst daher von Tag zu Tag. Die russische Gasprom (und mit ihr Eni)^{16 [16]} hat im September 2008 Verträge mit Venezuela über die Erforschung des Gebietes Blanquilla Est und der Karibikinsel La Tortuga, etwa 120 Kilometer nördlich von der Hafenstadt Puerto La Cruz (im Norden Venezuelas) gelegen, unterzeichnet, und Moskau hat einen Plan zur Schaffung eines Ölkonsortiums in Südamerika verabschiedet. Während der russische Mineralölkonzern Lukoil nach Gesprächen mit der Erdölgesellschaft Petróleos de Venezuela S. A. (PDVSA, auch „Petroven“) eine Punktation verfaßte, reiste ferner Staatspräsident Hugo Chávez im September 2008 nach Peking, um ein Dutzend Handelsabkommen über die Lieferung landwirtschaftlicher, technologischer und petrochemischer Erzeugnisse mit dem chinesischen Staatsoberhaupt Hu Jintao zu unterzeichnen; überdies verpflichtete sich Chávez, bis 2010 fünfhunderttausend Barrel Öl pro Tag zu liefern und hernach eine Million bis zum Jahre 2012.

Darüber hinaus sind Peking und Caracas nach intensiven Verhandlungen von Mai bis September 2008 übereingekommen, die notwendigen Voraussetzungen für die Errichtung einer im gemeinschaftlichen Besitz befindlichen Raffinerie in Venezuela zu schaffen und gemeinsam in China eine Flotte von vier gigantischen Öltankern zu bauen, um die erhöhten Öl-Lieferungen zu bewältigen.

Die Karibik und Südamerika scheinen nicht mehr zu sein als der „Hinterhof“ Washingtons. Washingtons Sorgen vergrößern sich angesichts Nikaraguas Anerkennung der Republiken Südossetien und Abchasien, angesichts Venezuelas Auftreten als Gastgeber für russische strategische Bomberpiloten auf Fernaufklärung und vor allem angesichts der Beschleunigung des Prozesses der südamerikanischen Integration durch das enge Bündnis zwischen Buenos Aires und Brasília. Die Beziehungen zwischen den beiden größten Ländern des amerikanischen Subkontinentes, Argentinien und Brasilien, haben es jüngst (Oktober 2008) gestattet, das Sistema de Pagos en Monedas Locales (SML)^{17 [17]} für den wirtschaftlich-kommerziellen Austausch ins Leben zu rufen. Die Umgehung des US-Dollars durch den SML ist ein erster echter Schritt in Richtung auf eine währungspolitische Integration in den Gemeinsamen Markt „Mercosur“ und der Beginn der Schaffung einer „regionalen Drehscheibe“, die wohl vor allem auf die im wirtschaftlich-kommerziellen Bereich bereits soliden Beziehungen zu Rußland und China wird bauen können, die sich in der unmittelbar nächsten Zeit prächtig entwickeln werden.

Washingtons Nervosität wächst noch angesichts von Pekings und Moskaus Ausweitung ihres Einflusses in Afrika und angesichts der Unterhaltung ihrer Beziehungen mit dem Iran und Syrien.

Aber so wichtig und notwendig solche ökonomischen, kommerziellen und politischen Vereinbarungen auch sein mögen, damit sich das neue multipolare System, dessen beide Säulen Eurasien im Nordosten und Indiolateinamerika im Südwesten sind, richtig entwickeln kann, müssen letztere unbedingt ihre Seeküsten kontrollieren und ihre (oft künstlich von Washington und London hervorgerufenen) internen Spannungen im Zaum halten, die ihre wahre Achillesferse darstellen.

China und Rußland sollten allerdings, wenn sie den USA gegenübertreten, beachten, daß die einstige Hypermacht derzeit zwar mit Sicherheit eine „verlorene“ Nation ist, sie aber immer noch ein geopolitisches Gebilde von kontinentalen Ausmaßen und Herrin ihrer eigenen Küsten ist und noch immer eine starke Flotte besitzt,^{18 [18]} die auf jedem Kriegsschauplatz des Planeten auftauchen kann; das heißt, es gilt vernünftige und ausgewogene Lösungen zu suchen, damit der Grad der Störungen auf globaler Ebene nicht noch zunimmt. Jüngst haben wir daran erinnert, daß Washington nun seine Vierte Flotte reaktiviert hat (bestehend aus elf Schiffen, einem Atom-U-Boot und einem Flugzeugträger), um in bedrohlicher Weise die Verpflichtung zu demonstrieren, die man für mittel- und südamerikanischen „Partner“ habe. Die furchteinflößende Macht, die die USA Eurasien und vor allem Rußland gegenüber zur Schau stellen, bildet den Ausgangspunkt für eine Politik der Integration oder der verstärkten Zusammenarbeit des Subkontinents mit Europa und Japan — auch mit China. In ebendiesem Zusammenhange müssen wir die neue Politik von Rußlands Präsident Dmitri A. Medwedew in bezug auf die Entwicklung der russischen Streitkräfte betrachten, insbesondere die Modernisierung der Marine.^{19 [19]} Obwohl wir im Zeitalter der sogenannten „Geopolitik des Raumes“ und der geostrategischen Raketenwaffen sowie der Strategischen Verteidigungsinitiative (SDI) leben, bilden doch Schiffe auf den Weltmeeren auch heute noch den Prüfstein der Macht, an dem globale Akteure ihre Strategien zu beweisen eingeladen sind; dies gilt noch mindestens das nächste Jahrzehnt hindurch sowohl für „Binnenmeere“ (Mittel- und Schwarzes sowie Karibisches Meer) als auch in den Ozeanen.

Um völlig zu verstehen, in wessen Händen in Übersee die Macht liegt und — nach dem Willen der USA — auch künftig liegen soll, täten Peking und Moskau gut daran, der Worte Henry Kissingers eingedenk zu sein, der vor Jahren schrieb:

„Geopolitisch betrachtet, ist Amerika eine Insel weitab der riesigen Landmasse Eurasiens, dessen Ressourcen und Bevölkerung die der Vereinigten Staaten bei weitem übertreffen. Und nach wie vor ist die Beherrschung einer der beiden Hauptsphären Eurasiens — Europas also und Asiens — durch eine einzige Macht eine gute Definition für die strategische Gefahr, der sich die Vereinigten Staaten einmal gegenübersehen könnten, gleichviel, ob unter den Bedingungen eines Kalten Krieges oder nicht. Denn ein solcher Zusammenschluß wäre imstande, die USA wirtschaftlich und letztlich auch militärisch zu überflügeln, eine Gefahr, der es selbst dann entgegenzutreten gälte, wenn die dominante Macht offenkundig freundlich gesinnt wäre. Sollten sich deren Absichten nämlich jemals ändern, dann stieße sie auf eine amerikanische Nation, deren Fähigkeit zu wirkungsvollem Widerstand sich erheblich vermindert hätte und die folglich immer weniger in der Lage wäre, die Ereignisse zu beeinflussen.“^{20 [20]}

Das zu Eurasien Gesagte gilt, nahezu perfekt gespiegelt, in gleicher Weise auch für Indiolateinamerika. Aus evidenten geostrategischen Gründen muß Indiolateinamerika — und das heißt derzeit Brasilien, Argentinien und Venezuela — die Spannungen niedrig halten, die die Instabilität einiger an die Andenkette angrenzenden Länder schüren;^{21 [21]} hier kommt Bolivien eine Vorrangstellung zu, das als Binnenstaat die Westküste des amerikanischen Subkontinents mit seinem Osten verbinden könnte. Brasília, Buenos Aires, Santiago de Chile und Caracas mußten nun gezwungenermaßen ihre politischen wie militärischen Beziehungen ankurbeln — unter der Vormundschaft der USA, wenn man so will — und haben dabei ihr besonderes Augenmerk auf den Ausbau ihrer Hochseeflotten, sowohl zivile wie militärische, gelegt. Die gegenwärtigen Entwicklungen scheinen Indiolateinamerika, dank des „fernen Freundes“ — der eurasischen Macht —, in die Hände zu spielen. Die gegenwärtigen Entwicklungen, das muß gesagt werden, nutzen auch Europa und Japan.

Für das Gleichgewicht des Planeten jedoch bleibt nur zu hoffen, daß die Macht der USA auf ein rechtes Maß zurückschrumpft und daß sich die Vereinigten Staaten danach keiner unbesonnenen Revanchestrategie verschreiben.

Aus dem Italienischen von D. A. R. Sokoll

1 ^[22] Die derzeitige Wirtschafts- und Finanzkrise geht nach Meinung einiger Experten, unter diesen Jacques Sapir, auf die drei Jahre 1997 bis 1999 zurück. (Jacques Sapir. Le Nouveau Siècle XXI.: Du siècle „américaine“ au retour des Nations. Paris: Seuil, 2008. S. 11.) Hier sei daran erinnert, daß die USA — in der Überzeugung, die „einzige Weltmacht“ (Zbigniew Brzezinski) zu sein — „[u]ngefähr von 1992 bis 1997 […] eine ideologische Kampagne [führten], die auf die Öffnung aller nationalen Märkte für den freien Welthandel und den ungehinderten Kapitalverkehr über nationale Grenzen hinweg abzielte“ (Chalmers Johnson Ein Imperium verfällt: Wann endet das Amerikanische Jahrhundert? übers. v. Thomas Pfeiffer u. Renate Weitbrecht. München: Karl-Blessing-Verlag, 2000. S. 269).

2 ^[23] Chalmers Johnson. Ein Imperium verfällt: Ist die Weltmacht USA am Ende? übers. v. Thomas Pfeiffer u. Renate Weitbrecht. München: Goldmann, 2001.

3 ^[24] Emmanuel Todd. Weltmacht USA: Ein Nachruf. übers. v. Ursel Schäfer u. Enrico Heinman. München: Piper, 2003.

4 ^[25] Johnson, a. a. O., S. 55.

5 ^[26] Johnson, a. a. O., S. 54.

6 ^[27] „Das internationale System zerbricht nicht nur, weil schwankende und aggressive neue Mächte versuchen, ihre Nachbarn zu dominieren, sondern auch weil zerfallende alte Mächte, statt sich anzupassen, versuchen, ihre ihnen aus den Händen gleitende Überlegenheit in eine ausbeuterische Vormachtstellung auszubauen.“ (David P. Calleo. Die Zukunft der westlichen Allianz: Die NATO nach dem Zeitalter der amerikanischen Hegemonie. übers. v. Helena C. Jadebeck. Stuttgart: Bonn Aktuell, 1989. S. 218.

7 ^[28] Michael Lind. „How the U.S. Became the World’s Dispensable Nation.“ In: Financial Times, 26. Januar 2005.

8 ^[29] Luca Lauriola. Scacco matto all’America e a Israele: Fine dell’ultimo Impero. Bari: Palomar, 2007.

9 ^[30] Claudio Mutti in seiner Rezension von: Lauriola, Scacco matto all’America e a Israele, a. a. O. — Veröffentlicht auf: www.eurasia.org, am 27. Januar 2008.

10 ^[31] Tiberio Graziani. „Geopolitica e diritto internazionale nell’epoca dell’occidentalizzazione del pianeta.“ In: Eurasia: Rivista di studi geopolitici, 4/2007, S. 7.

11 ^[32] Agostino Degli Espinosa. „Imperialismo USA.“ In: Augustea. Nr. 10. Rom/Mailand, 1932. S. 521.

12 ^[33] Carlo Maria Santoro. Studi di Geopolitica 1992–1994. Turin: G. Giappichelli, 1997. S. 84.

13 ^[34] Auf Deutsch: „daß die Vereinigten Staaten unfähig gewesen sind, mit der internationalen finanziellen Lossagung fertigzuwerden, zu denen sie unsere Länder selbst getrieben und die sie uns auferlegt haben“. — Sapir, a. a. O., S. 11 f.

14 ^[35] Ebd., S. 63 f.

15 ^[36] Mit diesen Worten hat Sergio Romano in zwei Briefen in der Tageszeitung Corriere della Sera die britische Anti-Europa-Politik kommentiert: „Das Ziel der Briten ist die Schaffung einer großen atlantischen Gemeinschaft, von der Türkei bis Kalifornien, und London mittendrin wäre natürlich der Dreh- und Angelpunkt.“ (Sergio Romano. „Perché è difficile fare l’Europa con la Gran Bretagna.“ In: Corriere della Sera, 12. Juni 2005. S. 39.)

16 ^[37] Das Akronym steht für Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi und bezeichnet den Erdöl- und Energiekonzern, der das größte Wirtschaftsunternehmen Italiens darstellt. 1999 hat Eni mit Gasprom eine Vereinbarung über den Bau der Blue-Stream-Pipeline unterzeichnet, die Rußland über das Schwarze Meer mit der Türkei verbindet. — Anm. d. Übers.

17 ^[38] Zahlungssystem in lokaler Währung. Zwischenstaatliche Geschäfte werden direkt in Brasilianischen Reais und Argentinischen Pesos abgerechnet, ohne Umweg über die Weltwährung Dollar. — Anm. d. Übers.

18 ^[39] Alessandro Lattanzio weist darauf hin, daß „die US-Marine vor zehn Jahren noch vierzehn Flugzeugträger sowie Trägerkampfgruppen gehabt hatte. Jetzt besitzt sie auf dem Papier noch zehn [Flugzeugträger], aber nur fünf, sechs stehen im Einsatz“. (Alessandro Lattanzio. „La guerra è finita?“ Vortrag anläßlich des FestivalStoria zu Turin am 16. Oktober 2008.)

19 ^[40] Alessandro Lattanzio. „Il rilancio navale della Russia.“ In: www.eurasia-rivista.org (Stand: 1. Oktober 2008).

20 ^[41] Henry A. Kissinger. Die Vernunft der Nationen: Über das Wesen der Außenpolitik. übers. v. Matthias Vogel u. a. Berlin: Siedler, 1994. S. 904.

21 ^[42] Bekanntlich haben Analysten Südamerika in zwei Bogenbereiche untergliedert: einerseits den Andenbogen, bestehend aus Venezuela, Kolumbien, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivien, Paraguay, und andererseits den Atlantikbogen, bestehend aus Brasilien, Uruguay, Argentinien und Chile.

Mediterraneo e Asia Centrale: le cerniere dell'Eurasia

Mediterraneo e Asia Centrale: le cerniere dell’Eurasia

Tiberio GRAZIANI

Ex: http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/

 La transizione dal sistema unipolare a quello multipolare genera tensioni in due particolari aree della massa eurasiatica: il Mediterraneo e l’Asia Centrale. Il processo di consolidamento del policentrismo sembra subire una impasse causata dall’atteggiamento “regionalista” assunto dalle potenze eurasiatiche. L’individuazione di un unico grande spazio mediterraneo-centroasiatico, quale funzionale cerniera della massa euroafroasiatica, fornirebbe elementi operativi all’integrazione eurasiatica.

Nel processo di transizione tra il momento unipolare e il nuovo sistema policentrico si osserva che le tensioni geopolitiche si scaricano principalmente su aree a forte valenza strategica. Tra queste, il bacino mediterraneo e l’Asia Centrale, vere e proprie cerniere dell’articolazione euroafroasiatica, hanno assunto, a partire dal primo marzo del 2003, un particolare interesse nell’ambito dell’analisi geopolitica riguardante i rapporti tra gli USA, le maggiori nazioni eurasiatiche e i Paesi del Nord Africa. Quel giorno, si ricorderà, il parlamento della Turchia, vale a dire il parlamento della nazione-ponte per eccellenza tra le repubbliche centroasiatiche e il Mediterraneo, decise di negare l’appoggio richiesto dagli USA per la guerra in Iràq¹. Questo fatto, lungi dal costituire solamente un elemento di negoziazione tra Washington e Ankara, come in un primo momento poteva apparire (e certamente lo fu anche, a causa di due elementi contrastanti: la fedeltà turca all’alleato nordamericano e la preoccupazione di Ankara per l’effetto che l’ipotizzata creazione di un Kurdistan, nell’ambito dell’allora probabile progetto d tripartizione dell’Iràq, avrebbe avuto sulla irrisolta “questione curda” ), stabilì tuttavia l’inizio di una inversione di tendenza della cinquantennale politica estera turca². Da allora, con un crescendo continuo fino ai nostri giorni, la Turchia, tramite soprattutto l’avvicinamento alla Russia (facilitata dalla scarsa propensione dell’Unione Europea ad includere Ankara nel proprio ambito) e la sua nuova politica di buon vicinato, ha cercato di praticare una sorta di smarcamento dalla tutela statunitense, rendendo di fatto scarsamente affidabile un tassello fondamentale per la penetrazione nordamericana nella massa eurasiatica. Oltre gli ostacoli costituiti dall’Iràn e dalla Siria, gli strateghi di Washington e del Pentagono devono oggi tener conto infatti anche della nuova e poco malleabile Turchia.

Il mutamento di condotta della Turchia è avvenuto nel contesto della più generale e complessa trasformazione dello scenario eurasiatico, tra i cui elementi caratterizzanti sono da registrare la riaffermazione della Russia su scala continentale e globale, la potente emersione della Cina e dell’India nell’ambito geoeconomico e finanziario e, per quanto concerne la potenza statunitense, il suo logoramento sul piano militare in Afghanistan e in Iràq.

Quello che, a far data dal crollo del muro di Berlino e dal collasso sovietico, sembrava apparire come l’avanzamento inarrestabile della “Nazione necessaria” verso il centro della massa continentale eurasiatica, seguendo le due seguenti predeterminate direttrici di marcia:

 - una, procedente dall’Europa continentale, volta all’inclusione, a colpi di “rivoluzioni colorate”, nella propria sfera d’influenza dell’ex “estero vicino” sovietico, prontamente ribattezzato la “Nuova Europa”, secondo la definizione di Rumsfeld, e destinata strategicamente, nel tempo, a “premere” contro una Russia ormai allo stremo;

- l’altra, costituita dalla lunga strada che dal Mediterraneo si protrae verso le nuove repubbliche centroasiatiche, volta a tagliare in due la massa euroafroasiatica e a creare un permanente vulnus geopolitico nel cuore dell’Eurasia;

si era arrestato nel volgere di pochi anni nel pantano afgano.

Falliti gli ultimi tentativi di “rivoluzioni colorate” e sommovimenti telediretti da Washington nel Caucaso e nelle Repubbliche centroasiatiche, rispettivamente a causa della fermezza di Mosca e delle congiunte politiche eurasiatiche di Cina e Russia, messe in atto, tra l’altro, attraverso la Organizzazione della Conferenza di Shanghai (OCS), la Comunità economica eurasiatica e il consolidamento di relazioni di amicizia e cooperazione militare, gli USA al termine del primo decennio del nuovo secolo dovevano riformulare le proprie strategie eurasiatiche.

 

La prassi egemonica atlantica

 

L’assunzione del paradigma geopolitico proprio al sistema occidentale a guida statunitense, articolato sulla dicotomia Stati Uniti versus Eurasia e sul concetto di “pericolo strategico”³, induce gli analisti che lo praticano a privilegiare gli aspetti critici delle varie aree bersaglio degli interessi atlantici. Tali aspetti sono costituiti comunemente dalle tensioni endogene dovute in particolare a problematiche interetniche, disequilibri sociali, disomogeneità religiosa e culturale⁴, frizioni geopolitiche. Le soluzioni approntate riguardano un ventaglio di interventi che spaziano dal ruolo degli USA e dei loro alleati nella “ricostruzione” degli “stati falliti” (Failed States) secondo modalità diversificate (tutte comunque miranti a diffondere i “valori occidentali” della democrazia e della libera iniziativa, senza tenere in alcun conto le peculiarità e le tradizioni culturali locali), fino all’intervento militare diretto. Quest’ultimo viene giustificato, a seconda delle occasioni, come una risposta necessaria per la difesa degli interessi statunitensi e del cosiddetto ordine internazionale oppure, nel caso specifico degli stati o governi che l’Occidente ha valutato, preventivamente e significativamente, in accordo alle regole del soft power, “canaglia”, quale estremo rimedio per la difesa delle popolazioni e la salvaguardia dei diritti umani⁵.

Considerando che la prospettiva geopolitica statunitense è tipicamente quella di una potenza talassica, che interpreta il rapporto con le altre nazioni o entità geopolitiche muovendo dalla propria condizione di “isola”⁶, essa identifica il bacino mediterraneo e l’area centroasiatica come due zone caratterizzate da una forte instabilità. Le due aree rientrerebbero nell’ambito dei cosiddetti archi di instabilità come definiti da Zbigniew Brzezinski. L’arco di instabilità o di crisi costituisce, come noto, una evoluzione ed un ampliamento del concetto geostrategico di rimland (margine marittimo e costiero) messo a punto da Nicholas J. Spykman⁷. Il controllo del rimland avrebbe permesso, nel contesto del sistema bipolare, il controllo della massa eurasiatica e dunque il contenimento della sua maggiore nazione, l’Unione Sovietica, ad esclusivo beneficio della “isola nordamericana”.

Nel nuovo contesto unipolare, la geopolitica statunitense ha definito come Grande Medio Oriente la lunga e larga fascia che dal Marocco giunge fino all’Asia Centrale, una fascia che andava secondo Washington “pacificata” in quanto costituiva una ampio arco di crisi, a causa delle conflittualità generate dalle disomogeneità sopra descritte. Tale impostazione, veicolata dagli studi di Samuel Huntington e dalle analisi di Zigbniew Brzezinski, spiega abbondantemente la prassi seguita dagli USA al fine di aprirsi un varco nella massa continentale eurasiatica e da lì premere sullo spazio russo per assumere l’egemonia mondiale. Tuttavia alcuni fattori “imprevisti” quali la “ripresa” della Russia, la politica eurasiatica condotta da Putin in Asia Centrale, le nuove intese tra Mosca e Pechino, nonché l’emersione della nuova Turchia (fattori che messi in relazione alle relative e contemporanee “emancipazioni” di alcuni paesi dell’America Meridionale delineano uno scenario multipolare o policentrico) hanno influito sulla ridefinizione dell’area come un Nuovo Medio Oriente. Tale evoluzione, emblematicamente, venne resa ufficiale nel corso della guerra israelo-libanese del 2006. In quell’occasione, l’allora segretario di Stato Condoleeza Rice ebbe a dire: «Non vedo l’interesse della diplomazia se è per ritornare alla situazione precedente tra Israele ed il Libano. Penso sarebbe un errore. Ciò che vediamo qui, in un certo modo, è l’inizio, sono le doglie di un nuovo Medio Oriente e qualunque cosa noi facciamo, dobbiamo essere certi che esso sia indirizzato verso il nuovo Medio Oriente per non tornare al vecchio»⁸. La nuova definizione era ovviamente programmatica; mirava infatti alla riaffermazione del partenariato strategico con Tel Aviv ed alla frantumazione – indebolimento dell’area vicino e medio orientale nel quadro di quello che alcuni giorni dopo la dichiarazione di Condoleeza Rice venne precisato dal primo ministro israeliano Olmert essere il “New Order” in “Medio Oriente”. Parimenti programmatico era il sintagma “Balcani eurasiatici” coniato da Brzezinski in riferimento all’area centroasiatica, giacché utile alla formulazione di una prassi geostrategica che, attraverso la destabilizzazione dell’Asia Centrale sulla base delle tensioni endogene, aveva (ed ha) lo scopo di rendere problematica la potenziale saldatura geopolitica tra Cina e Russia.

Negli anni che vanno dal 2006 alla operazione “Odyssey Dawn” contro la Libia (2011), gli USA, nonostante la retorica inaugurata dal 2009 dal nuovo inquilino della Casa Bianca, hanno di fatto perseguito una strategia mirante alla militarizzazione dell’intera striscia compresa tra il Mediterraneo e l’Asia Centrale. In particolare, gli USA hanno messo in campo, nel 2008, il dispositivo militare per l’Africa, l’Africom, attualmente (aprile 20011) impegnato nella “crisi” libica, finalizzato al radicamento della presenza statunitense in Africa in termini di controllo e di pronto intervento nel continente africano, ma anche puntato nella direzione del “nuovo” Medio Oriente e dell’Asia Centrale. In sintesi, la strategia statunitense consiste nella militarizzazione della fascia mediterranea-centroasiatica. Gli scopi principali sono:

1. creare un cuneo tra l’Europa meridionale e l’Africa settentrionale;

2. assicurare a Washington il controllo militare dell’Africa settentrionale e del Vicino Oriente (utilizzando anche la base di Camp Bondsteel presente nel Kosovo i Metohija), con una particolare attenzione all’area costituita da Turchia, Siria e Iràn;

3. “tagliare” in due la massa eurasiatica;

4. allargare il cosiddetto arco di crisi nell’Asia Centrale.

Nell’ambito del primo e del secondo obiettivo, l’interesse di Washington si è rivolto principalmente verso l’Italia e la Turchia. I due paesi mediterranei, per motivi diversi (ragioni eminentemente di politica industriale ed energetica per l’Italia, ragioni più propriamente geopolitiche per Ankara, desiderosa di ricoprire un ruolo regionale di primo livello, peraltro in diretta competizione con Israele) hanno negli ultimi anni tessuto rapporti internazionali che, in prospettiva, poiché forti delle relazioni con Mosca, potevano (e possono) fornire leve utili per una potenziale exit strategy turco-italiana dalla sfera di influenza nordamericana. Il tentativo oggettivo di aumentare i propri gradi di libertà nell’agone internazionale operati da Roma e Ankara cozzavano contro non solo gli interessi generali di natura geopolitica di Washington e Londra, ma anche contro quelli più “provinciali” dell’Union méditerranéenne di Sarkozy.

 

Il multipolarismo tra prospettiva regionalista e eurasiatica

 

La prassi applicata dal sistema occidentale guidato dagli USA volta, come sopra descritto, ad ampliare le crisi in Eurasia e nel Mediterraneo al fine non della loro stabilizzazione, bensì del mantenimento della propria egemonia, mediante militarizzazione dei rapporti internazionali e coinvolgimento degli attori locali, oltre ad individuare altri futuri e probabili bersagli (Iràn, Siria, Turchia) utili al radicamento statunitense in Eurasia, pone alcune riflessioni in merito allo “stato di salute” degli USA e alla strutturazione del sistema multipolare.

Ad una analisi meno superficiale, l’aggressione alla Libia di USA, Gran Bretagna e Francia, non è affatto un caso sporadico, ma un sintomo della difficoltà di Washington di operare in maniera diplomatica e con senso di responsabilità, quale un attore globale dovrebbe avere. Esso evidenzia il carattere di rapacità tipico delle potenze in declino. Il politologo ed economista statunitense David. P. Calleo, critico della “follia unipolare” e studioso del declino degli USA, osservava nel lontano 1987 che «…le potenze in via di declino, anziché regolarsi e adattarsi, cercano di cementare il proprio barcollante predominio trasformandolo in un’egemonia rapace»¹⁰. Luca Lauriola nel suo Scacco matto all’America e a Israele. Fine dell’ultimo Impero¹¹, sostiene, a ragione, che le potenze eurasiatiche, Russia, Cina e India trattano la potenza d’oltreatlantico, ormai “smarrita e impazzita”, in modo da non suscitare reazioni che potrebbero generare catastrofi planetarie.

Per quanto invece riguarda il processo di strutturazione del sistema multipolare, occorre rilevare che quest’ultimo avanza lentamente, non a causa delle recenti azioni statunitensi in Africa Settentrionale, ma piuttosto per l’atteggiamento “regionalista” assunto dagli attori eurasiatici (Turchia, Russia e Cina), i quali stimando il Mediterraneo e l’Asia Centrale solo in funzione dei propri interessi nazionali, non riescono a cogliere il significato geostrategico che queste aree svolgono nel più ampio scenario conflittuale tra interessi geopolitici extracontinentali (statunitensi) ed eurasiatici. La riscoperta di un unico grande spazio mediterraneo-centroasiatico, evidenziando il ruolo di “cerniera” che esso assume nell’articolazione euroafroasiatica, fornirebbe elementi operativi per superare l’ impasse “regionalista” che subisce il processo di transizione unipolare-multipolare.

 * Tiberio Graziani è direttore di “Eurasia” e presidente dell’IsAG.

¹ Elena Mazzeo, “La Turchia tra Europa e Asia”, “Eurasia. Rivista di Studi Geopolitici”, a. VIII, n.1 2011.

² La Turchia aderisce al Patto Nato il 18 febbraio 1952.

³ «Geopoliticamente l’America è un’isola al largo del grande continente eurasiatico. Il predominio da parte di una sola potenza di una delle due sfere principali dell’Eurasia — Europa o Asia — costituisce una buona definizione di pericolo strategico per gli Stati Uniti, una guerra fredda o meno. Quel pericolo dovrebbe essere sventato anche se quella potenza non mostrasse intenzioni aggressive, poiché, se queste dovessero diventare tali in seguito, l’America si troverebbe con una capacità di resistenza efficace molto diminuita e una incapacità crescente di condizionare gli avvenimenti», Henry Kissinger, L’arte della diplomazia, Sperling & Kupfer Editori, Milano 2006, pp.634–635.

«Eurasia is the world’s axial supercontinent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world’s three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard, it no longer suffices to fashion one policy for Europe and another for Asia. What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America’s global primacy and historical legacy.» Zbigniew Brzezinski, “A Geostrategy for Eurasia,” Foreign Affairs, 76:5, September/October 1997.

⁴ Enrico Galoppini, Islamofobia, Edizioni all’insegna del Veltro, Parma 2008.

⁵ Jean Bricmont, Impérialisme humanitaire. Droits de l’homme, droit d’ingérence, droit du plus fort?, Éditions Aden, Bruxelles 2005; Danilo Zolo, Chi dice umanità. Guerra, diritto e ordine globale, Einaudi, Torino 2000; Danilo Zolo, Terrorismo umanitario. Dalla guerra del Golfo alla strage di Gaza, Diabasis, Reggio Emilia 2009.

⁶ «Un tipico descrittore geopolitico è la visione degli USA come una “isola”, non troppo diversa geopoliticamente dall’Inghilterra e dal Giappone. Tale definizione esalta la loro tradizione di commercio marittimo ed interventi militari oltremare e, ovviamente, di sicurezza basata sulla distanza e l’isolamento.» Phil Kelly, “Geopolitica degli Stati Uniti d’America”, “Eurasia. Rivista di Studi Geopolitici”, a. VII, n.3 2010.

⁷ Nicholas Spykman, America’s Strategy in World Politics: The United States and the Balance of Power, Harcourt Brace, New York 1942.

⁸ «But I have no interest in diplomacy for the sake of returning Lebanon and Israel to the status quo ante. I think it would be a mistake. What we’re seeing here, in a sense, is the growing — the birth pangs of a new Middle East and whatever we do we have to be certain that we’re pushing forward to the new Middle East not going back to the old one», Special Briefing on Travel to the Middle East and Europe, US, Department of State, 21 luglio 2006

⁹ Tiberio Graziani, “U.S. strategy in Eurasia and drug production in Afghanistan”, Mosca , 9-10 giugno 2010 (http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/4670/u-s-strategy-in-eurasia-and-drug-production-in-afghanistan )

¹⁰ David P. Calleo, Beyond American Hegemony: The future of the Western Alliance, New York 1987, p. 142.

¹¹ Luca Lauriola, Scacco matto all’America e a Israele. Fine dell’ultimo Impero, Palomar, Bari 2007.

---

Article printed from eurasia-rivista.org: http://www.eurasia-rivista.org

URL to article: http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/mediterraneo-e-asia-centrale-le-cerniere-delleurasia/9539/