Ok

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

mardi, 25 juin 2013

Выпуск XIX. Индия

Выпуск XIX. Индия

 

 

Раджа Мохан
Новая внешняя политика Индии
 
Леонид Савин
Идеология и стратегия
 
Шаши Тхарур
Глобальный индиец
 
Родни В. Джоунс
Тема войны и мира
в индийской стратегической культуре
 
Смрути С. Паттанаик
Индия и Пакистан: на пути к мирному процессу 
 
Фрэнсис Корнигэй
Индия, Южная Африка
и уравнение IBSA-BRICS 2013
 
Табасум Фирдоус
Инициативы Индии в Центральной и Южной Азии:
проблемы и перспективы
 
Мохаммад Самир Хуссейн
Проблемы безопасности в Центральной Азии
и роль Индии
 
Адит Чарли
Ответ Индии на арабскую весну
 
Харш Пант, Джулия Супер
Балансирующие конкуренты:
Индия между Ираном и США
 
Герард О’Туатайл
Геополитические условия постмодерна:
государства, государственное управление и безопасность 
в новом тысячелетии
 
Николай Малишевский
Политическая картография
 
Рецензии
Сведения об авторах

Файл в формате pdf: 

jeudi, 13 juin 2013

Europe, Globalization and Metapolitics

 

Robert Steuckers:

Europe, Globalization and Metapolitics

Questions by Leonid Savin (April/May 2013)

Ex: http://www.geopolitca.ru/

Mr. Steuckers, we would like to start our interview by describing the current situation in the EU, especially in its North-West region. What could you tell us about it?

 
The situation in the Benelux-countries is what I could call a blind alley: the Netherlands, as a multicultural state —now with a majority of Catholics since only a couple of decades, a strong minority of Protestants including the Calvinists, who gave the nation its very birth in the 16th and 17th centuries, Atheists, who currently reject all forms of religious belief, and a Muslim minority within the predominently Moroccan and Turkish immigrant communities— is trying to reject vehemently Islam, as most immigrants don’t behave properly according to the Dutch standards and don’t represent at all a dignified Islam that would fit the general tendency of the Dutch people towards decency, fair play, respectability and gentleness. The Netherlands, due to the long dominating Calvinist elite, show currently a tendency to imitate the worst British or American models, even if Catholics, now a majority, incline to be more receptive to German or other Continental models, be they left-wing or right-wing. The islamophobic bias of the current leader of the PVV-party (“Liberty Party”), Geert Wilders, induce the Dutch government to follow the British and American foreign policy, although the positions of the former islamophobic political leader of the Netherlands, Pim Fortuyn, who was a Catholic homosexual and was assassinated by a pseudo-environmentalist thug, was against all Dutch intervention in the Balkan to crush the Serbians and pleaded for a complete withdrawal of the Dutch units that had been sent to Bosnia: this may have been the real reason for his assassination and not the lack of ecological positions in his programme or the quite agressive stances against Muslims he had taken in his political speeches and pamphlets. The Netherlands, although a model state in the current EU-crisis, as its financial status in the euro-zone seems to be perfectly sound, are nevertheless at risk because, exactly like Spain, they have a speculative bubble in real estate, that could explode at any moment.
 
One thing we should not forget abroad: the Netherlands, together with Flanders in Belgium, are constantly producing a huge amount of books on all levels of human sciences, on topics we are interested in, but that are unfortunately largely ignored in non Dutch-speaking areas, never translated and never quoted in scientific works, despite the fact that Dutch and Flemish intellectuals generally understand and read at least four languages and are therefore able to make remarkable synthesis.
 
Belgium is now another multicultural state, divided by a linguistic border separating two mainly Catholic communities, the Dutch-speaking Flemings and the French-speaking Walloons (there is also a small German-speaking community in the East of the country, alongside the German border). The Flemings have nowadays a stonger tendency, like the Dutch, to imitate Anglo-Saxon models while the Walloons are deeply influenced by French ways of thinking. The Germans are of course strongly influenced by German ideas and debates. These Low Countries are an incredible patchwork of ideas: you don’t find overthere large currents of ideas widely partaken within the population; on the contrary, you’ll find everything, left-wing or right-wing, sometimes expressed in very original ways but no social coherence deduced from this wide variety of ideas. Even within the main political parties (liberal, christian-democrats, socialists), tendencies are numerous among the leaders and the militants. The main trend is of course to accept the Western views within the frame that NATO is, although all the opposite elements are historically (Harmel) or currently (Collon) available to develop a strong critique of the NATO-ideology and praxis. Besides, people are not really interested in the operations launched in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Syria. They don’t support the army sent overthere in these NATO-invaded countries (surely because the army is not a conscription army anymore), just as Pim Fortuyn wanted to withdraw Dutch troops from ex-Yugoslavia. I think personally, and I repeat it here, that this was most probably the main reason for his assassination and not the deliberate act of a crazy environmentalist activist; later, when the filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was murdered in Amsterdam by a Muslim fanatic because he had produced a short film allegedly criticizing presumed Islamic anti-feminism, the religious creeds of the assassin contributed to justify paradoxically the pro-NATO attitudes of Fortuyn’s successor in the Dutch populist ideological area, i. e. Geert Wilders, whose father was born in the Catholic province of Limburg near the German City of Aachen and whose mother is an Indian Hindu, most probably quite hostile to Muslims. The loyalty of the son towards his mother could explain some islamophobic BJP-like attitudes...
 
In the Low Countries, you can perceive a lot of isolated reactions against the System whereby the efforts of a Chomsky-inspired politologist like the ex-Maoist activist Michel Collon in French-speaking Belgium are the most notorious abroad. Belgium is nevertheless a fragilized country, even if the three Low Countries belong to the strongest economical powers within the EU. The effects of the crisis and the recession are palpable in Belgium now, as prices for food and first necessity products are a lot higher than in France and Germany, reducing drastically the common people’s purchasing power. Belgium maintains its relative stability only because of the giant customer-neighbour that is Germany, that buys goods in Belgium to produce other goods in Germany for the Russian and Chinese markets. So Germany, and by “translation” as a math teacher would say, Belgium and the Netherlands, are main partners of the most prominent Eurasian BRICS-countries, even if the NATO-oriented thrash-elite doesn’t want to be considered as such, despite the economical and commercial facts and figures. Thus “Little Belgium” shares a part of the German pie in Eurasia: in high commercial caucuses they are well aware of it and some cleverer minds dream of recuperating the positions Belgium had before 1914 in Russia (as Russia was the main commercial partner of Belgium between 1890 and 1914) and even in China, where many commercial missions are sent regularly. 
 
To conclude these short thoughts about the Low Countries, I would suggest Russian friends to create a small caucus for Dutch and Flemish studies in order to gather useful information that no one else would in the long run be able to take profit of.
 
- Austerity policies are now implemented in Southern Europe: how do you perceive them in the North-West? And what about the idea of a Pan-European solidarity or concert of nations in a crisis context?
 
You’ll probably know in Russia that the tragedy in Europe is that Northern people don’t have high consideration for their Southern neighbours and a political thinker such as Jean Thiriart, who remains a source of inspiration for me and for Prof. Dugin, deeply regretted it. Most people in Northern Europe say that we should force Spain, Greece, Portugal and Italy to accept these austerity policies but by thinking so they refuse to take the plain fact into consideration: the speculation of Wall Street banksters against the more fragile Southern European countries are speculations against the EU as a whole and an attempt to smash the euro as an alternative currency to the dollar, that some BRICS countries could have accepted as a mean to regulate international trade. The Atlanticist blindness prevent the EU-leaders to perceive these US-based banksters speculation as an extreme lethal weapon in the new non military types of warfare, just as spying European labs or engineering bureaus through the ECHELON-satellites system, just as exciting immigrants in French suburbs to start a guerilla warfare against the police to finally eliminate Chirac (who committed two main sins: developing further a French autonomous nuclear armament in 1995, according to De Gaulle’s vision, and having supported the idea of an Alliance between Paris, Berlin and Moscow during the British-American assault on Iraq in 2003) and replace him by a wacko politician such as Nicolas Sarkozy, who would some months later reintroduce France in the NATO High Command, just as sending “femens” trying to ridicule able politicians or archbishops, just as creating ex nihilo “orange revolutions”, etc. Indeed, as you suggest it, a wide and indefectible solidarity would be preferable in Europa than the current Southerner-bashing we are experimenting these days, especially as the three main peninsulas in the Mediterranean area are of the highest strategical importance and are potential springboards to invade the Centre and the North of the European subcontinent. One key idea would simply be to support the Southern European countries in a new policy consisting of refusing to pay banks back and to restart a new area, as they successfully did in Iceland. This would of course ruin all the dogmas of neo-liberalism. But is this not the ultimate aim of our struggle? 
 
The more or less official journal of the EU, “Europe’s World”, presents in its Spring 2013 issue two positions about the crisis, the one of Hans-Olaf Henkel, President of the Federation of German Industries (BDI), once an avowed advocate of the euro: he suggests now to create a “Northern euro” making an end to the promised Pan-European solidarity. Then the head of the European Institute at the London School of Economics, Paul De Grauwe, in the same issue of “Europe’s World”, pleads in favour of a “fiscal union” as that in the United States, even if the process of establishing it would take time, in order to avoid eurozone governments issuing debt in euros without being able to control the currency, what, according to De Grauwe, “prevents governments to give a guarantee to bondholders that the cash will always be available to pay them at maturity” (p. 28). Even if we have to be quite suspicious in front of all what the mainly neo-liberal London School of Economics theorizes, this strategy, suggested by De Grauwe, would reinforce European unity and avoid speculation against weaker countries. De Grauwe calls his suggested system the “pooling of eurozone governments’ debts” in order that “the weakest are protected from destructive movements of fear and panic that arise in the financial markets, and that in theory can hit any member country” (for instance, the Netherlands if the real estate bubble would give some banksters the opportunity to speculate against this otherwise financial “sound state”). Only this way could Europe become a full actor on the multipolar chessboard and be protected against the weapon of speculation that is a permanent risk when you remain glued in the Euro-Atlanticist realm where the “allies” aren’t allies anymore since the Clinton Doctrine described them as mere “alien audiences” that can be thrashed if there is somehow a fear in Washington that these “allies” could become very soon real competitors. 
 
Northern pride or not, learned and authorized voices in Germany predict a bad future for the economical superpower in the very Middle of the European subcontinent: both Conservative Count Christian von Krockow and Socialist Thilo Sarrazin enumerate the problems Germany has now to face: dereliction of the education system, which is now unable to generate the needed amount of technical or scientific elites, demographic downfall, ideological stalemate, refusal of the immigrants to assimilate or even to integrate, non manageable crisis of the Welfare State, etc. The crisis affecting Greece or Spain are only preludes to the big crisis that will hit whole Europe, including Germany, in the next decades, if a complete and total change of mind doesn’t occur. 
 
- Are economics a fate for Europe or is there a deeper base for a union (or a separation) of all European people?
 
Europa had of course to harmonize its economy after the Second World War, as the five or six gloomy years that followed 1945 were a disaster for our countries, a tragical derelict period in our history that an American or British historian, Keith Lowe, describes in a recent book; these were years of misery just as in the former Eastern Block and in the Soviet Union. Germany was a heap of ruins and France and Italy had been harshly hit too by carpet bombings (although to a lesser extent than Germany) and destructions due to military operations dotted both countries. We cannot deny a real European patriotism among the first architects of the European unification process (as Schuman, Adenauer and De Gasperi): their obvious aim was to make of Europe —this time through economical and not through military means— what Carl Schmitt would have called a “Greater Area” (a “Grossraum”). But due to a degenerative process induced by mass consumption and “sensate” materialistic attitudes (I use here the word “sensate” as it was coined by Pitirim Sorokin), out of which the May 68 ideology was the apex, partly due to the constant but silent efforts of former OSS-agent Herbert Marcuse, the staunch vision of a United Europe (or even of a “Eurafrica”) gave way to a kind of general capitulation, leaving the leadership of the Euro-Atlantic zone to the United States, a process that is about to be definitively achieved now when the Americans are trying to control the whole African continent through the recently set up AFRICOM-Command and so to get rid there of the Chinese first, who will be followed by the French now helping the Yankees in Mali! Sic transit gloria mundi! We can agree with many observers that the “sensate” mentality and the priority given to materialistic values have been deliberately induced by American think tanks who were and are transfering into practice the ideas of Sun Tsu, according to whom you have to weaken your potential ennemies or competitors by awakening among them a Sybarite mentality. 
 
If set down as the main and only possible motor to create a social system at narrow-national or wide-continental levels, economics induces by fatality, and as a practice banking on quantities and not rightly on qualities, a materialistic worldview that emerges and eliminates quickly all other values, as Julien Freund could demonstrate it, and gets rid of all ethical or historical sense of duty. Each form of triumphant materialism prompt people not to feel linked to their fellow countrymen anymore or instigates them not to respect religious ethical duties towards others, be they partaking the same beliefs as they do or, as Christian or Tolstoian ethics lays it, be they simply human beings who should be respected as such with no other consideration. It is in this sense of abandoning all national-political or religious links that Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, who together with his wife Lucy Kerrick, translated Dostoievski into German, said that after only some decades of liberalism (i. e. The “sensate” materialistic ideology of what the Russian economist and sociologist Sergej Nikolaievich Bulgakov —1871-1944— called “bourgeoisnost”, a neologism aiming at defining the utilitarian ideology of British liberalism) a people simply dies as a genuine value-born community and become a heap of scattered individuals, as we have now in our countries. Europe should have first be unified by means of a common “culture”, by a common educational system, and, in a second step, we would have coined a common constitutional and civil law system, respecting ethnic and linguistic communities (“real communities”) throughout the subcontinent. So all the prerogatives of the Indo-European “First Function”, according to the French academician Georges Dumezil, would have been set down as a very first frame for a future unification process. Later, the “Second Function” should have been established by constituting an autonomous military system, not depending on the NATO structures (as it was fully juridically possible in each Western European country), including a European production network for modern weapons in order not to depend from abroad for military supplies. Only after having created a general culture, education, law and defence frame, we could have thought of various unification processes on economical levels. The first think you have to do is to design the frame for all non materialistic values, which would be the real backbone of the genuine “ideational” (Sorokin) civilisation you want to promote, except perhaps in the European context in the late Forties and in the beginning of the Fifties, where urgently needed attempts to unify the subcontinent on economical level were reduced to the essential and the minimum, i. e. the coal and steel industry (EGKS/CECA).
 
- After the Second World War, the United States got a very strong influence on Western Europe, that was subsequently transformed into a junior partner in a Euro-Atlantic political community with so-called “shared values”. How does “Euro-Atlanticism” works nowadays in Europe?
 
The process of linking Western Europe, and now all the former COMECON-countries, to the United States has been long and quite complicated to understand it in all its aspects (and to explain them in a short interview) but one can say without any hesitation that it has never been studied systematically till yet. Let’s say, to put it in a nutshell, that the first attempt of the United States to colonize mentally the Europeans (their most dangerous potential foes) was to submerge the European cinematographic industry in the ocean of Hollywood productions. The battle was thus “metapolitical”. Hollywood was supposed to replace entirely the European film industry. France, that had already developed a good film producing industry before 1939, was positively blackmailed by the Americans in 1948: if the French cinemas didn’t take at least 80% of Hollywood productions to be broadcast everywhere in France, the country wouldn’t benefit from the money of the Marshall Plan, at a crucial moment of postwar French history, when riots and strikes were paralysing the country, when food supplies in big cities were undergoing scarcity, so that we can now blankly ask the question: weren’t the Communists, who organized the strikes and were supposed to operate for the benefit of Moscow, not performing the job the American secret services wanted actually to be done, in order to force France to accept the American “diktat” to give money if the movies were alone productions of Hollywood? In the Fifties, the Social-Democrats were the main secret allies of the Americans, as a result that they were chosen as partners by the American Democrats around Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose New Deal policy in the Thirties became a model for socialists throughout the European subcontinent. The metapolitical influence of socialism and social-democracy in Europe has as result that American Democrats are always prefered in Europe than Republicans: remember Kennedy, Clinton (who waged more wars than his Republican predecessors Reagan or Bush Senior), Obama (who’s continuing Bush Junior’s wars and replacing troops by drones, causing even more numerous casualties in Afghanistan and Pakistan...). I would like to take the opportunity to evoke here two important books to understand the mechanisms of Europe’s colonization by the United States: 
- Richard F. Kuisel, Seducing the French – The Dilemma of Americanization, University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1993;
- Reinhold Wagnleitner, Coca-Colonization and the Cold War – The Cultural Mission of the United States in Austria after the Second World War, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1994.
 
But the strategies developed in the European countries didn’t work properly: France under De Gaulle left NATO and asserted an original diplomacy throughout the world, partly along the lines defined by the Non-Aligned as suggested by De Gaulle’s famous declaration in Pnonh Penh (Cambodia) in 1966. This new French diplomacy, supported by able ministers like Couve de Murville and Jobert, was also backed by the high technological development of French aeronautics industry, producing among others the famous Mirage III fighters, that gave Israel the victory in June 1967. These planes were sold everywhere in the world and were serious competitors to American equals. Germany, despite its total destruction in 1945 and the millions of men who were prisoners of war in Europe (one million alone for France!), in the Soviet Union and in America could recover completely, in particular due to the courage of the women who helped rebuild the towns, the so-called “Trummerfrauen” or “Ruins ladies”, and could start the real economical wonder at the end of the Fifties, what aroused admiration even among former anti-Fascists. Germany had and still has a weak point: it has no aeronautics industry anymore but a well-developed automobile industry, perhaps the best in the world. The United States lost a lot of parts on the car markets in Europe due to the renewal of the celebrated German car brands: even American consumers started to buy German Volkswagen, Mercedes or BMW, just as Chinese or Russian new rich do nowadays. So the United States, once favorable to the European unification process, in order to get a huge market for their own products, began to reject secretely Europe as a unified economical block and to organize a commercial war against a lot of products like Camembert or Gruyere cheese, bananas from the French islands in the Caribbean Sea etc. European high technology companies, such as a German one producing solar panels, were spied by the ECHELON-Satellites; some former COMECON-countries were invited to join the EU and the NATO, so that the Europeans would pay endlessly for the constitution of a new military block aiming at “containing” Russia. The Europeans were to pay to sustain the weak countries and the Americans were taking the strategic benefits of the new situation without giving out a single penny. The last act of war is of course the speculation against the weaker economies of Southern Europe, in order to strike the “weak Mediterranean” belly of the subcontinent officially described as an ally but actually treated as a foe. 
 
According to geopolitican Robert Strauss-Hupe, who was formerly a collaborator of General Karl Haushofer’s “Journal of Geopolitics” (“Zeitschrift fur Geopolitik”) in his native Germany but had to leave the Reich after Hitler’s arrival to power because he was partly Jewish or had a Jewish wife and had to settle in America where he became an adviser of the US war machine, Europe and Germany in its middle part will always be potentially stronger than the United States for several reasons, among which he counted the excellence of the education systems and the “racial homogeneity”. The May 68 plots, coined by former OSS-officers like Herbert Marcuse (another German emigre) and many others, managed to destroy or at least to handicap seriously the European education systems. The importation of immigrants, having not benefited from a serious level of education in their own derelict countries, aimed at paralysing the social security systems and at compelling the European States to devote incredibly huge budgets to help these new masses of jobless people to survive in everyday life instead of creating for instance a good military or aeronautics industry. Second purpose of mass immigration is to be able to manipulate these masses in order to create severe civilian disorder in countries that could, for one reason or another, loose the links that bond them to America: this was said frankly by a former US ambassador in Paris, Charles Rivkin (that we shouldn’t confuse with the economist Jeremy Rivkin), who started a policy of supporting leaders of agressive youth gangs in the Parisian suburbs and promising them American and Saoudi or Qatari support. The riots that set ablaze the Parisian suburbs in November 2005 were a revenge of the US neo-conservatives aiming at chasing “disloyal Chirac” from power and to replace him by the man who took away a maximum of votes from Chirac’s RPR/UMP and from Le Pen’s “Front National”, i. e. Nicolas Sarkozy, by promising the French to “karcherize the banlieues” and to eliminate the “racaille” (the riffraff) (a “Karcher” is a brand derived noun, as Karcher-machines are used to remove the dust or the filth from houses’ walls by using an extreme powerful water spray). Nothing of that sort was obviously ever done but Sarkozy came to power and brought France back in the NATO and waged a war against Libya, so that the Congress in Washington hadn’t to vote war credits... The 2005 Parisian riots were used to promote an obscure suburb politician, who uttered a strong agressive and hysterical language to gather votes in order to change radically the Gaullist political orientations of his country in favour of the American world strategy. Objective observers can so see what can be the useful purpose of jobless masses in “alien audiences” (Bill Clinton), that are perhaps “allies” but should sometimes be thrashed. 
 
American influence is consolidated by several musical fashions and modes and through media agencies that always convey the US interpretation of world events. In France, the best exemple is furnished by the so-called “nouveaux philosophes”. This bunch of jabbering nonsense and humbug producers is determining the agenda of French politics since the end of the Seventies. The figurehead of the bunch is undoubtedly Bernard-Henry Levy (BHL), who has indirectly —with a leftist or pseudo-theological or pseudo-republican (French style) “wind language” (this expression was coined by Regis Debray)— supported all the American or Israeli moves on the international chessboard, depicting all the ennemies of America as if they all were dangerous Fascists, venomous dictators or backward populists, nationalists or paleo-communists. In France, BHL lead a systematic campaign against all possible challengers in domestic politics and not only against the nationalists around Le Pen. So the “shared values” of the so-called “Atlantic Community of Values” are now a mix of conservative Atlanticists (when some naive Catholics or Protestants believe that Washington is a kind of new protecting and benevolent Rome, as an otherwise interesting student of late Carl Schmitt, Erich Voegelin, who migrated to the United States during Hitler’s time, theorized), of Socialists of all kinds linked to the American Democrats in the Rooseveltian tradition, Manchesterian liberals who believe religiously in the credos coined by Adams Smith’s heirs, left-wing liberals a la Cohn-Bendit whose endeavours to promote the dissoluting anti-values of May 68 in order to weaken permanently Europe for the benefit of the United States, recycled Trotskites who replace the former Bolshevik notion of “permanent revolution” by the the actual practice of “permanent war” on Brzezinski” Eurasian chessboard (see the polemic books and articles of Robert Kagan), a permanent war around the territory of Afghanistan aiming at containing and destroying Russia, perceived as the heir power of the Czars and of Stalin. These are of course the “anti-values”, the values of “Non Being” as Jean Parvulesco polemically called them, against which my friends and I have struggled since the very beginning of our public activities. They are indeed “non being” values as it is impossible to build a lasting state or empire banking on them (for instance Parvulesco’s vision of an “End of time’s Eurasian Empire”). BHL endeavours have as main and only purpose to prevent the return of real political values, such as the ones Carl Schmitt and Julien Freund (among many others) illustrated in their precious works.
 
- Do you feel more “freedom” in Europe after Obama announced the emergence of a US “Pacific Axis”?
 
No. Not really. But maybe we can say that constant pressure is not needed anymore in Western Europe now because our countries are politically dead after so many decades of “liberalism” as Arthur Moeller van den Bruck would have said. It is also true that after the tragical and awful events in Libya in 2011-2012, where BHL was Sarkozy’s adviser instead of the French army’s generals (!), the figurehead of the “nouveaux philosophes” has lost a good deal of his impact on public opinion. The Lybian affair caused among other changes in French domestic politics the fall of Sarkozy who betrayed De Gaulle’s vision of international politics, in which France should have played an independant role in front of the orther superpowers. One of the last flops BHL committed in April 2012 was to describe Algeria —which is now simultaneously courted by the United States to join an informal “Southern NATO” around US main ally Morrocco and threatened like Syria is for keeping the militarized FLN in power since the independance of the country in 1962— not as an Arab and Muslim country but as a Jewish and French country! This vicious attack is emblematic in a certain way as Algeria wanted to be an Arab, Panarabian and Arab nationalist country within the community of Arab countries, despite the fact that most of the Algerians are of Berber/Capsian stock. The Arab reference of the Algerian nationalists, who spoke in the Sixties a dialect quite different from the classical Arabic language, was to take the new independant country out of isolation, to participate to a wider range of non aligned nations and to be close to the Nasserite form of the Panarabian ideal. Although a very interesting political figure as the former Algerian President Houari Boumediene remained a purely political thinker who could generate a team of very able diplomats in the Seventies and Eighties (before the terrible civil war of the “Blood Decade” from 1992 to 2003). These diplmats could for instance solve the problems between Iran and Iraq in 1975, when the circulation of oil vessels could be pacifically regulated in the Chatt-el-Arab part of the Gulf. Iran was represented by the Shah and Iraq by Saddam Hussein. Mohammed Sahnoun, adviser of President Chadli (Boumediene’s successor), was the head of a geopolitcal school in Algeria and lead the diplomatic mission to solve the problems in the Grand Lakes area in Africa. Sahnoun pleaded for an Euro-African alliance aiming at keeping the United States out of the Black Continent, especially out of the Horn of Africa, a region which is a strategic bridgehead to the Indian Ocean, described by Mackinder’s heir as the “Heart Sea” in front of Russia as the “Heart Land”. Still more interesting, Sahnoun theorized in a positive way the pacific and cooperative juxtaposition on the international chessboard of “cultures”, that would have to come back to their roots and abandon the false seductions of mean modern ideologies. Sahnoun is the real antidote to the conflict arousing perspective of late Samuel Huntington, who perceived the cultures as automatically antagonist. His ideas find an echo in the works of his Japanese alter ego, Moriyuki Motono, adviser of former Prime Minister Nakasone, who also pleaded for a pacific juxtaposition of “cultural areas” but having this time neighbouring “intersection areas” which would help neighbours to understand each other better, simply because they have in their spiritual heritage values shared by both neighbouring cultures. 
 
Boumediene had been a student of Arab literature and was surely a pious Muslim but he never used religion as an emblem of his “Algerian specific socialism”. When BHL says that Algeria is neither a Muslim country, he attacks also the Salafists of the wide range of Muslim-oriented political forces in Algeria. To say that Algeria is both Jewish and French means that Algeria is unable to help itself and needs a recolonization by the Jews and French, who were expelled in 1962. BHL added that in the short run Algeria will be undergoing an “Arab Spring” like Libya and Syria. This is of course a clear threat to an independant country which has already experimented a civil war that caused hundreds of thousands of casualities. But this has been too much: BHL isn’t taken seriously anymore. Even the Belgian daily paper “Le Soir” (25th April 2013) titled “la Syrie ne fait plus recette” (“Syria doesn’t bring cash anymore”), deploring that initiatives to raise money for the Syrian rebels in Belgium isn’t a success. So the whole ideology that BHL and his chums are trying to impose with a good dose of forcefulness loses currently all impact: people aren’t interested anymore. 
 
This attack against Algeria brings me directly back to your question: the purpose of the Atlanticists is to include Algeria in a kind of “Southern NATO” by giving the former Spanish Sahara to Morrocco and give Mauretania as a kind of newly designed colony to an officially anti-colonialist Algeria, so that Algeria could get its geopolitical dream fulfilled by being simultaneously a Mediterranean and an Atlantic power. The problem is that the distance between de Mediterranean and the first parts of the Mauretanian Atlantic shore is incredbly long: more than three thousand kilometers of sand desert, with poor communications by road or railway and so without any economical utility and permanently under the threat of the Morroccan army, which can at any time withdraw in the Atlas mountains and strike back at will. The gift suggested is not a real gift. The US goal is to control the whole former French West Africa, from Dakar in Senegal to Somalia, Djibuti included, in order to protect the exploitation of oil fields in Nigeria, Camerun and Chad and to prevent the Chinese to be the leading exploiting power in Black Africa. So your question asking if Europeans feel more “safe” or “free” since Obama decided to give priority to a Pacific Axis can be obviously answered negatively as the containment of China in the Pacific implies a US presence in Africa and the creation of a “Southern NATO” being an annex of a general AFRICOM-bolt that would encircle completely Europe on its meridional flank. If China loses its African positions, it will be considerably weakened and unable to order as many goods as nowadays in Europe. Germany would also be weakened and Belgium risks to be in the same situation as Greece or Spain, as its public debt is quite high, especially since the compelled taking over of two bankrupt banks after 2008 (Fortis and Dexia/Belfius): the planned crumbling down of the eurozone would be brought to an end and the “Northern euro” would only be a dream of paleo-nationalists in Germany and Northern Europe. One must not forget that Belgium and especially the Walloon coal-and-steel areas were hit by the Iranian Islamic revolution that prevented the consolidation of the nuclear power and steel industry cooperation that the Shah started with France, Germany and Belgium. The so-called Islamic revolution in Iran had for us all severe consequences so that, even if we refused all forms of agression against present-day Iran and if we respect the positions of President Ahmadinedjad on the Eurasian chessboard and in Latin America (when he cooperated with Chavez), we don’t share some views of yours and of former ex-Maoist journalist Michel Collon about the history of Iran before the Islamic revolution of 1978-79. We don’t forget that the same “nouveaux philosophes” and Trotskites, who preached against the Shah in the streets of Paris, Brussels and Berlin in 1977-78, are now trying to excite people against Ahmadinedjad, exactly as they did against Milosevic, Putin, Lukachenko, Khadafi and others! The purpose is to prevent all cooperation between Europe and Iran, be the regime overthere Imperial or Islamic; therefore we defend the positions of the Shah in the Seventies and we support all initiatives trying to prevent a useless and criminal war against Ahmadinedjad’s Iran.
 
Obama’s Pacific Axis has thus effects on the Southern flank of Europe. Wherever they strike, they hit us all. Hitting China in Africa means hitting Europe here and there too. 
 
-What do you think about EU-outsiders such as Turkey, Serbia and some ex-Soviet countries like Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine?
 
Turkey is a tremendously interesting country to study and it fascinates me since two memorable periods in my life: 1) the long trip our Latin and Philosophy teachers organized for us to Turkey in the Summer of 1972; 2) My subsequent reading of Arnold Toynbee’s pages on Bythinia, the Byzantine Empire and the Ottoman Byzantine strategy; according to Toynbee, who was a “byzantologist”, the power that dominates the small narrow former Roman province of Bythinia and the neighbouring Bosphorus area is able to expend in all directions, i. e. the Black Sea, the Balkan, Caucasus, Syria, Egypt and Northern Africa and even beyond if enough material and human means are available. It’s maybe therefore that the American strategist Edward Luttwak has recently written a book about the Byzantine strategy, which aimed, when the Byzantine Empire was still a powerful commonwealth, at controlling all the former areas of the first Roman Empire exactly like the Ottomans will later try to expend alongside the same geostrategical lines. The Ottomans couldn’t perform the task: their sea power was fragilized after the battle of Lepanto (1571) and the definitive blowback was a fact after they failed to take the City of Vienna in 1683. After the terrible defeat in front of Vienna’s walls, their decay period started, even if they could maintain their grip on the Balkans, Syria, Palestina, Iraq and Egypt till the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-78, the Balkan uprisings of 1912-13 and the defeat of 1918. In the eyes of their leader Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the Islamic-Ottoman option had been brought to an end and the remaining Turkish state had to follow other paths. It should first get rid of the Islamic past and find a new identity that according to Ataturk himself should be a Hittite identity (he therefore opened an archeological museum in Ankara). By choosing a Hittite identity, Ataturk intended to identify his country, reduced to the Anatolian part of the former Ottoman Empire and bereft of all the Iraqi oil fields, with an Indo-European people that came from Europe to conquer Anatolia, where it left an astonishing civilisation, and induced geostrategical lines that were taken over by the Romans and the Crusaders marching towards Syria and Mesopotamia. The Hittite rage didn’t last long in modern Turkey and was replaced in the political mythology of the anti-islamic military elite by Panturkism or Panturanism, aiming at assembling all Turkish-speaking people in one giant state from the Egean to China. This Panturkic ideology was resolutely anti-Soviet as the main Turkish-speaking area the Panturkists wanted to acquire were in Soviet hands in Central Asia. In 1942, when the Germans could have taken Stalingrad and cut in their very middle the supply routes the Americans had created in Iran by organizing the Paniranian railways and in the Northern Atlantic from New York to Murmansk by organizing huge convoys of “Liberty ships” bringing ammunitions and material to the Soviet Army, Turkish officers around Staff-Chief General Cakmak proposed in Berlin to invade the Caucasus but their scheme was so abstruse that the Germans didn’t want this suggested alliance implying the emergence of an even more dangerous super-state in the East. 
 
Erdogan has inaugurated a new era in Turkish politics as he rejects officially the non religious Hittite and Panturanic/Panturkic projects in favour of a renewed Ottoman-Islamic scheme. His aim is to crush the former military elite and to replace it by a new pious “bourgeoisie” that thrived economically in the new developing area in the South-East part of present-day Turkey. We cannot meddle in the domestic affairs of Turkey and dictate the Turks in which way they should think. So be the official ideology Kemalist or Neo-Ottoman/Islamic, we don’t care and simply hear and listen to what Turkish politicians say. But when Erdogan comes to Germany or Belgium and urges Turkish people living in our countries not to assimilate (which I can understand because Europe lives now in a dangerous and deleterious period of decay) and to form a kind of “Fifth Column” in a Europa that they will in the end control and bereave of its identity, we cannot agree. We disagree too with the Syrian policy that Erdogan followed in supporting the Western- and Qatari-backed rebels against the Baath regime of Bechar El-Assad. It would have been better if Turkey had followed its initial policy of friendly relationships with Syria before the fatidic visit of Erdogan and Gul in Damascus in August 2011, when they tried to impose ministers of the rebellious “Muslim Brotherhood” in a next hypothetical Syrian government. The links that the present-day Turkish president has in the bank world of the Gulf Emirates and most probably of Qatar are of course another problem, that can jeopardize fruitful future relations with Europe and Russia. Erdogan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ahmet Davutoglu, nicknamed the “Hoca”, the “Professor”, in Turkey, wanted to develop a neo-Ottoman foreign policy, which we could have accepted in its first version, as it wanted “zero problems on our borders” and started the first positive policy towards Syria, Iran, Libya and other powers in the Near- and Middle-East. But this orientation has had no future, unfortunately. Of course from a European, Austrian, Panorthodox and Russian point of view, we cannot accept the expansion of a neo-Ottoman scheme in the Balkan, that would be backed by the United States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the so-called Islamic finance, from which apparently Gul proceeds. Even if Prof. Dugin and his Italian friend Claudio Mutti were deeply influenced by Leontiev’s ideas, which prefered an Ottoman domination in the Balkan than the juxtaposition of false Orthodox mini-powers strongly influenced by modern Western ideas, things have changed in the second half of the 20th century and it is of course now better for all of us to support in the Balkan Croatian or Serbian geopolitics. 
 
This brings us to Serbia. This country is the “core area” of the Balkan. Even if Germans had a general tendency to support Croatia in the Nineties instead of Serbia, the Austrian geopolitician Baron Jordis von Lohausen supported Serbia at the end of his life and even evoked an Axis “Vienna-Belgrado” to link Danubian Europe to the Egean by the shortest river and land roads. Croatia has a different perspective on geopolitics: its geopolitical lines are Adriatic-Mediterranean and the only conflict with Serbia was about a “window” on the Danube river at Vukovar where fierce fights opposed Croatian troops to the Serbian Army. In 1995, the Croatian Army conquered the Kraina region, which was peopled by Serbian villagers but was a strategic balcony threatening Dalmatia’s harbours which were formerly Croatian-Venetian. The dramas of Vukovar and the Kraina have certainly left a huge amount of bitterness in former Yugoslavia but the core area that Serbia is has not been so dangerously threatened as it was later by the Kosovar independance movement lead by the Albanian-speaking UCK-militia. Kosovo was till the Ottoman invasion in the 14th century a pure Serbian province, in which the tragical battle of the “Blackbirds’ Field” took place and in which the oldest Orthodox monastries stood. The independance of Kosovo is certainly the oddest mutilation of Serbian territory that we have to deplore. As you perhaps know, I am and was a friend of both Tomislav Sunic, the Croatian thinker, and of late Dragos Kalajic, the Serbian painter and traditional philosopher who published the Serbian version of the magazine “Elementy”. I am also a friend of Jure Vujic, the Croatian geopolitician and political scientist who recently published a book on Atlanticism and Eurasianism, for which I wrote a foreword: you have commented this book and my introduction on one of your websites. Sunic, Vujic and Kalajic were speakers at our Euro-Synergies’ Summer Courses in France, Italy and Germany. Sunic has written a book on the American Evil in Croatian and so did Kalajic (“Amerikanski Zlo”) in Serbian. In 1999, together with Laurent Ozon in France, I opposed the NATO-intervention against Yugoslavia and I spoke with Kalajic and his Italian friend Archimede Bontempi in Milano, together with the Mayor of the City, to explain how the war against Serbia was a war against Europe, which purpose it was to block all river traffic on the Danube and to destroy for long all developments in the Adriatic Sea, where NATO-fighters dropped their extra bombs in the sea, killing Italian fishermen. We dispatched the texts of the gallant American senator of Serbian origin, Bob Djurdjevic and, on their side, the left-wing Professors Michel Collon and Jean Bricmont did the same: Collon remembers this all around dispatching of counter-information on Serbia as the first resistance action on the internet in a recent speech he held in Brussels and Bricmont was even savagely beaten up by the thugs of the Brussels police and thrown an all night in a dirty cell because he stood in front of the NATO-buildings in the Belgian capital, just as some years later the Italian member of European Parliament and former Justice Secretary of State Mario Borghezio, who had opposed the bombings of Belgrado too, got also —even if he is an elderly man— a hiding with truncheons by the same scum and thrown in a cell: the Italian Embassy had to send officers to order the Belgian government to let him immediately free. 
 
Kosovo is the central part of what Kalajic called the “Islamic chain of States” that Americans and Saudis intended to install in the Balkan in order to bolt the landway between Central Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean, leaving Greece isolated and weakening all possible allies of Russia in this area. Kosovo will shelter the hugest military base of the United States in Europe, the “Camp Bondsteele”, that was built by Halliburton and where a substantial part of the US garrisons of Germany will move to. The purpose of this policy could have been read in Sir Nigel Bagnall’s book about the “Illyrians operations” of the Romans between 229 and 227 B.C. and between 215 and 205 B.C. In these historical studies by the former Chief of the British General Staff, the importance of the central areas of the Balkan are duly stressed: the book has been written in 1990 and its German translation dates back 1995, just four years before the bombings started in Serbia (Sir Nigel Bagnall, Rome und Karthago – Der Kampf ums Mittelemeer, Siedler, Berlin, 1995). A control of this central Kosovar-Serbian part of the Balkan allows every superpower to threaten or control Italy and to benefit from a springboard towards Anatolia and further East, exactly like the Ancient Macedonians did at the time of Alexander the Great at the eve of his invasion of the Persian Empire. The Ottomans, once they could control the same areas in the 14th century, became a permanent threat for Italy, Central Europe and the Black Sea (Pontic) area. So an intact Serbia could have been the territory that would have united Central Europe (Austria’s imperial heritage) and Russia (in a Panorthodox perspective) in the struggle to repel all foreign powers out of the Balkans, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Adriatic Sea and the Pontic area. 
 
Now the EU and the United States are trying to blackmail Serbia, promising a rapid membership in the EU if Serbia recognizes Kosovo as an independant state. I hope Serbia is not going to abandon its traditional position and still will consider Kosovo as a lost province that will one day be Serbian again. 
 
If we hear almost nothing about Moldova here in Western Europe, Belarus is described in our mainstream media as a clownish dictatorship of paleo-communist bigots. Belarus is nevertheless the central part of the North-South “Baltic/Pontic” line. There are three such North-South lines in Europe: 1) the Rhine/Rhone line linking by landways the North Sea to the Mediterranean; 2) the Baltic/Adriatic line from Stettin or Gdansk/Dantzig to Trieste in Italy or Pula in Croatia; this area will in the short run be linked by a direct railway track linking Dantzig to Ravenna in Northern Italy, a City that was the capital of the Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy, which was conquered by the Byzantine General Belisarius in 536. In the Middle Ages, King Ottokar II Przmysl (1253-1278) of Bohemia wanted to create a realm linking the Baltic Sea to the Adriatic: the future rapid railway track between Gdansk/Dantzig and Ravenna will fulfill his dream; 3) the Baltic/Pontic line has never been united except perhaps by the Goths at the eve of the Hun invasion of Central Europe and the Roman Empire; therefore this line is sometimes called the “Gothic Axis”. The Polish-Lithuanian state was an attempt to restore this Axis under the Baltic-Slavonic Jagellon dynasty but the project failed due to the Ottoman conquest of the present-day Ukrainian territories beyond Odessa and of the Crimean peninsula. In the 18th century, the Empress of Russia Catherine dreamt together with the German philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder to create in this space between Lithuania and Crimea a realm that would be a new Germanic-Baltic-Slavonic Hellas, on the model of Ancient Greece. New enlightened societies would have been created in this area separating Western and Central Europe from Russia, that is simultaneously an “intersection area” according to the Japanese “culturalist” philosopher Moriyuki Motono (cf. supra), who perceives “intersection areas” as unifying factors and not as dividing forces. The very importance of Belarus, as the central part of this potential “intersection area” and of the “Baltic/Pontic” line should prevent the European medias to bash constantly Belarus and its President Lukatshenko and find instead all possible positive approaches of the Belarussian factor. 
 
At the time of the so-called “Orange revolution” (2004-2005), we could have feared that the Ukrainian state would have joined the NATO and have isolated the Crimean Navy base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, which was one of the purposes Zbigniew Brzezinski hoped to achieve. For Brzezinski the fall of the Ukraine would have meant the total and complete achievement of his long elaborated strategy, as it would have weakened Russia definitively and made of the Black Sea an American-Turkish lake. Due to the victory of the anti-orange party in Kiev and Kharkov, Brzezinski’s project is doomed to be a failure, what he has recognized himself by saying that his long hammered policy of destroying Russia, by supporting the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan, the secessionist forces in the Muslim Republics of the former Soviet Union and the Ukrainian nationalists couldn’t be carried out in due time and that the United States had now to change strategy and try to ally with Russia in order to create a “Northern Hemisphere” Big Alliance with Northern America, Europe, Russia and Turkey (see one of his last books “Strategic Vision”, published in the United States in March 2012). 
 
- Do you think that some of these countries could possibly join the NATO or the EU for political reasons, like Rumania and Bulgaria did at the time of the so-called NATO-enlargement? 
 
Turkey is already a NATO-member and among the most important ones due to the old strategic position its territory occupies between the Black Sea, the Balkan, the Syrian area, the Eastern Mediterranean and Egypt. But there is absolutely no necessity for new countries to join the NATO as this Atlantic Alliance had been set up in the time when communism was still a quite virulent ideology that allegedly wanted to export a “world revolution” and put the rest of the world ablaze. This ideology doesn’t exist anymore, except in the form of “trotskism” now skillfully disguised in neo-conservatism as “permanent revolution” (Trotsky) has become “permanent war” (Kagan): the real “communist danger” nowadays is America as a trostskite/neo-con superpower, even more virulent than the Soviet Union ever was. And even in the last years of the “Cold War”, the American grip on Europe became tighter, after the “century’s market” which imposed American fighters in all the air forces of Western Europe instead of the French Mirage or the Swedish Viggen fighter or a new fighter having been produced by a joint Swedish-French venture. This incident proved that our political elite was rotten and corrupted and that they were not conscious of the treason they committed and, subsequently that we were not free and constantly betrayed by degenerated politicians; all that induced us to reject NATO as an enslaving organisation (slaves are not entitled to carry weapons). So since the very beginning of our activities we were hostile to NATO, as Jean Thiriart was some ten years before us. We could bank on several Belgian political traditions, that never could be implemented: when NATO was created under the impulse of the Belgian socialist minister Paul-Henri Spaak, the conservatives among the Belgian politicians were mocking the attempt to build such an Alliance and nicknamed it “Spaakistan”. They were reluctant to include Belgium and the Belgian Congo colony into such a “Spaakistanese” construct. Later the Catholic Prime Minister and future Foreign Affairs minister Pierre Harmel tried to escape the grip of America by proposing new bilateral relationships between small powers of the NATO commonwealth and small powers of the Warsaw Pact, i. e. between Belgium and, for instance, Poland or Hungary (as Catholic countries, Hungary being a State having belonged like Belgium to the Austrian Empire). These ideas, that were impossible to implement due to the total infeodation of Belgium, are nevertheless still alive in the debates run in the country: Prof. Rik Coolsaet and diplomatic TV-journalist Jan Balliauw continue this critical tradition of Belgian intellectuals and diplomatic personnel who were never tired to criticize American policies on the international chessboard. 
 
In 1984 I had the opportunity to meet at the Frankfurt Book Fair former Division General Jochen Loser of the German Army, who also was the last young officer who had been evacuated by a Ju52 plane from Stalingrad after having lost his hand. Loser had been disgusted by the colonialist behaviour of Americans and moreover by the policy of installing Pershing rackets targeting Warsaw Pact positions, risking to provoke Soviet retaliation on the German soil. Consequently Germany, East and West, could have been wiped out the map through a carpet bombing through nuclear weapons. A neutrality policy based on the models of Austria, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden and Yugoslavia was therefore the only rational possibility. The neutral central zone in Europe should, according to Loser, be enlarged to East and West Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg. A Swiss-Yugoslavian bunkerized defence system should have sanctuarized the whole area. The perestroika of Gorbachev made this kind of speculations useless. One year later, General Gunther Kiessling, German delegate officer at the NATO Headquarters in Casteau (Belgium) was also disgusted by the fact that High Staf officers were always American or British despite the fact that European armies were more numerous in the forces displayed by NATO; Kiessling subsequently advocated a foreign policy based on Harmel’s ideas. Our positions, at the very beginning of the history of our magazines “Orientations” and “Vouloir”, stood in this rational, political and non ideological way of thinking and our hostility to Washington’s warmongers derives from these objective statements.
 
- In one of your articles issued in 1998 you wrote about the priority of “Volk” over abstract state. How do you think about this position now when we have a postmodern mix with the social networks, the long-distance nationalism and the immigrants flows?
 
I don’t remember exactly about which article you are talking. But nevertheless the sense of belonging, the sense of duty and, if necessary of sacrifice, is only possible when you are embedded in a blood and soil humus or if you’re “roped together” (“encordes”) like alpinists with your fellow-citizens as the present-day French philosopher Robert Redeker says in denouncing the degenerative Western fashions, focussing only on the diseased “ego” reduced to the only physical body, the “Egobody”, as he calls it, and trying to embellish it by artificial interventions or bizarre tricks like tattoos, piercings, mamal implants, etc. Modest traditional people should have a “craddle country”, have a dialect, i. e. words of their own that are a part of their intimate identity, an identity that has to be linked by a “long story” or a memory which ought to be embedded in a genuine history and in songs, poems and novels that are their own and non imported. Intellectuals of course have always had a more open mind, could always throw and catch a glimpse beyond the border of their own kinship but this is of course not a reason to reject viciously what’s carved in your own self and create artificially cosmopolitan societies and pseudo-values, believing they are the only keys to the future, i. e. cosmopolitan societies that neo-liberals a la Soros now call “open societies”. A society is dangerously “open” when all its members have lost their memories, when they are serialized like preserved meat cans or like poor battery chickens. The notion of “Volk” was first coined philosophically by Johann Gottfried Herder, who had a great influence in Russia and inspired the “Narodniki” thinkers. This enabled the Czar in the 19th century to pay linguists and grammarians to write down a first scientific Russian grammar and also, a couple of decades later, grammars of the Baltic languages. Later, even the Soviet system could better preserve the small peoples of the present-day Russian Federation like the Mordves, the Chuvashes, the Maris, etc. and give them autonomous districts or republics that kept their cultural heritage intact without even endangering Soviet Union or current Russia as supranational wholes. This also is a heritage of Herder’s thinking, which is “another Enlightenment” quite different than the Enlightenment that generated the Western ideology. You could of course say that the Soviet system of ethnical republics lead to the tragedy of Chechnya and the dangers of an Islamic rebellion in Tatarstan or Bashkirtostan. I answer this objection by remembering that other Republics, like of course Ossetia remained absolutely true to the links they have since about two centuries with Russia and that the Muslim religious authorities in Kazan develop an Islam that is original and immune in front of all the false seductions of Wahhabism. 
 
Religious values can only be kept alive in the “ethnical-ideational” frames that “Volker” objectively are, without any sanctimonious or bigot derivations. Big overcrowded Cities are a danger for the human kind not only in Europe, in Japan or in Russia but also in Africa (see the horrors of the slums in Nigeria for instance) and in Latin America (Mexico City and his criminal gangs having transformed this poor country —that once upon a time fascinated the English writer David Herbert Lawrence— in a “failed State”). Once more the idea of a variety of people on the surface of the Earth, expressed some decades ago by the Breton thinker Yann Fouere and his Irish fellows among the true leaders of Eire (De Valera, MacBride, etc.), is a true and acceptable “inter-national” idea, i. e. an idea shared “among nations” (Latin, “inter nationes”), as the people are “actually existing” and the pseudo-international, cosmopolitan ideas are mere chimaeras. You cannot sell the cosmopolitan ideas of Parisian intellectuals a la Bernard-Henri Levy in Africa. The Chinese by cleverly refusing to impose their own foreign notions to Africans could conquer markets in the most derelict states of the Black Continent because their leaders were fed up by the moralizing and intrusive interference of the West with their domectic affairs. The French-speaking poet and writer Leopold Sedar Senghor, who became President of Senegal, was an attentive reader of Count de Gobineau, described in all possible “antifa” books and essays as the “Father of Racism”. The couple of pages Gobineau devoted to the African people in is “Essay on the Inequality of Races” didn’t upset the future President of Senegal when he read them as a student involved in the “Negritude” movement in France and French-dominated Africa. Senghor stressed the necessity to keep in each possible culture, in Africa, Europe or elsewhere in the world, the figure of the “conteur”, the “storyteller”, who transmit the people’s memory to the future generations. In a developed country the collective “storyteller” could be the historians and philologists, who surely exist in the best way in our societies, but are edged out and bereft of all consideration in front of all the negative figures of modernity like bankers, economists, lawyers, technocrats, etc. who have wiped out the collective memories in our developed societies, destroying what Redeker, as an attentive reader of Heidegger, calls the “encordements”, the “roped-togetherness”, leaving behind a miserable crippled (sub?)human kind unable to react properly in front of all the challenges of postmodern age. 
 
Postmodern thoughts could have been an opportunity to get rid of the Western ideology that claims to be the only heir of the 18th Century Enlightenment and as such the only “true” acceptable way of thinking: all other forms of thoughts being dismissed as unacceptable, racist, fascist, non democratic, etc. becoming automatically a domestic outlaw, who would surely be totally ignored by the mainstream media (which is a contradiction to the “Human Rights” principles as such an edging-out is equivalent to the forbidden political crime of condemning a citizen to the “civil death”) or an international thug, whose state would be registered in the “Black List” of the contemptible “Axis of Evil States”. Armin Mohler —who wrote the most memorable book introducing us to all the aspects of the German so-called “Conservative Revolution” and asked all non-conformist Europeans in the Sixites and Seventies to show an actual solidarity towards all the States that the USA described as “Rogue States”— had hoped in 1988-89, just some months before the destruction of the Berlin Wall, that postmodern trends would have eroded the Western ideology, which in Germany had become a must in the versions coined by Sir Ralf Dahrendorf (who was a British citizen) and Jurgen Habermas. No one could think, elaborate an ideological corpus outside the only few paths indicated by Habermas, the atrabilious professor who was always rising an admonishing finger. Postmodernity signifies first of all relativism. One could have needed a relativism precisely to “relativize” the new compulsory ideology imposed not only in Germany but everywhere else in Western Europe. 
 
Unfortunately for Western Europe and for the ex-Comecon states now included in the EU, the relativism of some postmodern thinkers couldn’t perform the job that Mohler hoped that we would have achieved. The relativism of postmodern thoughts leads to a still more “sensate” world of decay, that the late and regretted French thinker Philippe Muray called the “festivism”, mocking the current trend to invent new “postmodern” festivities like Gay Prides to replace traditional and liturgical religious festivals or ceremonies. Mohler hoped that postmodernity would have restored an ironical criticism banking on the traditional irony of Ancient Greek philosophy (Diogenes), on the famous “Hammer’s philosophy” of Nietzsche aiming at generalizing a “joyful knowledge” and on some aspects of the Heideggerian will to “fluidify the concepts”, that’s to say to eliminate all the rigidities the concepts had acquired by time because of the bad habits of starchy philosophers who only could repeat stupidly what their brilliant teachers in the past had said, so that they were constantly losing the substance and rigidifying the forms. Heidegger had been ordered by Conrad Grober, his parish priest (who as an eminent theologist became later the Archbishop of Freiburg-im-Breisgau), to study the concepts of Aristoteles in order to think beyond the rigid concepts the Scholastics had clumsily fabricated out of the genuine Aristotelian materials. According to Grober, Aristoteles’ concepts were more dynamic than static: the schoolmen hadn’t understood properly the meaning of the Greek grammar tenses, that express a variety of time meanings, among which some were rather static and others frankly dynamic. The schoolmen had only kept the static meaning in their narrow brains. Grober wanted to restore the dynamic nuances and save the Catholic faith (it was his main aim!) of sclerosis due to a too static interpretation of Aristoteles’ concepts by the scholastic tradition. 
 
The worldwide adoption of the poor substanceless cosmopolitan cogitations will surely destroy ethnical and ethical values, i. e. the “Volker” and “volkisch”-determined values Herder and the Narodniki wanted to save by a constant acitvity of poets, archeologists, philologists, grammarians and historians as well as the religious traditional values eminent men like Guenon, Evola, Tucci, Schuon, Coomaraswamy, etc. wanted to restore. “Nationalism” in the positive sense of the word, that’s to say in the sense Herder had wanted to impulse in Germany, Russia and elsewhere, implies that you feel as your duty to immerge yourself in your national-ethnical-linguistic surroundings, as actual and non fictional surroundings, in your “Nahe”, your proximity, as Heidegger has taught us and as he had practiced it by drinking beers with his beloved and often forgotten brother Fritz in the pub of his native town of Messkirch in Schwabenland and by having long walks on the paths of the Black Forest near his small chalet of Todtnauberg. Heidegger also stressed the importance of the “Nahe” in a speech he held in plain language for the inhabitants of Messkirch in 1961; the speech was about television: Heidegger explained that television was a devilish device introducing “Farness” (“die Ferne”) into our “proximity” (our “Nahe”), ruining the entrenchments and real-life links we needed as stabile and not uprooted beings. Nowadays with modern devices as MP3, iPods and another useless knick-knacks every possible event or presposterous fancy spectacle is permanently irrupting in our daily lives: strident or cacophonic GSM-bells are ringing when you’re in your bath, in a tramcar, in a romantic restaurant, in your girlfriend’s bed or at a serious meeting, pupils can watch a film in the classroom without being caught by the unaware teacher, young girls and boys are emitting curious sounds in the bus because they’re listening to loud crazy music, so that they’re even conscious of making noises. This kind of subhumanity you can observe now in your daily life is maybe the humanity of the “last men twinkling their eyes” (Nietzsche) but they are surely “people without a centre” as Schuon explained it in his tremedously interesting book “Avoir un centre”, trying simultaneously to find a remedy to this anthropological disaster. Schuon opted for meditation in the Sahara desert or among the Sioux in North America. 
 
These are the very results of the lost of all form of liturgy in religious life: D. H. Lawrence warned against such a lost in his booklet “Apocalypse” and Mircea Eliade devoted almost all his life to the study of real-life faiths. Maybe as Orlando Figes explains it in “Natasha’s Dance”, his recent book about Russian intellectual life before the Bolshevik revolution, the “Old Believers” revolted against the modern world in being in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries because rituals and liturgical sacred gestures were scrapped out of Russian religious life... So you can surely create a virtual community of “nationalists” or of “traditionalists” on the net, you can get a lot of information from all parts of the world but your duty is nevertheless “hic et nunc”, here and nowhere else, now and not in the past or in a hypothetical future, here in the liturgical traditions and gestures that have given cohesion to your ancestors’ communities. If these traditions have been forgotten or mocked away, you simply have to remember them and let them remember by your fellow-countrymen, by performing the sometimes modest job of the philologist or the ethnologist or the archeologist as Herder induced us to do. Scores of people in Western Europe are now trying to revive past gentle and well-balanced traditions, despite the silence of the mainstream medias.
 
Mass immigration is a weapon to destroy societies, as former US Ambassador Charles Rivkin has acknowledged it: the present-day European societies are destroyed because the relativism —induced by modernity and forcefully imposed by devilish postmodern subversive intellectuals— renders the people unable to find a positive solution to the problem. The immigrants are also destroyed by the simple fact that their traditional family values will also be eradicated, as all will in the short run become “centerless” beings. 
 
- And how would you link your traditional “volkisch” ideas with the suggestion Prof. Dugin has formulated in his 4th Political Theory, for which the “People” as “Volk” or “Narod” remains a subject of history but not expressed as a “nation” in a land or as a “class” but as a “Dasein” according to Heidegger’s philosophy?
 
Difficult question to answer as I wasn’t sent a copy of Dugin’s “Fourth Political Theory”. The “Volker” cannot be efficient subjects of history anymore, even if there are sometimes notable exceptions as the protesting Icelandic people that could escape the choking policy of the cosmopolitan banksters or the Venezuelan people that stood behind Hugo Chavez. Carl Schmitt explained very well that now the real subjects of history are the “Grossraume” (the “Greater Areas”), a volunteer assembly of ethnical or non ethnical countries around a hegemon (super)power. Small nations cannot achieve anything now, except domestic cohesion policies, which are of course duly needed. The BRICS-countries are now all “Greater Areas” and are hegemon in their own domestic territory; they are also able to assemble around their leadership smaller powers in their neighbourhood. 
 
“Dasein” means literally in German “to be there” or the “being-there”, so that we are brought back to the previous question. I am because I am located here. I cannot “be” ubiquitously in two or three different places, so I cannot act as a genuine “zoon politikon” (Aristoteles) if I have no location or a score of locations, like the so-called modern “nomads” that a mainstream pseudo-thinker like Jacques Attali admires so much and suggests as models for future mankind. Man is linked to his “oikos” and cannot be a perfect “zoon politikon” if he lives elsewhere or if he is moving ceaselessly. That’s one aspect. But Heidegger, even if he defined himself as a native of Messkirch, was certainly not a short-sighted thinker. I suppose the aspect Dugin wants to stress in his book is the notion of “authentic man”, willing to escape the world of modern standardization, the world that his student and former girlfriend Hannah Arendt called the “world of the petty jobs”. We live in the anthropological ruins (Evola!) of modern world where mere existence is repetitive, dull, nonsensical. This cannot be “real life” according to existentialist Heidegger. Therefore “Dasein” has, let’s say for the purpose of explaining here the matter in a narrow nutshell, a second meaning in Heidegger philosophy. “Dasein” is often translated into French by the word “existence” (as Sartre did in the late Forties). In this way the “Sein” is simply the world or the universe that was given a sense yet, be it static, lifeless, material or be it vivid, growing, dynamic, vegetal or animal. For a human being, or better said for a “zoon politikon”, “Sein” without a given sense is not enough. He or she has to jump voluntarily into existence and if you jump from (“ex”) an indefinite place, as the mere “Sein” (“res stantes”) is, you arrive of course “there” where you’re born or “there” where you’ve chosen to be, you are “ex” the “res stantes”, i. e. in a dynamic, dangerous world, an “ex-istence”, where you have to struggle or to suffer to be authentic. We are not satisfied with the ruins of modern world, with the mess of the “festivistic” postmodern societies in which we cannot do anything else but rebel. Our “Dasein” is also this rebellion which is the jump out of this mess, or better said the result of the willing jump we had the audacity to perform in order not to rotten in “in-authenticity”. This rebellious jump is performed by thousands and thousands of people throughout the world, resulting in the birth or rebirth in the “real risky and revolutionary life” of the authentic men, the ones who want to remain for ever traditional “zoon politikon” or traditional “Kschatriyas” or “Brahmani”. It is in this sense that I understand your question and subsequently Dugin’s position. Dugin dreams obviously of a worldwide rallying unity of “authentic traditional men” that have set a step backward in front of the mess that modernity is, thus having opted first for what Arnold Toynbee called a “withdrawal” to meditate, to recreate metaphysical authenticity in non modern spiritual areas, like the Old Believers lived in remote villages on the shore of the White Sea or in the deepest forests of Siberia, to come back one day, the day of the “return” (Toynbee), when a new cycle will start. 
 
To think further into this Heidegger and Arendt vision of “authentic life”, I am reading now the works of the Italian theologist Vito Mancuso, who wrote precisely a book significantly titled “La Vita autentica” (= “Authentic Life”). 
 
- In this sense how might political metaphysics become actual in Europe where strong secular moods are now dominating, while you have the rise of Islam within the European societies now as well as on the other side of the Mediterranean?
 
Dugin indeed very often uses the phrase “political metaphysics”, referring mainly to the traditional corpuses of Guenon and Evola. Dozens of authors revive now, after Evola, Guenon, Schuon and many others what we can call “political metaphysics” or simply “metaphysics”, whereby “metaphysics” can eventually be politicized. Metaphysics as the traditional knowledge of things active and linked together behind the physical appearances, as a non material, intuitive and poetical ability of selected humans to perceive the divine “noumena” beyond the mere “phenomena” has been gradually rejected as a “ridiculous irrationality” in the Western thought patterns and Immanuel Kant proclaimed the end of metaphysics in the last decade of the 18th century. Many tried to save metaphysics from oblivion, others replace it by “culture philosophy” (Hamann, Herder) or by history (Hegel, the Hegelians and the Marxists). The modern and postmodern world rejects metaphysics since the 18th century as well as, since the last phases of this catastrophic shift leading towards present-day visible “Kali Yuga”, culture as cement of societies and history as a prospective move towards a better future, because both culture and history implies also duties. Kant could theorize an ethical approach of duty without metaphysics, because he was the philosopher who declared metaphysics was abolished or to be abolished: this sense of Kantian (Prussian!) duty was ruined in the long run by extreme individualism and consumption society. “Culture” as Hamann or Herder undesrtood it has also vanished and history as it had been formerly conceived by some existentialists (Sartre, Camus, Malraux) and by the Marxists is also mocked and rejected by postmodern relativists. Even the most seducing “Ersatze” of metaphysics are now rejected and mocked by postmodern relativism. Nevertheless it must be said here that the true understanding of metaphysics was only a privilege of intellectual or religious elites, having undergone a long training or initiation: for common people liturgy, religious festivities and rites were factually more important, because they were giving sense to their lifes and were rhythming their daily existence. All these old peasants’ festivities and rites have also vanished out of our everyday life to be replaced by what Philippe Muray calls “attractions”, i. e. media tricks, or “parodies” as Guenon or Evola would have said. Francesco Lamendola, a present-day Italian philosopher, whose articles you can find on high interesting sites like http://www.arianneditrice.it or http://www.centrostudilaruna.it , explained us recently that even the official Catholic Church is now unable, despite certain efforts of Pope Benedict XVI, to revive metaphysics or traditional ways as it has too long tried to ape modern media subcultures to be saved again from total decay: his article was illustrated by a photo showing priests and nuns dancing and twisting their bodies like crazy youths, hippy-style... Once you tolerate such undignified attitudes by the very guardian of your religion you cannot find easily the way back to more worthy positions. Secular bric-a-brac has invaded and neutralized everything in the religious realm of people in America and Western Europe, what induces another current Italian philosopher, Umberto Galimberti, to define christianity as “a religion of the empty heavens” (“la religione dal cielo vuoto”). 
 
What concerns Islam, you must keep in mind that we would fully accept a truely traditional Islam as it has been illustrated by high figures such as Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Henry Corbin (and his follower Christian Jambet), Michel Chodkiewicz or the Algerian thinker Meriboute. Their visions, that could be spiritual models for Iran and Central Asia, or could be connected with the Iranian medieval mystique (Sohrawardi) or the Flemish-Rhinish mystical tradition (Ruusbroec, Meister Eckhart, Sister Hadewych, Nicolaus von Cues, etc.), have of course nothing to do with present-day salafism or wahhabism or with the inadequacies preached by the Muslim Brotherhood that has set Syria aflame in 1981-82 and once again since about two years. Unfortunately the mix of salafism, wahhabism and Brotherhood’s Islam is currently seducing thousands of young immigrants in Europe today, who then reject both the modernist lunacies and the healthy remains of traditional Europe. Tariq Ramadan’s thoughts have also a real impact nowadays on Muslims in Europe but, even if this Swiss-based Muslim intellectual leader seems to suggest some interesting anti-Western ideas, we should not forget that, according to very recent historical studies performed in the United States and in Germany, his uncle Said Ramadan, another prominent Muslim Brother in the Fifties, helped actively to replace all the pro-European (and anti-Soviet) imams of Munich’s main mosque and Muslim religious centre in Germany by Muslim Brothers with the help of CIA-agents as the Muslim Brothers were at that time plotting against the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser (nicknamed the “Pharao” by his domestic foes) for the high benefit of Israel as they are plotting now against the Syrian Baathist power elite. This kind of Islam is, despite American-made “Golems” like Al Qaeda or Bin Laden, an instrument in the hand of the United States and Saudi Arabia and aims under many other projects at recreating a strong strategic “bolt” of islamized or semi-islamized states (Greater Albania, Kosovo, a potentially islamized Macedonia, autonomous Muslim-Turkish areas in Bulgaria, etc.) in the Balkan against Serbia, Europe and Russia, as the Serbian traditionalist thinker, diplomat and artist Dragos Kalajic observed attentively before his early death some years ago. Kalajic used to call this project the “dorsale islamique dans les Balkans”. 
 
- We see that many people are protesting in the streets of many European capitals but how resistance can occur and develop in “bourgeois societies” like these of the EU?
 
First “bourgeois” societies are going to vanish if middle classe people and workers all together will be completely ruined by inflation and economical crisis. In Spain, Portugal and Greece you’ve surely a social agitation but not a revolutionary spirit able to modify thoroughly society. In iceland the demonstrations have at least compelled the government to refuse to pay banks back and to sue the responsible ministers and throw them in jail. In Italy, the last elections, with the success of Beppe Grillo, prove that people don’t believe in the usual corrupted parties of the worn-out old partitocracy: this is a good thing, proving that the election process, presented in the media as the quintessence of true democracy, is ruined, is pure fake, as soon as non elected technocrats are taking over power in spite of people’s rejection of corruption and technocratic governance. In Belgium the conventional trade unions tried to mobilize their militants so that they refuse austerity but tell us nothing about the too high prices for energy, food in supermarkets and insurance fees, that are eroding the purchase power of all our fellow-citizens. In France, the situation is astonishing: people were tired of neo-liberal Sarkozy but reject also socialist Hollande whereby protests are focussed on homosexual marriage. France seems to reject left-wing Voltairian pan-criticism and the typical French May-68 ideology for which homosexuality, gender problems, criminality, marginality, etc. were considered as an aspect of a certain intellectual and moral superiority in front of the conventional mass of heterosexual women and men, of fathers and mothers: this previously non politicized mass seems now to be fed up to be seen by all mainstream medias as inferior (or as potential fascist thugs) and mocked by the so-called “intellectual elite”. Gender speculations and Gay Prides were also set out as expressions of the true “Republican values”, which are now rejected by a wider mass of citizens reacting in a non materialistic, non “sensate” way. This could be a way out of the bourgeois mentality which is of course “sensate” in the definition once given by Pitirim Sorokin. 
 
- In Gramsci’s words, citizens need a consensus for managemant and co-evolution but it seems now that the Euro-bureaucracy and the transnational financists have usurped all the necessary tools for decision-making...
 
Technologically speaking we don’t live in Gramsci’s time anymore so we must avoid all anachronisms. Gramsci was influenced by the Italian neo-Macchiavellian school of sociology (Mosca, Pareto, Michels) where the notions of ruling (oligarchy) and challenging elites (revolutionists) were very important. Gramsci was the main thinker of the pre-Fascist Italian communist movement, in which he saw an instrument to abolish the power of the Italian oligarchy (his beloved brother on the contrary saw Fascism as a better instrument to control the oligarchy!). In order to be efficient, the revolutionists had to start a cultural struggle mainly by using popular and classical theater as a tool. So did the Futurists around Marinetti, who became fascists, and so did Brecht in Germany, who remained a communist. In the eyes of Gramsci, modern Italian street theater would create consensus but now the heirs of the non communist but leftist (Lenin: “leftism as the infantile illness of communism”!) are creating dissensus in French society and the pussy riots or femen “happenings” in the purest Sixties’ style are mainly considered as vulgar and ridiculous. True “subversion” of the establishment’s power can only be now a kind of blowback, a return of the usual “decency” of traditional societies as George Orwell wanted also in his time to be the main option of socialist forces in Britain and elsewhere. Orwell and his heir the Slavist Anthony Burgess (who is not read anymore...) rejected deviant behaviours within the Left as it was, in their eyes, the best tools of the oligarchies to cancel the efficiency of peoples’ protest. 
 
The Eurocracy is now generally rejected in all Western European countries. The policy of austerity leads to a general contestation of the Eurocratic power so that at the end of April this year they announced officially that they would find out another solution. But it is impossible for them to change their type of governance as they would automatically and definitively be expelled from power. Europe has now to make a choice: either she takes the option for the shortsighted oligarchy’s “economical/financial reasons” or she makes the decision in favour of the “vital reasons”. The first option means political derath; the second, survival. 
 
- What do politicians and geopoliticans in Europe think about Russi and other Eurasian countries such as India and China?
 
Politicians and mainstream opinion-makers generally follows what NATO says. In France, despite the present-day revolt against the May 68-elites, the “nouveaux philosophes” still determine foreign policy. Bad things are said about Russia, of course, as Putin is described as a kind of “new Stalin” who manipulates all elections held in your country. In China the Human Rights are said to be fully neglected and Tibet is considered as crushed as well as the Uighours of Chinese Turkestan (Sin Kiang). India is perhaps better perceived, except when the BJP-Hindu nationalists are in power. The geopolitical schools in Europe on the contrary have an objective view on Russia, India and China. In Germany people as Peter Scholl-Latour or Alexander Rahr knows that the United States are constantly imposing geopolitical views that are opposite to the natural interests of Germany. Aymeric Chauprade, who published his books on geopolitics by the “Ellipses” publisher in Paris, was fired from the Military Academy as soon as Sarkozy came to power because he wanted to remain true to the Gaullist independent French position towards NATO. Geopolitical schools see the development of the BRICS-powers as positive because it allows us to escape America-centrered unipolarity on the international chessboard and, above all things, create a multipolar cohesion in the world that will be strongly linked by telluric-continental highways from the Atlantic shores till the Pacific Ocean.
 
- From the point of view of eurocentrism, what is Russia? Is there any fears of a “yellow threat”?
 
When we use the word “eurocentrism” in a positive way, we think about historical periods where a kind of Eurasian unity would have been possible without great efforts or was de facto actualized. In the 18th century, Louis XVIth, Maria Theresa of Austria and Catherine of Russia were allied against the Turks and the British (at least unofficially), and their kingdoms and empires stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific, not to forget that Russia possessed at that time Alaska, the Hawai and a portion of the Pacific Coast of North America till Fort Ross on the former Russian-Spanish border in California! The Holy Alliance or Pentarchy (as Constantin Frantz called it) was an implict alliance from Ireland to Alaska that was deliberately destroyed by the British and the French at the time of the Crimean War. The “Drei-Kaiser-Bund” (the “Three-Emperors-Alliance”) of Germany, Austria and Russia was also an implicit alliance but not so strong as the two previous ones, as the Western Atlantic coast was lost and as the United States had become a non negligible power, that could conquer the Californian coast after a war against Mexico and buy Alaska to allow the Czar to conquer Central Asia. Arthur Moeller van den Bruck and the “National-Bolsheviks” among the German diplomats or militants wanted at least a German-Soviet tandem that would have strategically united half Europe and Sovietized Russia, from Hamburg till Vladivostok. The craze of a possible “yellow threat” is not a specific West-European or German phobia, even if Emperor Wilhelm II was maybe one of the main representative of this phobic trend before 1914. The French Slavist Georges Nivat has analyzed the fear of a “Chinese threat” in Russian literature between 1850 and 1914 as well as the ideological rejection of Asian or Buddhist fashions among some Petersburger intellectuals, whereby the “Chinese threat” shouldn’t be seen exclusively as racial but also as a rejection of a too centralized and bureaucratized state. The Imperial Chinese “Mandarinate” was seen as a threat for human freedom and free will, as genuine virtues of “Christianity” (i. e. of European and Ancient Greek culture). In principle China isn’t a danger as China is centered on itself. China proposes the world an international organization where no single power would have the right to interfere in others’ domestic affairs. In Africa, the only problem China can create is on the level of high sea fishing: if Africans cannot benefit from the fish along their own coasts, they risk an awful food dependancy that could have catastrophic consequences, especially if coupled with the already existing food shortages and the draughts in the Sahel area. 
 
- Nikolai Danilevski in his book “Russia and Europe” wrote that Europeans were afraid of Russia because of its huge landmass overhanging over Europe... But we have also differences in religion, ethos, etc.
 
We’ve stated since long that Russian patriots are swinging between a Danilevski-oriented nationalism and a Leontiev-oriented traditionalism. Danilevski was partially influenced by Darwinism like some but not all “Pangermans” and saw a coming struggle for survival and domination between “old peoples” (Britain, France) and “young peoples” (Russia, the Slavs in general). Leontiev was more traditional and ortthodox and wanted the status quo being preserved, especially in the Balkans. The Europeans feared Russia’s demographic boom in the 19th century, exactly as Europeans and Russians had also feared Chinese demography or fear the current African or Northern African population boom or as the French at the end of the 19th century were obsessed by the increase of German population, while their own population was decreasing. Russia in the 19th century was mainly a threat not for Europe, as France, Belgium, Germany invested a lot in Russia, but for British liberalism and for British India as soon as the Czar’s armies managed to control Central Asia till the Afghan borders: huge armies could have been ready to invade India, the cornerstone of the British Empire and the key to control the “Heart Sea”, which is the Indian Ocean. The Crimean War, that destroyed the strategical unity of Pentarchy, as the embodiment of European civilization, and weakened Russia only for a couple of decades, is the very source of the geopolitical and metaphysical opposition between East and West, as Dostoievsky pointed it out in his “Diary of a Writer”. The West appeared as a subversive force that was undermining the unity of “Christianity” (i. e. Europe and Russia perceived as a strategical unity). According to Constantin Frantz, the lack of interest in European unity in France and Britain was due to colonialism: both French and British empires hadn’t their centre in Europe anymore and could survive without the necessity of a unity: this lead directly to the catastrophe of World War One. The differences in religion and ethos can more easily be bridged, at the sole condition that Catholics or Protestants aren’t trying to convert others by all means, not only in Russia or in Orthodox countries but also in Muslim areas, in China or in India. Protestants US based sects should also give up their missions in Catholic Latin America. The giving up of proselytism should be one condition of world peace alongside the renouncing to interfere in domestic policies as the Chinese have asked for. 
 
This week, the French weekly magazine “Valeurs actuelles” (n°3989) publishes a world map showing the “clash between religious dynamics” where not only Islam or Muslim fundamentalism is pushing forward in Muslim countries, in Africa (Nigeria) or in India but where the mostly US based “Evangelic churches” are thriving tremendously as they are extremely active in Latin America (and in Spain due to Latino immigration!), in Catholic Black Africa (West Africa, Congo, Angola, etc.), in China, Japan and the Philippines. The map shows us also the progression of “religious diversity” in the United States, in Australia, in all European countries, in Russia and in China, Corea and Japan. “Religious diversity” means obviously a decrease in social coherence when this diversity is imported and means also, one should not forget it, a general and problematic uprooting of people when “natural” or “native” religions are disappearing, even in their christianized or islamized syncretic forms (see the recent tragical fate of Tumbuctu mosques and libraries or of the Serbian Orthodox monastries in Kosovo). Both the conquests of Wahhabism (or Salafism) and of the American “Evangelic Churches” are proofs of the victories of “unipolarity” even if the United States pretend to be the main foe of “Al Qaeda”. Both hyper-active fundamentalisms, i. e. Saudi Wahhabism and US-perverted Evangelism, aims at conquering or re-conquering lost territories or territories that had been previously immunized against Puritanical-Wahhabite subversion, for instance by intelligent and efficient civilian-military developing regimes. Latin America has reached a certain level of independance thanks to the Mercosur common market, the indigenist positions of Morales in Bolivia or the anti-imperialist actions and diplomacy of late President Chavez: the South-American continent risks in the long run to be totally subverted and reconquered by the social action of the Evangelic churches. In Africa it is obvious that the secret aim of these churches is to cut French-speaking Africa from France and the EU and to replace French or European (and Chinese!) influence by American domination in order to get the oil of this part of the world. In China the Evangelical moves have as purpose to break the cohesion of the Han Chinese society and to create confusion and dissensus, exactly like in the 19th century when a civil war lead by a curious convert to a kind of strange christianity cost China more than 20 millions dead. So this religious subversion is one of the weapons used to eliminate China as a competitor superpower in the Far East, like military containment, support of fundamentalist Uighurs in Sinkiang, Cyberwarfare, etc. are other weapons pointed against Beijing. 
 
The increase of “religious diversity” in the main countries of the EU means a lost of social and political cohesion that corresponds to the purposes of the geopolitician Robert Strauss-Hupe, who became an adviser of the US presidents Roosevelt and Truman, alongside a certain Mr. Morgenthau who wanted to transform Germany into a bucolic agrarian state in the very middle of Europe. Now, as Socialist Thilo Sarrazin fears it, Germany will be unable to produce the needed engineers to let the German industrial machine work properly. The same is true for other European countries and so Morgenthau’s dream risks to become reality: Germany as a weak industrial country animated by crazy sociologists, who would be a kind of leisure class priesthood, that would impose a “festivist” way of life (with ubiquitous sexual permissiveness and with the “femens” as new tarty nuns!) and would flay as “fascist” all those who would plead for a more rational society (see Helmut Schelsky, “Die Arbeit tun die Anderen”). 
 
- Thank you, Mr. Steuckers, for having answering these questions. Do you want to add something or to formulate some other remarks?
 
Caucuses like yours and ours should study geopolitics and history in all their aspects and know all about the forces that activate the Muslim world from the Atlantic coasts of Morrocco to the tiniest islands of Indonesia. We must create a world elite of men and women totally immune to the artificial propagandas produced by US based media agencies. Therefore we must meet as often as possible, exchange ideas by means of interviews, but at a more trepident tempo as it has been done till yet: the others are not lazy, so we may certainly not be less active, otherwise the metapolitical battle will be definitively lost for us. 

Interviewed by Leonid Savin

samedi, 08 juin 2013

Finnish-Caucasian Emirate

Finnish-Caucasian Emirate

by Nikolai MALISHEVSKI

Ex: http://www.strategic-culture.org/
 

The facts revealing the «Finnish traсe» in the Boston marathon terrorist bombing have become a thing of general public knowledge. I offer just a cursory look at them to substantiate a warning: Europe is not immune from the events the Bostoners went through in April 2013.

Boston is home to a small community of ethnic Chechens in the United States. The office of Al Kifah is located on Beacon Street. In 1990 the organization sprang from the anti-Soviet jihad movement in Afghanistan. It was suspected of being implicated in the World Trade Center bombing that took place on February 26, 1993, as well as of connection to some terrorist activities on US soil. The bulk of the organization’s offices were closed down, but the Boston branch called Care International continued to function. It raised funds, provided all forms of logistical support, created brigades of suicide bombers and recruited fighters for jihadist causes in the United States. (1) Some of these mercenaries, like Aukai Collins, for instance, came back from Chechnya to collaborate with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as informants. The United States special services let the Boston center of extremism in peace for about twenty years. The Tsarnaev brothers’ mother recalls, «Tamerlan was ‘really an extremist leader and that they were afraid of … He was controlled by the FBI for five years. They knew what my son was doing. They were following every step of his». (2)

As Finnish media reported on April 21, the Boston terrorist act perpetrators were influenced and directly controlled by the extremist website called Caucasus Center, which is located in Finland and has a reputation of being an information instrument of the Caucasus Emirate. The British Daily Mail published the article called Was Boston Bomber Inspired by Russia's Bin Laden? Mother Claims FBI Tracked Older Brother 'for FIVE YEARS' After Being Told by Moscow of Links to Chechen Terrorists (2) devoted to the links between the Tsarnaev brothers and Doku Umarov who heads the Center. Some American and Turkish journalists say Chechen Fatima Tlisova was a key connecting link between the Caucasus Emirate and the United States special services operating in the Caucasus (including Jamestown Foundation) (4) Islam Saidaev describes how these kind of people were recruited and used by Western and Georgian special services for support of Chechen separatists in his book called To Do Away With a Witness. The author is well acquainted with the details leading to the conclusion that, «The idea to create the Caucasus Emirate, which was spread around among Chechens, was a brainchild of Georgian special services and the Caucasus Center website».

Here are some facts from the biography of Doku Umarov which are not in the books as yet. He was born in 1965 in Achoy-Martan. In July 1992 his name was included into the federal wanted list for murder and rape. On his mother’s side he is a relative of terrorist Movsar Baraev, who took hostages in Nord-Ost Theater in the Moscow district. He is also a cousin of Arbi Baraev, who is well known for abducting people, including French national Vincent Koshtelya, three Britons: Peter Kennedy, Darren Hickey, Rudi Petschi and New Zealand-born Stan Shaw as well as many others. Umarov is a staunch believer in Wahhabism. He goes around by the names of Warrior-1, Abu Muslim and Aisa. By the end of 1990s he ran errands for Khattab, a CIA operative and a Canadian national, allegedly a native Jordanian reported to be deprived of his homeland’s citizenship for links to US special services. In the 2000s Doku Umarov was closely connected to and provided funds for another terrorist - Ruslan Gelaev. With Gelaev gone, he took his place as the leader of criminal gangs in Georgia. Umarov was the last «president» of self-proclaimed Ichkeria (2006-2007). In Russia he is on wanted list for instigating ethnic strife, looting, abductions, mass murders (he personally shot Russians and Chechens) and the complicity in terrorist activities. Not once he claimed responsibility for ordering such terrorist crimes as Nevsky express (2009), Moscow metro (2010) and Domodedovo airport (2011) bombings.

On October 7 2007 Doku Umarov proclaimed himself as emir of Caucasus Emirate - a purported Islamic state spanning several republics in the Russian North Caucasus - calling his followers to start a global jihad, «a holy duty for all the Muslims of the Caucasus». Back then he said, «Today our brothers fight in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Palestine. Whoever attacked Muslims, wherever they may be is our common enemy. It’s not Russia only, but also the United States, Great Britain, Israel, anyone who fights against Islam and Muslims». On June 2010 the United States put him on the list of international terrorists. On March 11 2011 the United Nations Security Council added him to the list of individuals allegedly associated with al-Qaeda. On March 26 2011 the U.S. Department of State authorized a reward of up to $5 million for information leading to the location of Doku Umarov. At that, the United States special services had done nothing to neutralize him till the Boston bombing.

According to Finnish internet media outlet Suomitanaan, the Caucasus Center is just a small part of widely spread extremists’ structure, located in Helsinki, Finland. (3) The organization is tasked with a priority mission of disseminating jihad throughout Europe and the United States. The Center is supported by prominent Finnish politicians and state officials who back the idea of «independent Ichkeria». For instance: Finnish Green party politician, current Minister of Intentional Development Heidi Hautala, former Member of the European Parliament, Tarja Kantola Special Adviser to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Antero Leitzinger, a researcher at the Finnish Migration Service, being responsible for political asylum applications from the Caucasus. Finland is home to «Battalion of Chechen Martyrs», which added new members to its ranks after the Caucasus Center told would-be shahids (suicide bombers) that Tamerlan Tsarnaev died tortured by Americans. Some structures enjoying the support of Finnish state officials like Finnish-Russian Civic Forum, for instance, help the people who cannot wait «to set the fire of global jihad» to be transferred to other countries. The Boston tragedy brought into light the terrorists structures located in Finland. But the activities of the «Finnish-Caucasian Emirate» spread much further, far beyond the one state boundaries…

In 2011 it was reported that the younger son of former Chechen separatists’ leader Degi Dudaev, a citizen of Lithuania living in Vilnius, was detained by Lithuanian police. Back then Lietuvosrytas wrote that he was accused of being a member of a criminal gang involved in issuing faked Lithuanian passports, which went straight into the hands of Chechens, the same people as the Tsarnaev brothers, allowing them to move freely around the European Union.
1) More in detail: Berger J. Boston's Jihadist Past // Foreign Policy 22.04.2013 // foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/22/bostons_jihadist_past; Berger J.M. Jihad Joe: Americans Who Go to War in the Name of Islam. Potomac Books, 2011. - 265 p..
2) Gallagher I., Stewart W. Was Boston bomber inspired by Russia's Bin Laden? // Daily Mail, 20.04.2013 // www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312331/Was-Boston-bomber-inspired-Doku-Umarov-Mother-claims-FBI-tracked-older-brother7)-years-told-Moscow-links-Chechen-terrorists.html.
3) Boston terrorists were influenced and instructed by "Kavkaz Center", mouthpiece of terrorist Doku Umarov and his "Caucasus Emirate", operating in Helsinki, Finland // Suomitanaan, 21.04.2013 // suomitanaan.blogspot.ru/2013/04/boston-terrorists-were-influenced-and.html.
4) Madsen W. CIA Troublemaking in Caucasus // www.strategic-culture.org/news/2013/05/20/cia-troublemaking-in-caucasus.html

Euro-Atlantism must be replaced by Eurasianism

Euro-Atlantism must be replaced by Eurasianism

by Gabor VONA

Ex: http://www.geopolitica.ru/

 

- Mr. Vona, what is main idea of your political party and why is it important for Hungary to make revision of the relations with EU?

- Jobbik is a national conservative party which does not refrain from using radical means. So when they label us as radicals, they are wrong.  Radicalism is not a principle, it is a method. The reason why we are radicals is because the situation is radical as well. At the moment, we Hungarians are sick passengers on a sinking European ship that has lost its values. This is unbearable. First we must get off the ship, then cure our diseases. Hungary was not admitted to the EU so that we could develop. The goal was to colonize us, to exploit our cheap labour and acquire our markets. Western companies and banks now try to maintain their systems by using the profit they pump out of our country in the East. And this is just the economic side of the problem. The EU did not bring any good in terms of the spiritual, mental side, either. After the anti-value approach of Communism, we are now living in the valuelessness of capitalism. I personally follow traditionalist principles, in other words, I believe that Europe should get back to its own roots and rearrange its relationship with other traditional cultures that only exist in the East now.

- Jobbik has image of ultra right political party in Hungary and in Europe too. Do you agree with this label or have other outlook that can not be dealing with classical terms of "right", "left" and so on?

- If modernity, which stretches from the Renaissance through the Age of Enlightenment to global capitalism, is identified with the political left, then we definitely belong to the right. I and my party, however, cannot be located by using the left and right coordinates of current politology. The best way is to say that Jobbik is a national radical party, which is not chauvinistic, which defies global capitalism and three of its key representatives, the USA, the EU and Israel, from the platform of universal human values.

- Euroscepticism is very different in EU. Please can you to describe some particular issues ofHungary and neighbour countries related with this topic? What is role of euroatlanticism strategy in this process?

- The disapproval rate of the EU has just exceeded its approval rate in Hungary for the first time. There was an incredible brainwashing going on in the 1990s, so most people believed it was going to be good to join the EU, and that there was no other option. By now more and more people have realized that the whole thing was a setup. The Union needs markets, cheap labour and a garbage dump. How naive we were when we thought that the West was going to provide a historic compensation for the East to counterbalance  their exploiting and abandoning us quite a few times in history! The same applies to the neighbouring countries as well but Hungary is in the worst situation. The previous government signed every paper Brussels laid down in front of them, the current one is only interested in its own power, and antagonizes the whole EU for it. The common ground of the two governments is that neither has any concept whatsoever. So far I am the only politician in Hungary to declare that Euro-Atlantism must be replaced by Eurasianism.

- Did financial crisis had influence on protectionism moods or general aspects is civilizational and values factors? How much involved NGO's and external powers in desintegration of hole hungarian system (territory-language-culture-etc.)?

- The economic crisis indeed has a great influence on scepticism. The situation has revealed that the EU does not represent the interests of the whole community but the major Western member states - France, England, Germany. The influence of various external powers and organizations is becoming more and more obvious in people's eyes. I can go as far as to say that there is a revolution of consciousness going on in Hungary. This is of course painful, because people must give up many illusions, but it is inevitable because the future must be built on truth and reality. Consequently, what now seems to be a confusion in Hungarian society will clear  up, I hope, and give way to a society that is much more self-aware and has much clearer thinking.

 - If we'll look inside of Hungarian identity we'll find eurasian roots of this nation. How much this line presented in your politics?

- Completely.  The Hungarian nation has Turkic origin, and was formed by the Russian steppes into what it is now, then wandered to the West to establish a state in the Carpathian basin. Our Western integration has been going on for centuries, but we have never forgotten our Eastern origin and they could never uproot this concept from our minds. This duality has often had its drawbacks for us, but I believe it could be beneficial this time.

 - By the way what about connection with Russia in geopolitcal sense of nowadays?

- Jobbik is an anti-Communist party, yet we were the first in Hungary to seriously propose to settle our relations with the Russians. Not only in diplomatic speeches, but in reality as well. At the time of the Georgian conflict, when the whole Hungarian political elite was voicing their agreement with the American interests, we declared that this issue was about something completely different. When Viktor Orbán was sending sulky messages to Russia from opposition back in 2009, we already declared that he was making a huge mistake. Personally, I have good relations with several Russian diplomats in Budapest, and I am very happy that the Russian Embassy is always represented at our year-opening conferences. In my foreign policy plans, Russia - in addition to Germany and Turkey - is a key political and economic ally, partner for Hungary. 

- If we'll speak about global processes what is your position and prognosis for forthcoming events? How long U.S. will be superpower yet? What is E.U. future and how Eurasian integration will happens?

- Difficult question. The agony has definitely started and a new world order will have to be established. The alliance of the BRICS countries clearly shows that the time of the USA and EU has passed. The most fortunate turn of events would be if they themselves realized it, because that could prevent major conflicts and give way to a peaceful transformation. With regard to the framework of Eurasian cooperation, I don't see the actual opportunities yet, because first we must define the basic values and the consequent strategy that could attract the widest possible circles. This is the challenge now, and Jobbik is the only Hungarian political entity willing to meet it. The others are all Atlanticists, and they will remain so until history passes them.

- Thank you Mr. Vona for interview. Do you want to add something for our readers?

- Thank you for the opportunity.

By Leonid Savin

vendredi, 07 juin 2013

Vers un monde tripolaire ?

Vers un monde tripolaire ?

Il y a a peu près un an, j’écrivais un texte intitulé Vers un monde sans Union Européennne ?, dans lequel je prédisais que l’Europe (au sens de l’Union Européenne) ne serait plausiblement jamais, sous sa forme actuelle, un acteur majeur et viable du monde de demain. L’absence d’authentiques structures politiques et donc de souveraineté ne devrait pas en effet lui permettre de s’opposer aux nouveaux géants que sont les BRICS ou les grand blocs émergents, dont les clefs de fonctionnement politiques et stratégiques sont au contraire fondés sur la toute puissance du politique et l’affirmationde la souveraineté.

La crise économique financière, qui a notamment mis en exergue la crise de fonctionnement de la monnaie unique (Euro) a sans doute définitivement enterré l’espoir que les fondateurs avaient en l’Europe. L’Europe, il est vrai, n’a pas su dépasser ses différences historiques, systémiques et culturelles, sans doute par manque d’un pouvoir politique centralisateur et fort. Il y a tout d’abord l’Europe du Sud, ces récentes dictatures (Grèce, Portugal, Espagne…) qui sont les grands malades de l’Europe dont elles sont financièrement totalement à charge. Il y a les nouveaux entrants qui se sont tournés vers l’Amérique plus que vers l’Europe de Bruxelles, confondant sans doute leur adhésion à l’UE avec celle de l’Otan. Enfin, il y a le noyau d’une vieille Europe qui est partagée entre une Allemagne ayant un besoin vital et économique de plus d’UE, et une France qui peine de plus en plus à obtenir une crédibilité européenne. Enfin, il y a le cas de l’Angleterre, que le Général De Gaulle avait bien défini comme étant le pion atlantiste en Europe et qui devrait vraisemblablement rapidement quitter une UE en pleine décomposition.

Ce n’est que relativement récemment que, paradoxalement, l’extension à l’Est de l’Europe a rendu plus visible la place de la Russie comme partenaire essentiel de l’Union Européenne et des nations européennes. L’illusion d’un accroissement de la coopération militaire et énergétique proposée par Moscou pour contrebalancer l’atlantisme totalitaire des élites européennes actuelles aura été de courte durée. Il semble de plus en plus évident aujourd’hui que l’Europe de Bruxelles et la Russie sont, malgré la coopération économique croissante, sur des évolutions historiques opposées, voire même contradictoires. La Russie renforce activement son partenariat avec la Chine en parallèle de son intégration eurasiatique, laissant clairement comprendre où elle situe stratégiquement son avenir pour les prochaines décennies. Bruxelles vient sans doute de son coté de céder le peu de souveraineté qui lui restait puisque les parlementaires européens ont voté le 23 mai dernier une résolution sur l’ouverture de négociations en vue de la constitution d’un accord de libre échange entre les Etats-Unis et l’Union européenne.

Le but est clair et a été parfaitement expliqué par ladéputée européenne allemande Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl: « le renforcement de l’espace commercial transatlantique renforcerait énormément la position occidentale et permettrait sans doute que l’Union européenne ou les Etats-Unis soient un jour en mesure de négocier avec la Chine ». On peut imaginer clairement que de la même façon, l’Europe, qui a servi de tête de pont pour attaquer l’Eurasie contre une hypothétique menace postsoviétique destinée en fait à favoriser le contentieux américain contre la Russie, semble destinée aujourd’hui à servir de nouveau de tête de pont, mais cette fois en vue d’une tension américaine contre la Chine.

Cette hyper intégration transatlantique devait provisoirement accentuer l’américanisation de l’Europe de Bruxelles et par conséquent la soumission totale et définitive de cette dernière aux flux de capitaux, de marchandises et d’information venus d’outre atlantique. Ce faisant, l’Europe de Bruxelles se verrait dans l’incapacité définitive de pouvoir souverainement choisir ce qu’elle prend et ce qu’elle ne prend pas du monde qui l’entoure, et notamment d’outre atlantique. Pour Hervé Juvin, cette négociation annonce « à bien des égards la perspective d’une Europe puissance, d’une Europe comme identité et même d’une Europe comme entité politique a part entière ».

Peut-on envisager le remplacement de l’Union Européenne par une Union Occidentale sous contrôle politique de Washington et militaire de l’Otan ? Se dirige-t-on doucement vers un monde tripolaire partagé entre l’Union transatlantique, l’Union Eurasiatique et la Chine?

mardi, 23 avril 2013

Establish a multipolar world order

Establish a multipolar world order

 
Ex: http://www.geopolitica.ru/
 
 

 

- Could you describe in a few key words the essence and goals of your movement? Does it place itself in an existing sociopolitical-historical trend of Russian politics? Does it lobby in Russian government circles to achieve its goals?

The main idea and goal of the International Eurasian Movement is to establish a multipolar world order, where there will be no dictatorship of the U.S. anymore or of any other country or actor of world politics. In the sector of ideology we strongly reject (neo)liberalism and the globalization process as its derivative. We agree that we (as well as other nations) need a constructive platform for our alternative future. In the search of it, our work is directed to dialogue with other cultures and peoples who understand the meaning and necessity of conservative values in contemporary societies. Speaking about Russian reality, we are heirs and assigns to the former eurasianists (this ideology was born in the 1920s): Piotr Savitsky, Nikolay Trubetskoy, Nikolay Alekseev as well as Lev Gumilev – the famous Soviet scholar. They all studied historical processes and proposed a unique vision of our history, separate from the eurocentric science approach. The understanding that Russia is not part of Europe or Asia, but forms a very own unique world, named Eurasia, is also implemented in our political activity. In cooperation with members of parliament or the Council of the Federation or other governmental bodies, with our advices and recommendations, we always provide a strong basis linked to our history, culture, diversity and so on. And I must tell you that many people understand and support our ideas and efforts (in governmental structures, local and regional authorities, science and education, religious institutions and in society at large).

- What is your vision on a multipolar world? Which role do you see for Western European nations? Do they have any future at all on the world stage of the 21st century? Will they surmount the actual crises on a demographic, metaphysical and mental level?

In my opinion, a multipolar world is the order with 5 or more centers of power in the world and this reality will keep our planet more safe and balanced with shared responsibility between the regions. But it is not just interdependence by the logic of liberalism: some regions might well exist in relative political and economic autarky. Beside that, there might exist a double core in one center (for example Arabs and Turks in a large Muslim zone or Russia and Central Asian states for Eurasia) and shifted and inter-imposed zones, because, historically, centers of power can be moved. Of course at the moment the most significant centers of power are described in terms of nuclear arms, GDP, economic weight/growth and diplomatic influence. First of all we already have more poles than during the Soviet-US opposition. Secondly, everybody understands the role of China as a ‘Bretton Woods-2’, as well as emerging countries under acronyms as BRICS or VISTA, “anchor countries” and so on. And, thirdly, we see the rise of popular and unconventional diplomacy and the desire of many countries (many of them are strong regional actors such as Iran, Indonesia and Brazil) to not follow the U.S. as satellites or minor partners.

Of course, Washington does not like this scenario and tries to make coalitions based on states with a neocolonial background or on dutiful marionettes. But even in the U.S., politicians and analysts understand that the time of unipolar hegemony has gone. They are trying to build a moreflexible approach to international relations, called ‘multilateralism’ (H. Clinton) or ‘non-polarity’ (R. Haas), but the problem is that the U.S. do not have enough confidence in foreign actors united as joint, but who still have no strong alternative to the contemporary world order. So, they use another option for destabilization of rising regions, known as controlled chaos. Because of its military presence over most parts of the globe and its status of promoter of democracy and the protection of human rights, the White House can justify its own interests in these places. And cyberspace is also the object of manipulation, where the whole world is divided in two camps that remind us of the times of the Cold War (I call it ‘Cold Cyber War’).

We think that the contemporary West European nations are one of the poles (centers of power) in a forthcoming multipolar world order). But the problem for now is their engagement in U.S. proatlanticistpolitics, as manifested in the Euro-Atlantic chart of cooperation (common market, legislation and regulation mechanisms, including items of domestic politics), as well as NATO activity. The same we see on the other side of Eurasia – attempts of Washington to start trans-Atlantic cooperation with Asian countries. The contemporary crisis is neither good nor bad. It’s a fact. And the European nations must think about the way they’ll choose, because it will form the future (at least in Europe). It is not the first time in history: during the middle ages there was decline of population because of pestilence and wars. Religious schisms also occurred, so Europeans have some experience in metaphysics and ethics dealing with system failure too. The point is that now we have more interconnected reality and the speed of information sharing is fantastic, that was not possible, imagine, a century ago. And European society becomes more consumerist! But even in Europe, there are a lot of voices in respect of nature (organic greens), anti-grow movements (in economics) and traditionalists who try to keep and preserve ethnic andhistorical values and manners. Even the Soviet experience could be useful: after the Great Social Revolution there was a strong anti-church attitude promoted by the government, but after 70 years we’re back at our roots (of course during all this time not all people were atheists and the return to church happened during Stalin’s period when the institute of the Patriarchy was restored).

- How do you see the dialogue of civilizations in the light of more than 10 years of wars between the West and the Muslim world? Where does Russia stand in this opposition? Are there fears of an islamization process within the Russian Federation, or are Russian authorities setting on long-time accommodation with Muslim minorities and actors?

At first we must bear in mind that the idea of Huntington (the ‘clash of civilizations’) was developed out of necessity of justifying the U.S.’s military and economic expansion. His book was issued when the first wave of globalization as the highest principle of Westcentrism just began its tide in the Third World. By the logic of neoliberal capitalism it must be re-ordered and re-programmed in the search for new markets. All non-western societies must consume western products, services and technologies by this logic. And let’s remember that war against the Muslim countries originated from the neocons from Washington. So, these 10 years of wars that you to mention is nothing more than a provoked conflict by a small group that was very powerful in American politics at the beginning of the 2000s. By the way, all kinds of radical Islam (Wahhabism) were promoted by the United Kingdom. This version of Islam was founded in Saudi Arabia only with London’s special support. The Great Game in Eurasia was started many years ago and Britain has played here a most significant role.The U.S. took this role only after WW2, but many destructive processes were already unleashed. Of course, Russia is suspicious of the radical Islam, because emissaries of the wahhabis and al-Qaeda were already in the Northern Caucasus. And still now, there are different terrorist groups with the idea of the socalled “Emirate of the Caucasus”. There were also attempts to spread another sectarian beliefpromoted by Fetullah Gullen (Nurjular), but for now this sect is prohibited here. Actually Islam is not a threat to Russia, because, traditionally, a lot of people living here are Muslim. Regions like Tatarstan, the North Caucasus republics, Bashkortostan have an Islamic population. And our government supports traditional Islam here.

- What do you think about the American/Western strategy of strategic encirclement of Russia? Can we see this as well in the process of the so-called 'Arab Spring'? Is an open, Western-waged war against Syria and Iran possible and would it be the onset to a major world conflict, a 'Third World War'? Where would Russia stand?

It works. Not only because of the reset of the Anaconda strategy for Eurasia by means of militarypresence. Sometimes it doesn’t manifest in classical bases. Logistics is the main element ofcontemporary warfare, as well as C4ISR – Command, Control, Computer, Communications, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance – works in the vein of smart engagement. Other tools are: economics, promotion of democracy and human rights, cyber politics. The Arab Spring is a very complex phenomenon – there are a couple of components, but you can see that the U.S. has a bonus anyway: Egypt has asked for a huge loan from the World Bank; Western companies go to Libya; Muslim extremists are being manipulated against moderate Muslims, because they are a threat to western interests and so on. Organized chaos is just another view on the socio-political reality in turbulence. As Steve Mann (famous theorist of the chaos principle in diplomacy) wrote: the state is just hardware and ideology is its soft version. It were better to use ‘virus’ (in other words ‘promoting democracy’) and not to break PC. Syria and Iran are interesting for many nations now. The hysteria of Israel is not good, because this country has nuclear weapons. What will come of Israel using it? The Palestinian question is also on the table. I think that Israel is a more serious problem than Syria and Iran. Russia firmly supports Syria and takes a moderate position on Iran. During the presidency of Dmitry Medvedev, Russia declined to provide the “S-300” rocket complex to Iran (we had already signed the contract) and the deal was canceled. You bear in mind that during the same time Russia supported resolution 1973 of UN Security Council and the West started operation “Odyssey Dawn” against Libya. So, even VIP politicians in Russia sometimes do wrong things! But Mr. Putin is actively pro-Syrian and I think that the position of Russia about Iran and about Western pressure will be more adequate than before. As foreign minister Sergey Lavrov told: “we got experience with Libya and don’t believe the West anymore”.

- What do you think about the Western Europeans: should they remain loyal to their historical-political heritage of individualism and atlanticism, or should they rethink themselves and orient themselves towards Russia and continentalism? What about pro-Russian elements in European society? Can they be partners or are they, politically and socially spoken, too marginal for that?

John M. Hobson, in his brilliant work The eurocentric conception of world politics, made very clear that the West is rooted in the logic of immanence instead of the logic of co-development that is characteristic of non-western societies. He continues that the formula “the West and the Rest” is wrong, because without the rest there is no place for the West. Now we see one United Europe, but in real life we have two levels. The first one is presented by the bureaucratic establishment with its symbols, history, power projections and procedures. The second one is active publicity with movements, political parties and personal activists who are not interested in an Orwellian future with “Big Brother”, universal values and so on. Actually, in geography we have more than one substance. And where is the border between Southern, Western and Eastern Europe? It’s mostly in the minds. From history we remember the Celtic space, the Roman Empire, the Germanic and nomad invasions (Huns, Avars, etc.), that shows that the face of Europe permanently changed throughout the centuries. Now the European population includes people from Africa and Asia and soon the demographic balance will change. Political culture will change too. Without Russia, Europe is impossible. Not only because of geography (just look at the map and you will see that the EU is just the small, overpopulated western peninsula of Eurasia), but also because of the role of Russia in European history. Napoleon and Hitler – the two most significant unifiers of Europe - were stopped and defeated in Russia and, after that, new political orders were established. And for now in Europe we have so many Russian “prints”: in culture, history, the role of some persons and diasporas. I think that pro-Russian elements just now have a very good choice, because the window of opportunity is open. All these elements could form an avant-garde of a new kind of cooperation: in trade relations, science, art and education and public diplomacy. The last one is the tie for all activities. Actually Minister Lavrov just today (i.e. 26.02.2013) announced that, because of the Russia year in the Netherlands and vice versa, there will be more than 350 actions on state level. It is a good sign of mutual respect and it may be deeper.

- What about key power Germany? Do you believe in, let's say, an 'Indo-European bloc', an axis Berlin-Moscow-New Delhi, as a formidable counterweight to the atlanticist bloc of the axis Washington-London-Paris? Do the horrors of the Second World War still affect Russians' views of Germany and the Germans, or is it possible to turn the page on both sides and look forward? What about the French: do they belong in the atlanticist bloc, or can they be won for the continentalist bloc without giving in to their chauvinism? And what about China: will it turn out to be an even more dangerous enemy than the USA, or will both Russia and China remain strategic partners, e.g. within the SCO?

Because the EU has two levels, the same is true for Germany. One Germany, represented by the political establishment, is pro-U.S. and cannot do anything without Washington. Another one (latent or potential) is looking for closer cooperation with Russia. At the time of the Russian Empire a lot of German people came to our country at the invitation of Empress Catherine the Great. Even before that, many foreigners were in Russia as military officers, teachers, technical specialists, etc. People’s potential can do a lot of things. We must keep in mind that, besides Sea Power and Land Power in geopolitics, we have Man Power, which is the unique and main axis of any politics. The problem is that, after WWII, there was in most European countries a strong influence of Britain and the U.S.. They used very black propaganda and the peoples of Europe were afraid of a communist invasion. The U.S. even started more horrible projects in Western Europe (for example Propaganda-Due and operation “Gladio” in Italy, as well as “Stay Behind” NATO secret armies, formed from right-wing extremist elements). Still now in the EU, we see anti-Russian propaganda, but our borders are open and any European can go to Russia and see what happens here. The case of Gérard Depardieu is just one example.

If we look at what happens in China we’ll understand that it is a very strong actor and that its power grows from year to year. In the UN Security Council China is an important partner of Russia (for the Syria voting too). Russia is a supplier of oil and gas to China and we have new agreements for the future. Besides that we provide military equipment to China, though they have good weapon systems of their own as well. In the SCO we had good results and I think thatcooperation in this organization must be enlarged through strategic military elements with the entry at least of Iran, Belarus, India and Pakistan (they have an observer or dialogue partner status). Turkey is interested as well, but because of its NATO membership it will be difficult to join.

I know that some Russians and Europeans describe China as a possible enemy, a “yellow threat” (the Polish writer Ignacy Witkiewicz even wrote about it in his novel in 1929!!!) and so on, but in reality China has no intents of border pretence to Russia. We have had some incidents in Siberia with contraband, but these are criminal cases which do not deal with state politics. China will focus on Taiwan and on the disputed islands in the Pacific and it will take all geopolitical attention and may be some loyalty from Russia and SCO members.

Also China has the same view on the future world order – multipolarity. Actually this idea (duojihua) was born in China in 1986. And with the strategic cooperation with many other countries in Africa and South America, joint efforts against western hegemony will be fruitful.

So, I think China and Russia can do a lot for a reform of the forthcoming world order.

A lot of people now want to forget their own origins and the origins of other peoples. Bavaria, for example, was populated centuries ago by Avars from Asia (part of them still live in the Caucasus) during the Migration Period. Groups of Turkish origin also went to lands of contemporary Austria. So in contemporary Europe we have a lot of Asian elements. And vice versa in Asia we have people of Aryan origin. Not only in the North of India, but also in Tajikistan, Pakistan, Iran (arya is the self-name of the people of Iran and India). And hybridization is continuing as we speak in Europe and in other regions. Just before Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union we had a pact with Germany and had been cooperating extensively in technologies and in the economy. And France was attacked first by Germany, but now relations between both countries are normal. I think that historical harms between Germany and Russia have been mostly forgotten. And I think that many Germans still remember that the most destructive attacks did not come from the Soviet army but from U.S. and British air forces (Dresden, Leipzig...). It was not a war, but a deliberate destruction of cities and non-armed refugees. Actually now Germans is mostly good businessmen for Russians, compared to representatives of other European nations (these facts have been confirmed by many friends who do business with Europeans).

I can not to speak with enough certainty of what happens with Russian-French relations, because I'm not very interested in this sector. During the XXth century we had many deals with France and after WWII it was the idea of Stalin to give the winner status to France. Charles de Gaulle also was pro-Soviet in a geopolitical sense. But after the legalization of the gay marriage in France, many Russians feel suspicious about this country. But every people and every country has its own specifics. We have had many interesting philosophers from France who have had influence on Russian thinkers too.

- Turning to domestic Russian problems: Russia under President Putin has been able to make enormous progress in the social field, mainly due to energy sales during the 2000s.  Has this changed the face of Russia? Has this period come to an end or is there stagnation? How will Russia cope with its domestic problems, such as the demographic crisis, which it shares with Western Europe? Should the Siberian land mass be 're-colonized' by Russians and other Europeans, in order to make it an impregnable 'green lung fortress' for the white peoples?

The grand contribution of Mr. Putin is that he stopped liberal privatization and the process of separatism in Russia. Persons such as Chodorkovsky were representatives of the Western oligarchy, especially of powerful financial clans (for example, he is a personal friend of Rothschild) and he had plans to usurp power in Russia through the corruption of parliament. We still have the rudiments of predatory liberalism such as misbalances, corruption, fifth column, degradation of traditional values, etc. For now we see in Russia efforts to build a smarter kind of economics, but it must be done very carefully. The questions that must be at the center are: how to deal with the Federal Reserve System? What about a new currency order that may be represented by BRICS? How to start mobilization? What to do with the neoliberal lobby within the government? The demographic crisis is also linked with neoliberalism and consumerism. A century ago, there was a rise of population in Russia, but two world wars have cut it. Even during Soviet times we had a good demography index. Now the government has started supporting young families and the process of human reproduction. In addition to birth programs we have an initiative dealing with the return of compatriots to Russia and all people who were born in the USSR can come to Russia very easily and get certain funding from the state. But I think that, because the Russians were the state-forming people, there must be a preference forSlavonic origin, because migrants from Asian countries (who do not speak Russian and have other traditions) will flow to Russia for economic reasons. Many Russian activists who take a critical stance on Asian people are already disappointed by this program. I think that the attraction of Byelorussians and Ukrainians can equalize this disproportion. But, strategically, the state must support a system of child-bearing with all necessary needs (fosterage, education, working place, social environmental, etc.). In some regions governors personally start up that kind of programs dealing with local and regional solidarity. First of all, Siberia is still Russian. The Siberian type of Russian is different from citizens fromthe central or southern regions, but till now it's still mainly Russian, not only institutionally, but also ethnically. Actually, according to our statistics, most labor migrants to Russia come from Ukraine! So, in spite of strange relations between both countries and with strong anti-Russian stances on the part of Ukrainian nationalists and pro-western "democrats", people just make their own choice. Rationally speaking, Siberia is not only interesting, because of its virgin forests and natural resources, but also because of its neighbors - and China is one of them with an emerging economy. So Siberia could serve as a hub in the future. I think that Europeans would also go to Russia (not only to Siberia), but this migration must be done meticulously, because of the language barrier, with a period of adaptation to different social conditions and so on. Maybe it could be useful to organize towns of compact residence and also city-hubs for foreign people who come to live in Russia, where they can live and work in new conditions. New Berlin, New Brussels, New Paris (of course translated into the Russian language) will then appear on a new Russian map.

- What is your opinion about the future of Putinist Russia? Will the government be able to enduringly counter Western propaganda and destabilization campaigns, and come to a 'generation pact' between the older generation, born during Soviet times, and the younger generation, born after 1991? What will be President Putin's fundamental heritage for Russian history?

The key problem for Russia is a neoliberal group inside the Kremlin. Putin has the support of people who want more radical actions against corruption, western agents and so on. But a “colored revolution” in Russia is impossible, because the masses do not believe in the prowesternopposition. Ideas of democracy and human rights promoted by West have been discredited worldwide and our people understand well what liberalization, privatization and such kind of activities in the interest of global oligarchy mean. And because of the announcement of the Eurasian Customs Union Russia must work hard the coming years with partners from Kazakhstan and Belarus. As for counterpropaganda, the new official doctrine of Russian foreign policy is about soft power. So Russia has all the instruments officially legalized to model its own image abroad. In some sense we do this kind of work, just as other non-governmental organizations and public initiatives. You mention a “generation pact”, referring to different ideals of young and older people, especially in the context of the Soviet era. Now, you would be surprised that a figure as Stalin is very popular among young people and thinking part of the youth understands well that Soviet times were more enjoyable than contemporary semi-capitalism. As I told in my previous answer, Putin is important because he stopped the disintegration of Russia. He already is a historical figure.

- Is there a common 'metaphysical future' for the whole of Europe after the downfall of Western Christianity (catholicism, protestantism)? Can Russian Orthodoxism be a guide? What do you hold of the modest revival of pre-Christian religious traditions across the continent? What about countering the influence of Islam on the European continent? Is there a different view concerning that discussion between Russia and Western Europe?

Russian Christian Orthodoxy is not panacea, because there are also some problems. Christianity in XIIth century, XVIth century and nowadays is very different. Now many formal orthodox Christians go to church two times a year, at Easter and at Christmas. But Orthodox Christianity is also a thesaurus of wisdom where you can find ideas from ancient Greek philosophy, metaphysics, cultural heritage, transformed paganism and psychology. In this sense, Russian Christian Orthodox old believers keep this heritage alive and may be interested as well in forms (ceremonies) as in the spiritual essence with its complex ideas. Speaking about paganism, Russia is the only country in Europe that still has authentic pagan societies (Republics of Mari-El, Mordovia, Komi) with very interesting rites and traditions. Actually Finno-Ugric peoples historically were very close to Slavonic people and assimilated together, so there is a good chance to research these traditions for those who are interested in Slavonic pre-Christian culture.But the postmodern version of a restored paganism in Europe or any other region to my opinion is just a fake and there is not so much from true paganism. As for Islam, as I told before, in Russia there exist a couple of versions of traditional Islam, which are presented by several law schools (mazhabs). In the Northern Caucasus, the regional government has tried to copy the idea of multiculturalism and to implement EuroIslam as an antithesis to spreading wahhabism. But it has not worked and now more attention is paid to traditional religious culture linked with education and the social sector. But the project of multiculturalism has failed in Europe as well, so all common Euro-Russian outlooks on Islam are finished. But, to be honest, I think that Europe must learn from the Russian experience of coexistence of different religions (not forgetting paganism and shamanism – this belief is widely found in Siberia). In Europe, they use the term tolerance but we, eurasianists, prefer the term complimentarity, proposed by Lev Gumilev, meaning a subconscious sympathy between different ethnic groups. As Gumilev explained, Russia became so large because Russians, during the expansion, looked on otherpeople as on their own and understood them. This differs from the point of view (more specifically in ethnosociology) that all ethnic groups have the idea of “We are” against “The Other”, represented by another group. The imperial principle works with the idea of mosaics where every ethnos is a “We are”. And our famous writer and philosopher Fjodor Dostoevsky told about all-human (all-mankind) nature (not common to all mankind) that is represented by the Russians, because inside, you can find all radical oppositions. I think it is a good reason to turn to Russia and its people.

 

samedi, 20 avril 2013

Die Strategie der neuen Seidenstrassen

Die Strategie der neuen Seidenstrassen – ein Friedensmodell für Eurasien

Damit die Europäer nicht hinter der Geschichte herhinken –
zur brillanten Analyse der geopolitischen Grosswetterlage durch Franz Betschon

von Tobias Salander, Historiker

Ex: http://www.zeit-fragen.ch/

Während die USA von einer Krise in die nächste taumeln und Europa wie gebannt auf seine einstige Schutzmacht starrt, hoffend, dass man nicht mit in den Abgrund gerissen werde, herrscht in Asien, Lateinamerika und Afrika Aufbruchsstimmung. Autoren wie Kishore Mahbubani versuchen seit längerem, den Zeitgenossen der westlichen Hemisphäre aufzuzeigen, dass man offensichtlich an einer Zeitenwende steht. Was aber tun, zumal in Europa? Mit wem kooperieren, wenn nicht mit der absteigenden Kriegsmacht USA?
Wäre es nicht naheliegend, den Blick nach Osten zu wenden? Liegt doch Europa am Rande der grossen Weltinsel Eurasien. Ein Blick, aber nicht im imperialistischen Sinne von Bismarck, der «sein Afrika» in Osteuropa ortete, auch nicht verhaftet in Denkschablonen des Kalten Krieges, der glücklicherweise seit über 20 Jahren vorbei ist. Warum nicht eine Annäherung in Partnerschaft, Freundschaft und Hochachtung vor den Leistungen der Völker der betreffenden Länder?
Wenn wir nicht sehen, wie sich Asien entwickelt, wird sich Asien auch ohne uns zum neuen Gravitationszentrum der Weltwirtschaft entwickeln: Dies gibt ein Analytiker zu bedenken, der weitgereist, weltoffen und dennoch in bester Schweizer Tradition ausgebildet und verankert ist: «Das eurasische Schachturnier» nennt Franz Betschon sein hier zu besprechendes Buch in Anlehnung an das ähnlich lautende Werk von Zbigniew Brzezinski. Nur, dass die Tonlage, die Grundlage der Analyse und der Ausblick gerade einen Kontrapunkt zum Negativ-Standardwerk imperialer Geostrategie und Weltmacht­hybris darstellt.

«The Empire is over.» Das US-Imperium, die Vorherrschaft der einzigen Weltmacht USA, sei vorbei, eine Eurasien-zentrierte Weltordnung mache sich breit, oder nur eine Asien-zentrierte, wenn Europa sich nicht auf Asien zu bewege. Dies die Quintessenz des äusserst lesenswerten und Klärung verschaffenden Buches «Das eurasische Schachturnier. Krisen, Hintergründe und Prognosen» aus der Feder von Franz Betschon1. Der Schweizer Staatsbürger ist Dr. sc. techn. und dipl. Maschinenbauingenieur der ETH Zürich, zudem Absolvent der Harvard Business School in Boston, beim Militär Flieger-Oberst im Generalstab a. D. Ein in bester Schweizer Manier ausgebildeter und weltoffener Naturwissenschafter und Ökonom, der über einen scharfen analytischen Verstand verfügt. Als einer, der in der Welt herumgekommen ist und unter anderem auch als Verwaltungsrat in einem israelischen Hightech-Unternehmen tätig war, das, mit Schweizer Hilfe aufgebaut, heute zu den führenden seiner Art auf der Welt gehört, versucht der Autor seine Erfahrungen und Beobachtungen mit dem Studium von öffentlich zugänglichen Quellen abzugleichen und zu vertiefen, um die Gegenwart zu verstehen und nicht Gefahr zu laufen, der Entwicklung hinterherzuhinken. Dabei greift Betschon auf Quellen aus vieler Herren Ländern zurück, ist ihm doch in seiner Tätigkeit aufgefallen, dass der europäische Blickwinkel auf die Welt durch die Jahrzehnte des Kalten Krieges ganz schön verengt und gefärbt ist, dass aber in anderen Teilen der Welt die gleichen Probleme in einem ganz anderen Licht erscheinen. Die Zeichen der Zeit zu erkennen heisst auch, sich rechtzeitig auf neue Entwicklungen einzustellen und allfälligen Gefahren besser begegnen zu können.
Als grosses Vorbild, welches der heutigen Welt und insbesondere der Schweiz fehle, und zwar schmerzhaft, erwähnt Betschon den grossen Historiker Jean Rodolphe von Salis. Was jenem Schweizer- und Weltenbürger im Zweiten Weltkrieg von der Schweiz her gelungen sei und ihm und unserem Land weltweite Achtung verschafft habe, nämlich eine stimmige Einschätzung der Kriegslage zu zeichnen, dies habe von Salis nur auf Grund seines weitverzweigten Beziehungsnetzes leisten können. In Telefonaten mit Bekannten in den verschiedenen Ländern habe er sein Wissen aufgebaut, und dies trotz geheimdienstlichen Mithörern.
Da haben wir es heute leichter! In Zeiten des World Wide Web bringt uns ein Mausklick zu Zeitungen aus dem asiatischen, afrikanischen oder lateinamerikanischen Raum.

Ab wann wurden die USA so gewaltsam? Stichwort «QDR»

Die Analyse, die Betschon über 200 Seiten zusammenträgt und welche in der oben zitierten Schlussfolgerung gipfelt, liest sich packend und ordnet die Gedanken, die sich durch die Flut der Mainstream-Tittytainment-Industrie so leicht verzetteln.
Wenn der Autor zum Fazit gelangt, dass die Tage der US-Dominanz unwiederbringlich vorüber seien, stehen dahinter nicht etwa antiamerikanische Ressentiments, wie man vielleicht zu denken geneigt wäre. Ganz im Gegenteil würdigt der Autor das selbstlose Engagement der USA in Europas schwersten Stunden des Zweiten Weltkriegs – nicht ohne sich aber die Frage zu stellen, ab welchem Zeitpunkt Amerika plötzlich so gewaltsam geworden sei: dass es Folter wieder salonfähig gemacht habe, Präventivkriege führe, ohne noch an die Nürnberger Prinzipien zu denken, in welchen der Angriffskrieg als das schwerste Verbrechen überhaupt erklärt worden ist und US-Chefankläger Robert Jackson gefordert hatte, dass künftig sich auch die USA an diesem Massstab messen lassen wollen.
Dass etwas nicht mehr stimmte im Staate USA sei offensichtlich geworden mit der Veröffentlichung der 5-Jahres-Planung des Pentagons, des «Quadrennial Defence Review Reports (QDR)» der Jahre 2001 und 2006. Darin wurde in völkerrechtswidriger Manier das Recht auf Präventivkrieg geltend gemacht. Damit der Leser sich diese Ungeheuerlichkeit wirklich vorstellen kann, überträgt der Autor diese Gesinnung auf das nachbarliche Zusammenleben von Privatpersonen, was dann etwa so lauten würde: «Du darfst deinen Nachbarn jederzeit erschiessen, wenn er dich stört. Du musst nur zwei Bedingungen erfüllen: Du musst behaupten, dass du dich bedroht gefühlt hast, und so gut zielen, dass er nachher nicht mehr aussagen kann.» (Betschon, S. 52) Der Autor gibt zu bedenken, dass diese schamlose Verachtung all der Werte, für die der Westen jahrhundertelang gekämpft hat, die Menschen im Mittleren Osten zuallererst, darüber hinaus aber auch die Zivilgesellschaft der Aggressoren mittel- und langfristig schädige.

Prinzip der souveränen Staaten vs. Prinzip des «Teile und herrsche!»

Diese aggressive und menschenverachtende Aussenpolitik des Imperiums ordnet der Autor vor dem Hintergrund zweier Prinzipien ein: dem Prinzip der souveränen Staaten auf der einen, dem des «Teile und herrsche!» auf der anderen Seite. Was die Generation, die noch den Kalten Krieg erlebt hat, kaum je für möglich hielt und was den klaren Blick auf die Gegenwart auch so schwer macht, ist der Sachverhalt, dass das erste der beiden Prinzipien, das Prinzip der souveränen Nationalstaaten, errungen nach dem 30jährigen Krieg im Westfälischen Frieden, heute nicht mehr von der einst gelobten Demokratie USA, sondern vom einst verfemten Russland vertreten wird, während das machiavellistische Prinzip des «Divide et impera!» von George W. Bush und heute auch von Friedensnobelpreisträger Obama hochgehalten wurde und werde. Auch wenn sich der Autor über diesen überraschenden Befund nicht wirklich freuen mag, so ist es ihm doch hoch anzurechnen, dass er ohne Scheuklappen und persönliche Vorlieben die Faktenlage unverstellt präsentiert.
Was schon 2007 an der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz sichtbar geworden war, dass nämlich Russland unter Putin nicht mehr das schwache und auszubeutende postsowjetische Land war, sondern wieder eine Grossmacht, die in der Lage und gewillt war, sich zu wehren, und zwar sowohl ökonomisch als auch militärisch, wurde an derselben Konferenz im Jahre 2008 für alle greifbar: Während der russische Vizepremier Sergej Iwanow ein selbstbewusstes Land präsentierte, betonte er, dass dies nicht ein neues Blockdenken und Konfrontation bedeute, sondern ein friedliches Zusammenleben souveräner Staaten. Auf der Gegenseite stand ein US-Verteidigungsminister Robert Gates, der die Sicht des aggressiven Hegemons darlegte. Damit verortete sich Gates aber im Modell des britischen Empires à la Churchill und nicht in jenem von Frank­lin Delano Roosevelt. Diese beiden gegensätzlichen Politik­ansätze arbeitet Betschon heraus: Während das britische Empire eine Politik der Konflikte und der Manipulation, also des «Teile und herrsche!», vorgelebt habe, sei der US-Präsident der Vorkriegs- und der Kriegszeit, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, für das andere Modell der Zusammenarbeit, eben jenes unter souveränen Nationen, eingestanden. Infolge des frühen Todes von Roosevelt habe sich der Hardliner Truman dann der britischen Linie angeschlossen und so ohne Rücksicht auf irgend etwas die Atombombe eingesetzt.

Europa und Asien wachsen wirtschaftlich zusammen

Mag auch die US-Aussenpolitik vor Truman nicht immer ganz so lupenrein gewesen sein, wie oben dargestellt: Wohltuend ist es allemal, dass der Autor sich hier der Anti-Russ­land-Hetze im Westen entzieht und neue Blickweisen öffnet. Denn erst wenn das Feindbild Russland hinterfragt wird, wird der Weg frei für eine längst fällige Zusammenarbeit der europäischen Länder mit dem grossen Nachbarn im näheren, aber auch im ferneren Osten.
Im Kapitel Megatrends wagt der Autor denn auch einige höchst spannende und eigentlich auch höchst naheliegende Prognosen einer künftigen Entwicklung: Ohne sich auf den Zeitpunkt und die Reihenfolge versteifen zu wollen, könne aber doch mit folgendem gerechnet werden:
1.    Europa und Asien werden wirtschaftlich unumkehrbar zusammenwachsen.
2.    Eurasien wird eine föderalistische Handels-, Aussen- und Sicherheitspolitik entwickeln.
3.    Der Begriff «Westen» wird überflüssig werden: Westeuropa, Nordamerika und ­Israel bilden keine Einheit mehr.
4.    Kontinentaleuropa wird sich nach Osten ausrichten. Nordamerika wird nur noch für den Handel von Interesse sein.
5.    Die EU und die Nato dürften überdacht und durch etwas Neues ersetzt werden.
Und was, wenn die Bretton-Woods-Institutionen und die Uno in das neue Gravitationszentrum der Wirtschaftswelt verlegt würden, zum Beispiel nach Shanghai? Oder wenn die asiatischen Länder zum Schluss kämen, es brauche diese US-dominierten Institutionen nicht mehr, man könne gut und vor allem besser ohne sie leben? Und mit Europa habe man schon seit über 2000 Jahren zusammengelebt – lange, bevor der amerikanische Doppelkontinent von den Angelsachsen verunstaltet wurde? Lange hat es ja in der sogenannten neuen Welt gebraucht, bis sich die Weissen eine Entschuldigung abringen konnten bezüglich des Genozids an der indigenen Bevölkerung.
Betschon ist nicht sicher, ob die Europäer die Zeichen der Zeit wirklich schon erkannt haben und auf Asien zugehen werden – nichtsdestotrotz würden uns aber die Asiaten bereits entgegenkommen. Die Rede ist nicht nur vom Tourismus und den boomenden Uhrenboutiquen in Luzern und Interlaken, welche von der aufsteigenden chinesischen Mittelschicht gerne frequentiert werden, sondern auch von den Investoren aus China und Indien, die in Europa zunehmend alteingesessene Marken vor dem Ruin retten, wie zum Beispiel die indische Tata-Firmengruppe, die 2007 den britischen Stahlkonzern Corus, aber auch die Automobilfirmen Jaguar und Landrover übernahm.

Die Welt von morgen: Lateinamerika, Asien, Europa – und nebenbei die USA

Dass wir vor bzw. besser mitten in einer Zeitenwende stehen, wird offensichtlich in Afrika, wo immer mehr chinesische Unternehmen das tun, was sich bis anhin die ­Europäer reserviert hatten: Handelsbeziehungen aufbauen, Investitionen tätigen, Rohstoffe abbauen – nur, dass die Chinesen ihren Profit mit echten Wohltaten für die Einheimischen zu verbinden imstande sind. Ein Sachverhalt, den man im europäischen Kolonialismus, Imperialismus und im derzeitigen Neokolonialismus so nie angetroffen hat.
Während der Westen aber voller Misstrauen auf den chinesischen Drachen starrt und sich fragt, ob der so funktioniert wie der amerikanische Adler, also einen aggressiven Militarismus an den Tag legen werde, übersehen wir, dass die Welt sich in eine viereckige Welt verwandelt hat: Heute besteht sie aus Lateinamerika, Asien, ­Eu­ropa und nebenbei noch aus Nordamerika. Nebenbei? Unsere westlichen Medien unterschlagen dies ja gerne: Immer öfter fallen wichtige Entscheidungen ohne die ehemalige Supermacht Nummer 1. Zeit-Fragen berichtete über die Blamage von Phnom Penh2. Da dieses Ereignis in den Mainstream-Medien des Westens schlicht inexistent war, musste auf einen Artikel der «Asia Times» zurückgegriffen werden, der deutlich werden liess, wie weit wir im Westen hinter der realen Entwicklung hinterherhinken. Da war doch Obama von einem Treffen der ASEAN-Staaten ausgeladen worden. Die USA, die einen Spaltpilz zwischen die asiatischen Staaten legen wollten, vor allem zwischen den kleineren und China, sahen sich selber aussen vor. Die Welt ist eine andere geworden, so wie es Kishore Mahbubani uns schon lange zu erklären versucht – freundlich, aber in aller Bestimmtheit. Und wenn der Westen dies nicht zur Kenntnis nehmen wolle, sei der Bruch irreversibel. Dabei wäre es für alle besser, gemeinsam in die Zukunft zu schreiten. Doch dafür müsste der Westen seine Werte, die von der übrigen Welt hoch geachtet werden, auch wirklich leben, statt unter einem Werte-Deckmäntelchen knallharte Interessenpolitik zu betreiben.

IWF und Dollar-Hegemonie vor dem Ende

Betschon nennt mehrere Ereignisse, die diese Wendezeit illustrieren:
Die zehn südostasiatischen Staaten der ASEAN – da man sie im Westen kaum kennt, seien sie hier namentlich aufgezählt: Es sind dies Brunei, Kambodscha, Indonesien, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, die Philippinen, Singapur, Thailand und Vietnam –, diese zehn Staaten haben mit China, Japan und Südkorea den Asian Monetary Fund mit dem RMB/Yen als zentrale Währung geschaffen – ein Vorgang, der den US-dominierten IWF überflüssig werden lässt.
Dasselbe geschieht in Südamerika: Die Gründung des Latin American Monetary Fund führt dazu, dass der IWF in einem Staat nach dem anderen die Büros schliessen muss. Venezuela gibt den Mitgliedern die nötigen Kredite, den IWF auszahlen zu können.
In Europa erlebt der auch als Alternative zum Dollar gedachte Euro einen massiven Angriff, und zwar nicht aus China! Aber auch Russland tanzt nicht mehr nach der Pfeife Washingtons: Dort findet die allmähliche Verabschiedung von IWF und Dollarhegemonie dadurch statt, dass man sich vermehrt auf die eigenen Ressourcen und auf Gold verlässt.
Dies sind alles Vorgänge, die den USA längerfristig verunmöglichen werden, mit ihrer Dollardruckerpresse die eigenen Schulden den anderen Staaten der Erde aufzubürden. Vor allem, da die Mittel für das Militär gekürzt werden müssen und somit die altbewährte, deswegen nicht weniger räuberbandenmässige Kanonenboot-Diplomatie nicht mehr funktionieren wird.
Ein zentrales Jahr für das Schwinden des US-Einflusses auf diesem Planeten war das Jahr 2008: Zeitgleich mit Lehman Brothers ereigneten sich ohne jedes Zutun der mit sich selber beschäftigten USA folgende Begebenheiten:
•    In Lima trafen sich an die 60 Nationen zu einem Welt-Nahrungsmittel-Gipfel, mit dabei Angela Merkel, auch China, nicht aber die USA.
•    Gleichzeitig versammelten sich die Aussenminister der BRIC-Staaten in Jekaterinburg in Russland. Brasilien, Russland, Indien und China hatten dazu zwar die Europäer eingeladen, nicht aber die USA.
•    Ende Mai machte der neue russische Präsident seine erste Auslandreise. Ging es früher zuerst in die USA, so war nun China die erste Station.
•    Gleichzeitig fand ein wichtiger Gipfel zwischen Japan und China statt – und dies ohne die USA, was früher undenkbar gewesen wäre.
Europa: raus aus dem US-Würgegriff, zurück zu den eigenen Werten
In dieser Situation einer Welt, die sich ohne das Imperium problemlos organisiert, steht Europa vor der Frage, ob es nicht an die bewährten Wertvorstellungen anknüpfen sollte, die von den US-Neocons verächtlich als jene des «alten Europas» bezeichnet worden waren: Das wäre zum einen die Abkehr von spätkolonialistischen Vorstellungen, dann der Respekt vor der Souveränität anderer Staaten und die Nichteinmischung in deren innere Angelegenheiten – mithin also eine Zurückweisung der fragwürdigen R2P-Strategie, der «Responsibility to protect», der Schutzverantwortung, die ja, wie dies Hans-Christoph von Sponeck3 aufzeigte, immer nur als Vorwand gebraucht wurde, in anderen Ländern zu intervenieren, um sich dort die Rohstoffe zu sichern und China aussen vor zu halten, so im Sudan, in Libyen, fast auch in Syrien, hätten da nicht Russland und China ein beherztes Njet eingelegt. Oder wie es der russische Politologe Fursow4 eingängig formulierte: In Syrien seien die westlichen Kreuzritter an die chinesische Mauer gestossen!
Zu guter Letzt rät Betschon Europa, keine doppelten Wertmasstäbe anzuwenden. Beispiele dafür gäbe es genug, aufgelistet in den Büchern von Kishore Mahbubani,5 aber auch in den Aufsätzen des Völkerrechtlers Prof. Hans Köchler,6 der unter anderem die westlich dominierte Anklagepraxis des International Criminal Courts (ICC) scharf kritisiert.

Entwicklungskorridore mit perlenkettenartigen Entwicklungszentren

Europa auf diesem neu-alten Boden seiner besten abendländischen Tradition hätte im Osten auch einen Bündnispartner, der heute schon rund ein Viertel der Weltbevölkerung umfasst: die Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). China, Kasachstan, Kirgisistan, Russland, Tadschikistan, Usbekistan als Mitglieder treffen sich in diesem Rahmen regelmässig mit den Staaten mit Beobachterstatus wie der Mongolei, Indien, Pakistan und Iran. Wer in Europa meint, da könne nichts zusammenwachsen, weil es nicht zusammengehöre, muss seine Weltsicht überdenken, die auf die eurozentrierte Antike zurückgeht. Eine inner­eurasische Grenze gibt es nicht real geographisch-geologisch, sondern lediglich historisch-kulturell. Doch auch da verschwimmen die Grenzen schon früh, es sei nur an die russisch-westeuropäischen Verflechtungen erinnert, was den Austausch von Handwerkskunst, Gelehrten und Blaublütern betraf. Und hinter Russland steht China, welches schon seit Mitte der 1990er Jahre an der Errichtung von fünf Hauptinfrastrukturkorridoren arbeitet, die Asien mit Europa verbinden sollen: Eisenbahnen sollen lediglich deren Rückgrat bilden. Betschon betont, dass diese Entwicklungskorridore ähnlich den früheren Seidenstrassen perlenkettenartige Entwicklungszentren mit grosser Ausstrahlung entstehen lassen.

Peking–Hamburg:  Eisenbahn schneller als Schiffe

Wer hat das aber im wie gebannt auf die USA starrenden Europa wahrgenommen? Zum Beispiel, dass am 9. Januar 2008 zum ersten Mal eine Pioniereisenbahn mit Gütern für Europa in Bewegung gesetzt wurde, und zwar von Peking aus. Zielort war Hamburg! Eine Strecke von 9800 km durch sechs Länder hindurch. Das Resultat? Nach 18 Tagen war Hamburg erreicht – für die gleiche Destination hätte man auf dem Seeweg mit Containerschiffen fast 40 Tage benötigt! Ein Ereignis, welches ganz neue Dimensionen eröffnet – und ein Blick auf die Karte Eurasiens zeigt es: Was gibt es Naheliegenderes als den Ausbau der Landwege von China nach Europa? Eurasien ist ein Kontinent, eine zusammenhängende Landmasse, die natürlicherweise zusammengehört – was man vom Verhältnis Europas zu den USA, abgetrennt durch zwei Ozeane, nun wirklich nicht sagen kann.
Natürlich kommen dem Historiker bei diesem Sachverhalt eines transeurasischen Transportkorridors auch düstere Erinnerungen: Schon einmal hatten Länder Kontinentaleuropas versucht, auf dem Landweg die Verbindung mit dem Orient herzustellen. Man erinnert sich an das Projekt der «Berlin–Bagdad-Bahn». Wie der Historiker Daniele Ganser in seinem Buch «Europa im Erdölrausch» aufzeigt, hätte damit günstig Öl aus dem Irak in die zentraleuropäischen Wirtschaftszentren transportiert werden können. Ohne von der britischen Flotte und damit dem Weltreich Grossbritanniens abhängig zu sein. Wir alle wissen, was dann geschah: Ein kleiner Landstreifen war nicht in die deutsch-habsburgisch-osmanische Landbrücke integriert: Serbien. Dass dann im österreichisch besetzten Sarajevo der Schuss fiel, der der Seemacht Grossbritannien das Erdölmonopol im Nahen Osten sichern sollte, man spricht auch vom Ersten Weltkrieg, ist bekannt, wenn vielleicht auch weniger mit besagtem Hintergrund.
Mögen sich die europäischen Länder, Russland und China vorsehen und dagegen verwahren, dass die heutige (Noch-)Seemacht Nummer 1, die USA, hier etwas Ähnliches inszenieren wollen wie die Briten im Jahre 1914. Vergangene Destabilisierungsversuche in der Ukraine, in Aserbaidschan, den zentralasiatischen Republiken könnten vor diesem Hintergrund eingeordnet werden.

Das Imperium im Krebsgang – täglich in den Zeitungen zu lesen

Franz Betschon publizierte seine erhellende Analyse im Jahre 2009. Er braucht, wie der von ihm verehrte von Salis, nichts zu korrigieren. Im Gegenteil, viele von ihm erwähnte Problempunkte traten in den drei Jahren seither nur noch deutlicher zu Tage. Dass Präsident Obama Hagel als Verteidigungsminister durchgebracht hat, spricht Bände: Dass ein US-Verteidigungsminister vor der Pro-Israel-Lobby warnt und mit Iran Verhandlungen anstrebt, ein Aussenminister John Kerry Kairo, Riad und Doha besucht, Tel Aviv aber auslässt, ist das eine. Dass sich nun wieder Gespräche mit Iran ergeben, in denen die USA anwesend sind, gleichzeitig aber auch China und Russland, das andere. Dass der türkische Premierminister Zionismus mit Rassismus, Faschismus, Antisemitismus und Antiislamismus gleichsetzt und verurteilt, wofür er in israelischen Medien7 scharf kritisiert wird, aber trotzdem enger Verbündeter der USA bleibt und trotz oder gerade mit diesen Aussagen in die EU will, ein drittes. Dass ein Kenneth Waltz in ­Foreign Affairs von Juli/August 20128 Iran die Bombe zugestehen will, weil so die Welt sicherer werde, insbesondere der Nahe Osten, weil dann die Atommacht Israel ein Gegenüber habe – Israel, welches nach diesem Grand old man der US-Politologie die Hauptgefahr für den Frieden in der Region sei –, lässt aufhorchen. Das tönt zwar nach Schachbrett-Strategie eines Brzezinski, auf den sich Betschon mehrfach bezieht, aber einer Rückzugsstrategie der Schachspieler des Imperiums.

An Roosevelts Konzept der Achtung der Souveränität der Nationalstaaten anknüpfen

Es wäre den Menschen in Eurasien, aber auch den Menschen im Nahen Osten, und zwar egal welcher Nationalität oder Religionszugehörigkeit, zu wünschen, dass sich die chinesische Strategie der neuen Seiden­strassen und damit das friedliche Zusammenwirken in wirtschaftlicher und ­politischer Hinsicht ohne transatlantische Störmanöver verwirklichen lässt. Was für blühende Landschaften könnten entstehen, wenn der grosse Kontinent zusammenwüchse, so wie es auch Kishore Mahbubani immer wieder einbringt. Wenn die einstigen Todfeinde Japan und China nach dem Grauen des Zweiten Weltkriegs, nach den über 30 Millionen von den Japanern getöteten Chinesen, heute friedlich kooperieren, wieso sollte das im Nahen Osten nicht auch möglich sein? Und warum sollten sich die USA nicht wieder an Roosevelts Konzept der Achtung der Souveränität der Nationalstaaten orientieren? Angesichts der horrenden Verschuldung eigentlich ein Gebot der Stunde – und des gesunden Menschenverstandes. Eine Aufgabe, die Friedensnobelpreisträger Obama gut anstünde. Aber auch die EU könnte sich ihres Nobelpreises würdig erweisen und die Feindseligkeiten Richtung Osten begraben. Und die Schweizer Bevölkerung könnte sich in dieser nicht einfachen Gemengelage als Nation der Guten Dienste vermittelnd einbringen und mit ihrem Föderalismus weiter vorleben, wie sich ein erspriessliches und friedliches Zusammenleben gestalten lässt, ohne mit Grossgebilden zu liebäugeln.
Wenn das Buch von Franz Betschon das Denken, Fühlen und Handeln in diese Richtung zu lenken vermag, wird es sich segensreich auswirken. Man wünscht ihm eine grosse Leserschaft – nicht nur in der Schweiz.    •

1    Franz Betschon: Das eurasische Schachturnier. Krisen, Hintergründe und Prognosen. Frankfurt/Main, 2009. ISBN 978-3-8301-1234-1.
2    David P. Goldman: Nach-US-Welt, geboren in Phnom Penh. In: Zeit-Fragen Nr. 53 vom 19.12.2012
3    Dr. h.c. Hans-Christof von Sponeck: Der R2P-Versuch in Libyen ist kläglich gescheitert. In: Zeit-Fragen Nr. 18/19 vom 30.4.2012
4    Schlag gegen Syrien – Ziel: Russland. Interview mit Prof. Andrej Iljitsch Fursow. In: Zeit-Fragen Nr. 37 vom 3.9.2012
5    Kishore Mahbubani: Die Rückkehr Asiens. Berlin 2008. ISBN 978-3549073513
6    Hans Köchler: Weltgericht ohne Weltstaat. Straf­justiz unter dem Diktat der Realpolitik? Kommentar zu Idee und Wirklichkeit des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes zehn Jahre nach dem Inkrafttreten des Römer Statutes. Wien, 1.7.2012.
http://i-p-o.org/Koechler-ICC-Weltgericht-ohne-Weltstaat-IPO-OP-1July2012.htm 
7    At UN conference, Erdogan calls Zionism «crime against humanity». In: Haaretz vom 28.2.13.

www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/at-un-conference-erdogan-calls-zionism-crime-against-humanity.premium-1.506392
8    Kenneth N. Waltz: Why Iran should get the bomb. Nuclear balancing would mean stability. In: ­Foreign Affairs July/August 2012. Hrsg: Council on Foreign Relations. Deutsche Übersetzung in Zeit-Fragen Nr. 43/44 vom 11.10.2012

Im Kapitel Megatrends wagt der Autor denn auch einige höchst spannende und eigentlich auch höchst naheliegende Prognosen einer künftigen Entwicklung: Ohne sich auf den Zeitpunkt und die Reihenfolge versteifen zu wollen, könne aber doch mit folgendem gerechnet werden:
1.    Europa und Asien werden wirtschaftlich unumkehrbar zusammenwachsen.
2.    Eurasien wird eine föderalistische Handels-, Aussen- und Sicherheitspolitik entwickeln.
3.    Der Begriff «Westen» wird überflüssig werden: Westeuropa, Nord­amerika und Israel bilden keine Einheit mehr.
4.    Kontinentaleuropa wird sich nach Osten ausrichten. Nordamerika wird nur noch für den Handel von Interesse sein.
5.    Die EU und die Nato dürften überdacht und durch etwas Neues ersetzt werden.

Ein zentrales Jahr für das Schwinden des US-Einflusses auf diesem Planeten war das Jahr 2008: Zeitgleich mit Lehman Brothers ereigneten sich ohne jedes Zutun der mit sich selber beschäftigten USA folgende Begebenheiten:
•    In Lima trafen sich an die 60 Nationen zu einem Welt-Nahrungsmittel-Gipfel, mit dabei Angela Merkel, auch China, nicht aber die USA.
•    Gleichzeitig versammelten sich die Aussenminister der BRIC-Staaten in Jekaterinburg in Russland. Brasilien, Russland, Indien und China hatten dazu zwar die Europäer eingeladen, nicht aber die USA.
•    Ende Mai machte der neue russische Präsident seine erste Auslandreise. Ging es früher zuerst in die USA, so war nun China die erste Station.
•    Gleichzeitig fand ein wichtiger Gipfel zwischen Japan und China statt – und dies ohne die USA, was früher undenkbar gewesen wäre.

La stratégie des nouvelles routes de la soie

La stratégie des nouvelles routes de la soie – un modèle de paix pour l’Eurasie

Pour que les Européens ne restent pas à la traîne du courant de l’histoire – au sujet de l’analyse brillante de la situation géopolitique par Franz Betschon

par Tobias Salander, historien

Ex: http://www.horizons-et-debats.ch/

Pendant que les Etats-Unis titubent d’une crise à l’autre, et que l’Europe n’arrive pas à détourner son regard de son ancienne puissance protectrice dans l’espoir de ne pas être entraîné dans l’abîme, il règne en Asie et en Amérique latine une atmosphère de renouveau. Des auteurs comme Kishore Mahbubani essaient depuis un certain temps de démontrer aux contemporains de l’hémisphère occidental qu’on se trouve de toute évidence devant un tournant historique. Mais que faire, surtout en Europe? Avec qui coopérer si ce n’est pas avec la puissance guerrière en déclin?
Ne serait-il pas tout naturel de tourner le regard vers l’Est? Puisque l’Europe se trouve bien au bord de la grande île mondiale de l’Eurasie. Un regard, cependant pas dans le sens impérialiste de Bismarck qui a localisé «son Afrique» en Europe de l’Est, et pas non plus dans le sens du cliché de la guerre froide, qui appartient heureusement au passé depuis plus de 20 ans. Mais pourquoi pas un rapprochement en partenariat, en amitié et avec considération des mérites des peuples des pays respectifs?
Si nous ne voyons pas comment l’Asie se développe, l’Asie se développera aussi sans nous en un nouveau centre de gravitation de l’économie mondiale: c’est ce qu’un analyste ayant beaucoup voyagé, ouvert au monde, formé et ancré dans la meilleure tradition suisse, nous soumet à réfléxion: «Das eurasische Schachturnier» [Le tournoi d’échec eurasien], c’est le titre que Franz Betschon donne à son livre, qui sera présenté ci-dessous. Avec ce titre il fait allusion à un livre de Zbigniew Brzezinski qui porte un titre semblable. Mais son ton, le fondement de son analyse et sa perspective sont heureusement en totale contradiction avec l’ouvrage de référence négatif de la géostratégie impériale et de l’outrecuidance de la puissance mondiale.

«The Empire is over.» L’empire américain, la suprématie de la seule puissance mondiale serait du passé, un ordre mondial centré sur l’Eurasie serait en train de s’installer, uniquement centré sur l’Asie, si l’Europe ne s’avance pas vers l’Asie. C’est la quintessence de ce livre éclairant qui mérite d’être lu: «Das eurasische Schachturnier. Krisen Hintergründe und Prognosen» de Franz Betschon1. Ce citoyen suisse est docteur en sciences techniques et ingénieur mécanique diplômé de l’EPFZ, en plus diplômé de la Harvard Business School à Boston, colonel d’état-major de l’aviation à l’armée. Un scientifique formé dans la meilleure tradition suisse, ouvert au monde et économiste disposant d’une intelligence analytique aigüe. En tant que personne ayant vu du pays et qui, entre autre, a été conseiller d’administration d’une entreprise high-tech israélienne, qui, construite avec de l’aide suisse, appartient actuellement aux entreprises de pointe de son genre dans le monde, l’auteur essaie de comparer et d’approfondir ses expériences et ses observations au moyen de l’étude de sources publiquement accessibles pour comprendre l’actualité et pour ne pas rester en arrière du développement. Betschon a recours à des sources de beaucoup de pays, car dans son activité, il s’est aperçu que le regard européen sur le monde s’est pas mal rétréci pendant les décennies de la guerre froide, et que dans d’autres parties du monde, les mêmes problèmes sont considérés sous un autre jour. Reconnaître les signes du temps veut dire également s’adapter à temps aux nouveaux développements pour mieux contrer des dangers éventuels.
Comme grand modèle, qui manque dans le monde moderne, surtout en Suisse, et cela douloureusement, Betschon évoque Jean Rodolphe von Salis. Ce que ce citoyen du monde suisse a réussi lors de la Seconde Guerre mondiale depuis la Suisse, et ce qui lui a procuré ainsi qu’à la Suisse l’estime mondiale, c’est-à-dire un jugement cohérent de la situation de guerre, von Salis n’avait pu le faire que sur la base d’un large réseau. Avec des conversations téléphoniques avec ses connaissances dans différents pays, il s’est procuré un grand savoir et cela malgré l’écoute des services secrets.
Pour nous, c’est plus facile aujourd’hui. Aux temps du World Wide Web, un clic de souris nous amène des journaux de l’espace asiatique, africain, et de l’Amérique latine.

A partir de quel moment les Etats-Unis sont-ils devenus tellement violents? Mot-clé: «QDR»

L’analyse de Betschon sur 200 pages, culminant dans la citation ci-dessus, est passionnante et met de l’ordre dans les idées qui, dans les flots du «tittytainment du mainstream», ont tendance à être incohérents.
Lorsque l’auteur arrive à la conclusion que les jours de la dominance américaine sont définitivement passés, ce n’est pas sur un fond de ressentiments antiaméricains comme on pourrait le penser. Tout au contraire, l’auteur rend hommage à l’engagement désintéressé des Etats-Unis en Europe pendant les heures les plus noires de la Seconde Guerre mondiale – mais pas sans se poser la question de savoir à partir de quel moment l’Amérique est soudain devenue si violente: qu’elle ait rendu la torture de nouveau acceptable, qu’elle ait mené des guerres préventives sans penser aux principes de Nuremberg, dans lesquels une guerre d’agression est déclarée comme le pire des crimes et à l’occasion desquels le procureur principal Robert ­Jackson avait exigé publiquement qu’à l’avenir les USA veuillent aussi être jugés à la même aune.
Il est devenu évident que les choses vont mal aux Etats-Unis lors de la publication du plan de 5 ans du Pentagone, le «Quadrennial Defence Review Report (QDR)» des années 2001 à 2006. A l’encontre du droit international, ce rapport exige le droit à la guerre préventive. Afin que le lecteur puisse comprendre cette monstruosité, l’auteur transpose cette mentalité dans la cohabitation de voisins qui s’exprimeraient de la façon suivante: tu peux fusiller ton voisin sans autre s’il te dérange. Tu ne dois remplir que deux conditions: tu dois prétendre que tu t’es senti menacé et viser de telle sorte qu’il ne puisse ensuite plus témoigner.» (Betschon, p. 52) L’auteur donne à réfléchir que, si ce mépris sans pudeur de toutes les valeurs pour lesquelles l’Occident s’est battu pendant des décennies, porte préjudice aux êtres humains au Moyen-Orient en premier lieu, mais à moyen et long terme aussi à la société civile des agresseurs.

Le principe des Etats souverains versus le principe du «Diviser pour régner!»

L’auteur classe cette politique étrangère de l’Empire, agressive et méprisante pour le genre humain, sur la base de deux principes: le principe d’Etats souverains et le principe du «diviser pour régner». Ce que la génération ayant vécu la guerre froide ne pouvait jamais tenir pour possible, et ce qui rend si difficile un regard clair sur notre présent, c’est le fait que le premier des deux principes, le principe des Etats nations souverains, établi après la guerre de Trente Ans lors de la Paix de Westphalie, ne soit plus représenté aujourd’hui par la démocratie des USA autrefois louée, mais par la Russie autrefois proscrite, pendant que le principe machiavélique du «diviser pour régner», est brandi par George W. Bush et aujourd’hui par le Prix Nobel de la paix Obama. Même si l’auteur ne peut pas vraiment ce réjouir de ce résultat surprenant, il faut reconnaître qu’il présente les faits comme ils sont sans œillères et sans égard pour ses préférences personnelles.
Ce qui avait déjà été visible en 2007, lors de la Conférence de Sécurité de Munich, à savoir que la Russie sous Poutine n’était plus ce pays postsoviétique faible et à exploiter, mais de nouveau une grande puissance, capable et décidée à se défendre, et cela aussi bien économiquement que militairement, est devenu saisissable pour tout le monde lors de la même conférence en 2008: le Premier ministre russe, Sergueï Ivanov, a présenté un pays sûr de lui tout en soulignant que cela ne signifiait pas de nouveaux blocs et confrontations, mais une cohabitation pacifique d’Etats souverains. Alors qu’au camp opposé, le ministre de la Défense des USA, Robert Gates, a présenté le point de vue d’une hégémonie agressive. Avec cela Gates s’est positionné selon le modèle de l’Empire britannique à la Churchill et pas selon celui de Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Ces deux conceptions opposées de la politique, Betschon les fait très bien ressortir: alors que l’Empire britannique présente une politique de conflits et de manipulation, donc le «diviser pour régner», le président des USA d’avant et pendant la guerre a répondu de l’autre modèle de la coopération, celui des nations souveraines. En raison du décès prématuré de Roosevelt, le pur et dur Truman a rejoint la ligne britannique, et ainsi il a déployé, sans aucun égard, la bombe nucléaire.

L’Europe et l’Asie se soudent économiquement

Même si la politique étrangère avant Truman n’a pas toujours été exemplaire comme présenté ci-dessus, il est tout de même bienfaisant que l’auteur se soustraie au dénigrement antirusse de l’Occident et ouvre de nouvelles manières de voir. Car c’est seulement en remettant en question le spectre russe que la voie se libère pour une coopération des pays européens avec les grandes nations du Proche et de l’Extrême-Orient nécessaire depuis longtemps.
Dans le chapitre «megatrends» [tendances mégas], l’auteur ose émettre quelques pronostics extrêmement passionnants et au fait très convaincants du développement futur: sans se fixer sur une date et un ordre, on pourrait s’attendre aux développements suivants:
1.    L’Europe et l’Asie se souderont économiquement sans retour.
2.    L’Eurasie développera une politique fédéraliste de commerce, d’extérieur et de sécurité.
3.    La notion d’«Occident» deviendra superflue: L’Europe de l’Ouest, l’Amérique du Nord et Israël ne formeront plus une unité.
4.    L’Europe continentale s’orientera vers l’Est. L’Amérique du Nord ne sera intéressante plus que pour le commerce.
5.    L’UE et l’OTAN devront être reconsidérés et remplacés par quelque chose de nouveau.
Et qu’est-ce qui se passerait si les institutions de Bretton Woods et l’ONU étaient transférées vers le nouveau centre de gravité du monde économique, par exemple à Shanghai? Ou bien si les pays asiatiques arrivaient à la conclusion de ne plus avoir besoin de ces institutions dominées par les Etats-Unis et de pouvoir très bien vivre sans elles et même mieux? Et avec l’Europe, on a déjà cohabité depuis 2000 ans – longtemps avant que le double continent américain ait été défiguré par les Anglo-Saxons? Il a fallu beaucoup de temps dans le soi-disant nouveau monde avant que les blancs se soient arraché une excuse concernant le génocide de la population locale.
Betschon n’est pas sûr que les Européens aient vraiment déjà reconnu les signes du temps et se dirigeront vers l’Asie – néanmoins les Asiatiques viendraient déjà à notre rencontre. Il ne parle pas seulement du tourisme et des boutiques de montres en plein essor à Lucerne et Interlaken, volontiers fréquentées par la classe moyenne chinoise en hausse, mais aussi des investisseurs de Chine et d’Inde qui sauvent de la ruine en Europe de plus en plus d’anciennes marques, comme par exemple le groupe de sociétés indien Tata, qui a repris en 2007 le groupe d’acier britannique Corus, mais aussi les usines d’automobiles Jaguar et Landrover.

Le monde de demain: L’Amérique latine, l’Asie, l’Europe et à part les Etats-Unis, sur la touche

Que nous sommes au beau milieu d’un tournant d’époque est évident notamment en Afrique, où de plus en plus d’entreprises chinoises font ce qui a été réservé aux Européens: établir des relations commerciales, effectuer des investissements, exploiter des matières premières – à la différence près que les Chinois sont capables de lier leurs profits à de vrais bienfaits pour les populations locales. Un fait qu’on n’a jamais rencontré dans le colonialisme européen, dans l’impérialisme et dans le néocolonialisme actuel.
Alors que l’Occident fixe plein de méfiance le dragon chinois et se demande s’il fonctionne comme l’aigle américain – sur la base d’un militarisme agressif –, nous ne voyons pas que ce monde s’est mué en un monde rectangulaire: aujourd’hui, il est composé de l’Amérique latine, l’Asie, l’Europe et à part encore les Etats-Unis, sur la touche. A part? Nos médias occidentaux omettent volontiers de nous le dire: de plus en plus de décisions importantes sont prises sans l’unique ancienne superpuissance. Horizons et débats a parlé récemment de cette humiliation à Phnom Pen2. Comme cet événement s’est avéré tout simplement inexistant dans les médias du mainstream occidental, on a dû avoir recours à un article de l’«Asia Times» qui a montré clairement que l’Occident à une longueur de retard sur le développement actuel réel. Il y a eu Obama, qui a été décommandé d’une rencontre des Etats Asean. Les USA qui voulaient créer une fissure entre les Etats asiatiques, avant tout entre les petits et la Chine, se sont retrouvés mis à l’écart. Le monde est devenu autre, tout comme Kishore Mahbubani tente de nous l’expliquer depuis longtemps – aimablement, mais avec fermeté. Et si l’Occident ne veut pas en prendre connaissance, la rupture sera irréversible. Cependant, il serait meilleur pour tous d’avancer ensemble vers le futur. Mais pour cela, l’Occident devrait vivre réellement ses valeurs, en haute estime dans le reste du monde, au lieu de faire une politique d’intérêts impitoyable sous couvert de valeurs affichées.

Le FMI et l’hégémonie du dollar proches de leur fin

Betschon cite plusieurs événements qui illustrent ce tournant:
Les dix Etats de l’Asie du Sud-Est de l’ASEAN – comme on ne les connaît que très peu en Occident, ils seront cités ici: le Brunei, le Cambodge, l’Indonésie, le Laos, la Malaisie, le Myanmar, les Philippines, Singapour, la Thaïlande et le Vietnam –, ces dix Etats ont créé avec la Chine, le Japon et la Corée du Sud l’Asian Monetary Fund avec les RMB/Yen comme monnaie centrale – un processus qui rendra superflu le FMI dominé par les Etats-Unis.
La même chose se passe en Amérique du Sud: la fondation du Latin American Monetary Fund a pour résultat que le FMI doit fermer ses bureaux dans les Etats l’un après l’autre. Le Venezuela donne aux membres les crédits nécessaires pour pouvoir désintéresser le FMI.
En Europe, l’euro, prévu comme alternative au dollar, vit une attaque massive et cela pas depuis la Chine! Mais il y a aussi la Russie, qui ne danse plus aux sons de Washington: là-bas, peu à peu se font les adieux au FMI et à l’hégémonie du dollar en se fiant davantage aux propres ressources et à l’or.
Ce sont ces processus qui, à long terme, empêcheront les Etats-Unis, à l’aide de leur planche à billets, de mettre leurs propres dettes sur le dos des autres pays du monde. Avant tout parce que les dépenses pour l’armée doivent être réduites, et que par la suite leur bonne vieille diplomatie de canonnière à la mode des bandes de brigands ne fonctionnera plus.
Une année centrale pour la diminution de l’influence des USA a été l’année 2008: C’est en même temps que l’effondrement de Lehman Brothers qu’ont eu lieu les événements suivants, sans la contribution des Etats-Unis, trop occupés par leurs propres problèmes:
•    A Lima, environ 60 nations se sont rencontrées pour un sommet mondial sur l’alimentation, avec la présence d’Angela Merkel, la Chine, mais sans les USA.
•    En même temps se sont réunis les ministres des Affaires étrangères des Etats BRICS à Iekaterinbourg en Russie. Etaient invités le Brésil, la Russie, l’Inde et la Chine. Mais pas les USA.
•    Fin mai, le nouveau président russe a effectué son premier voyage à l’étranger. Jadis on allait d’abord aux USA, mais cette fois, la Chine a été la première destination.
•    En même temps un sommet important a eu lieu entre le Japon et la Chine – et cela sans les USA, ce qui aurait été impensable auparavant.
Europe: sortir de l’étau des Etats-Unis, retour aux propres valeurs
Dans cette situation d’un monde s’organisant sans problèmes sans l’Empire, l’Europe se retrouve devant la question de savoir si elle ne devrait pas renouer avec ses valeurs éprouvées, lesquelles avaient été désignées avec mépris par les néoconservateurs américains comme celles d’une «vieille Europe»: cela signifierait, d’un côté, abandonner les idées colonialistes tardives, ensuite respecter la souveraineté des autres Etats et la non-ingérence dans leurs affaires internes – donc faire preuve d’un refus de la stratégie douteuse du R2P, ce concept de «Responsability to protect», en effet, cette responsabilité de protéger, comme Hans-Christof von Sponeck3 l’a démontré, a toujours été utilisée comme prétexte pour intervenir dans d’autres pays pour s’assurer les matières premières et pour garder la Chine à l’écart, comme par exemple au Soudan, en Libye, et presque aussi en Syrie, si la Russie et la Chine n’avaient pas déposé leur «niet» courageux. Ou bien, comme l’a expliqué très clairement le politologue russe Fursov:4 en Syrie, les Croisés occidentaux se sont heurtés au Mur chinois!
Finalement, Betschon conseille à l’Europe de ne pas utiliser de doubles critères de qualité au niveau des valeurs. Il y en aurait déjà assez d’exemples, énumérés dans le livre de Kishore Mahbubani,5 mais aussi dans les exposés du spécialiste en droit international, Hans Köchler,6 qui a entre autre sévèrement critiqué la pratique d’accusation dominée par l’Occident de l’International Criminal Court (ICC).

Des corridors de développement avec des centres de développement en chaîne perlée

L’Europe, sur cet ancien et nouveau sol des meilleures traditions occidentales, aurait un allié à l’Est qui comprend déjà aujourd’hui environ un quart de la population mondiale: la Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). Ses membres que sont la Chine, le Kazakhstan, le Kirghizstan, la Russie, le Tadjikistan, l’Ouzbékistan se rencontrent régulièrement dans ce cadre avec des Etats au statut d’observateur, comme la Mongolie, l’Inde, le Pakistan et l’Iran. Celui en Europe qui croit que rien ne peut là se souder ni ne s’accorder devrait reconsidérer sa façon de voir le monde, remontant à l’antiquité euro-centrée. Une frontière intérieure de l’Eurasie n’existe pas réellement du point de vue géographique et géologique, elle n’est qu’historique et culturelle. Mais là aussi, les frontières s’estompent déjà très tôt, rappelons-nous les interdépendances russes avec l’Europe occidentale en ce qui concerne les échanges d’art artisanal, de scientifiques et de gens au sang bleu. Et derrière la Russie, il y a la Chine qui œuvre déjà depuis le milieu des années 1990 à la création de cinq corridors d’infrastructure qui devront relier l’Asie à l’Europe: les chemins de fer en constitueront seulement l’épine dorsale. Betschon souligne que ces corridors de développement, semblables aux anciennes routes de la soie, créent des centres de développement en chaîne perlée avec un fort rayonnement.

Pékin – Hambourg: les trains plus rapides que les bateaux

Mais qui, dans cette Europe au regard toujours fixé sur les Etats-Unis, s’en est aperçu? Le 9 janvier 2008 par exemple, un train pionnier a été mis en route pour la première fois avec des biens pour l’Europe, et cela depuis Pékin. Destination Hambourg! Un trajet de 9800 km à travers six pays. Le résultat? Arrivée à Hambourg au bout de 18 jours – pour la même destination par voie maritime avec des porte-conteneurs on aurait mis presque 40 jours! Un événement qui ouvre de toutes nouvelles dimensions – et un regard sur la carte de l’Eurasie le montre: qu’est-ce qu’il y a de plus naturel que le renforcement des voies terrestres depuis la Chine vers l’Europe? L’Eurasie est un continent en soi, une masse territoriale naturellement faite pour constituer une seule et même superficie – ce que l’on ne peut vraiment pas dire de la relation entre l’Europe et les Etats-Unis, séparés par deux océans.
Naturellement, pour l’historien, il y a aussi des souvenirs sombres en ce qui concerne un corridor transeurasien: les pays de l’Europe continentale ont déjà une fois essayé d’établir un lien par voie terrestre avec l’Orient. Qu’on se rappelle le projet du «chemin de fer Berlin-Bagdad». Comme le démontre l’historien Daniele Ganser dans son livre «Europa im Erdölrausch» [L’Europe dans la fièvre pétrolière], on aurait pu transporter de façon peu coûteuse du pétrole depuis l’Irak jusque dans les centres économiques de l’Europe centrale. Et cela sans dépendre de la flotte britannique, donc de l’Empire mondial britannique. Nous savons tous, ce qui est arrivé alors: un petit bout de pays n’était pas intégré dans le pont terrestre germano-habsbourgeois-ottoman: la Serbie. Qu’il y ait eu par la suite ce coup de fusil dans le Sarajevo occupé par l’Autriche – qui devait assurer à la puissance maritime de la Grande-Bretagne le monopole pétrolier au Proche-Orient, et l’on parle là aussi de la Première Guerre mondiale – cela est connu, certes mais peut-être moins connu avec ladite toile de fond sus-mentionnée.
Les pays européens, la Russie et la Chine doivent se tenir sur leurs gardes et empêcher puissance maritime encore numéro 1, les Etats-Unis, mettent en scène là quelque chose de semblable à ce que firent les Britanniques en 1914. Des essais de déstabilisation par le passé en Ukraine, en Azerbaïdjan, dans les républiques centrasiatiques pourraient être classifiés en prolongement de cet arrière-fond.

L’empire marche à reculons – à lire quotidiennement dans les journaux

Franz Betschon a publié son analyse en 2009. Tout comme von Salis, qu’il vénère, il n’a pas besoin de corriger quoi que ce soit. Au contraire, beaucoup de points problématiques qu’il a cités sont devenus encore plus évidents après trois ans. Que le président Obama ait pu faire admettre Hagl comme ministre de la Défense en dit long: qu’un ministre de la Défense des Etats-Unis mette en garde contre le lobby pro-Israël et aspire à des négociations avec l’Iran, qu’un ministre des Affaires étrangères, John Kerry, visite le Caire, Riad et Doha, mais laisse de côté Tel Aviv, c’est quelque chose. Que maintenant des négociations avec l’Iran soient possibles avec la présence des Etats-Unis, et en même temps aussi la Chine et la Russie, c’est encore autre chose. Que le Premier ministre turc mette sur le même plan le sionisme, le fascisme, l’antisémitisme et l’antiislamisme et les condamne, et se fasse vivement critiquer dans les médias israéliens,7 mais qu’il reste quand-même un allié étroit des Etats-Unis et qu’il veuille, malgré ou bien justement à cause de ces déclarations, adhérer à l’UE, est encore un troisième élément. Qu’un Kenneth Waltz veuille accorder, dans Foreign Affairs de juillet/août 2012,8 la bombe à l’Iran, parce que le monde deviendrait ainsi plus sûr, surtout le Proche-Orient, parce que la puissance nucléaire d’Israël aurait ainsi un adversaire – Israël qui, d’après ce «Grand old man» des sciences politiques américaines, représenterait le danger principal pour la paix dans la région –, voilà qui nous fait dresser l’oreille! Cela sonne un peu comme une stratégie d’échiquier d’un Brzezinski, auquel Betschon se réfère plusieurs fois, mais alors une stratégie de retrait des joueurs d’échec de l’Empire.

Renouer avec le concept de Roosevelt du respect de la souveraineté des Etats-nations

Il serait souhaitable pour les habitants de l’Eurasie, mais aussi du Proche-Orient, et cela de quelque nationalité et de quelque appartenance religieuse fussent-ils, que la stratégie chinoise des nouvelles routes de la soie puisse se réaliser et ainsi la cohabitation pacifique économique et politique, et cela sans manœuvres déstabilisatrices transatlantiques. Quels paysages florissants pourraient en résulter, si ce grand continent pouvait se ressouder, comme Kishore Mahbubani ne cesse de répéter. Si les anciens ennemis mortels, Japon et Chine, après les affres de la Seconde Guerre mondiale et après les plus de 30 millions de Chinois tués par les Japonais, peuvent aujourd’hui coopérer paisiblement, pourquoi cela ne devrait-il pas être possible au Proche-Orient? Et pourquoi les Etats-Unis ne devraient-ils pas s’orienter selon le modèle de Roosevelt du respect de la souveraineté des Etats-nations? Vu l’endettement exorbitant, c’est une nécessité de l’heure – et aussi celle du bon sens. Une tâche qui siérait bien au Prix Nobel Obama. Mais l’UE également pourrait se rendre digne de son prix Nobel et enterrer son hostilité en direction de l’Est. La population suisse pourrait alors, dans cette situation confuse et complexe, s’investir comme nation des bons services et vivre son fédéralisme comme exemple d’une cohabitation édifiante et pacifique, et cela sans lorgner du côté des grandes puissances.
Si le livre de Franz Betschon peut diriger pensée, réflexion et action dans cette direction, il s’avérera riche en effets bénéfiques. On lui souhaite un large lectorat, et bien sûr pas seulement en Suisse.     •

1    Franz Betschon: Das eurasische Schachturnier. Krisen, Hintergründe und Prognosen. Frankfurt/Main, 2009. ISBN 978-3-8301-1234-1.
2    David P. Goldman: Un monde sans dominance des USA, né à Phnom-Penh. In: Horizons et débats no 53 du 28/12/12
3    Hans-Christof von Sponeck: La tentative d’appliquer la responsabilité de protéger a lamentablement échoué en Libye. In: Horizons et débats no 18/19
du 7/5/12
4    Frappe contre la Syrie – cible: la Russie. Interview d’Andrej Iljitsch Fursov. In: Horizons et débats no 37 du 10/9/12
5    Kishore Mahbubani: Die Rückkehr Asiens. Berlin 2008. ISBN 978-3549073513
6    Hans Köchler: Weltgericht ohne Weltstaat. Strafjustiz unter dem Diktat der Realpolitik? Kommentar zu Idee und Wirklichkeit des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes zehn Jahre nach dem Inkrafttreten des Römer Statutes. Vienne, 1/7/12.
http://i-p-o.org/Koechler-ICC-Weltgericht-ohne-Weltstaat-IPO-OP-1July2012.htm
7    At UN conference, Erdogan calls Zionism «crime against humanity». In: Haaretz du 28/2/13.
www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/at-un-conference-erdogan-calls-zionism-crime-against-humanity.premium-1.506392
8    Kenneth N. Waltz: Why Iran should get the bomb. Nuclear balancing would mean stability.
In: Foreign Affairs July/August 2012. Ed.: Council on Foreign Relations. Traduction française in:
Horizons et débats no 43/44 du 22/10/12

Dans le chapitre «megatrends» [tendances mégas], l’auteur ose émettre quelques pronostics extrêmement passionnants et au fait très convaincants du développement futur: sans se fixer sur une date et un ordre, on pourrait s’attendre aux développements suivants:
1.    L’Europe et l’Asie se souderont économiquement sans retour.
2.    L’Eurasie développera une politique fédéraliste de commerce, d’extérieur et de sécurité.
3.    La notion d’«Occident» deviendra superflue: L’Europe de l’Ouest, l’Amérique du Nord et Israël ne formeront plus une unité.
4.    L’Europe continentale s’orientera vers l’Est. L’Amérique du Nord ne sera intéressante plus que pour le commerce.
5.    L’UE et l’OTAN devront être reconsidérés et remplacés par quelque chose de nouveau.


Une année centrale pour la diminution de l’influence des USA a été l’année 2008: C’est en même temps que l’effondrement de Lehman Brothers qu’ont eu lieu les événements suivants, sans la contribution des Etats-Unis, trop occupés par leurs propres problèmes:
•    A Lima, environ 60 nations se sont rencontrées pour un sommet mondial sur l’alimentation, avec la présence d’Angela Merkel, la Chine, mais sans les USA.
•    En même temps se sont réunis les ministres des Affaires étrangères des Etats BRICS à Iekaterinbourg en Russie. Etaient invités le Brésil, la Russie, l’Inde et la Chine. Mais pas les USA.
•    Fin mai, le nouveau président russe a effectué son premier voyage à l’étranger. Jadis on allait d’abord aux USA, mais cette fois, la Chine a été la première destination.
•    En même temps un sommet important a eu lieu entre le Japon et la Chine – et cela sans les USA, ce qui aurait été impensable auparavant.

vendredi, 19 avril 2013

To build a real Eurasia: few juridical ideas

 

ECHiquier_eurasien.jpg

To build a real Eurasia: few juridical ideas

 

Ex: http://www.geopolitica.ru/

Trying to speak about continental political constructions, we need to understand their limits. Inside all human institutions there is a limit, because the possibility to create something able to satisfy always all interest is impossible.

In this case, we must look to the theories. All of them underline that in the moment when few great people want to introduce big ideas on public debate, a lot of critics will appear, not trying to accept and correct the positive aspects of these activities, but only speaking about the limits (economics, politics, human relations, etc.).

Eurasia is a big idea only if we want to thing to it; more than that – is a big idea if someone will try to explain this to the world. However, the dimension of these continents is huge, and a scientist will see easier the limits of this construction. And, when human society will be prepared, it could be a possibility to create a new European, maybe, after European Union model.

Inside all of these facts, Eurasian idea must be analyzed sine ira et studio (without hate and with morality), and few important aspects are brought by the national legislations and by the people who believe in them. Our text tries to describe some problems of this important equation, between ideas and legal possibilities to fulfill them.  

 1. The question of Eurasia is an Eurasian question or only a single country question?

Why this?

Because, as always, when we analyze “the political constructions”, we must note the difficulties to have a single vocabulary for every person who have access to the concept – as the main obstacle to construct … something.

Thus, out text will speak about Eurasia. It’s a concept with great socio-politic importance, and – following this idea, we’ll use to describe it two important search engines and its documents, to present “popular” (in fact, public) access to information about the concept.

Google reports 15,500,000 notes about Eurasia, and 8,500,000 to the question: What is Eurasia?

Wikipedia has its own page about Eurasia[1], where it can be read:

a)                  Eurasia is a continent or super-continent covering about 52,990,000 km2 (20,846,000 mi2) or about 10.6% of the Earth's surface (36.2% of the land area) located primarily in the eastern and northern hemispheresPhysio-graphically, it is a single continent, comprising the traditional continents of Europe and Asia (with Eurasia being a portmanteau of the two); the concepts of Europe and Asia as distinct continents date back to antiquity and their borders are geologically arbitrary. Eurasia, in turn, is part of the yet larger landmass of Afro-Eurasia, whereby Eurasia is joined to Africa at the Isthmus of Suez. Eurasia is inhabited by almost 4 billion people, more than 72.5% of the world's population (60% in Asia and 12.5% in Europe);

b)                 Eurasia is also sometimes used in geopolitics to refer to organizations of or affairs concerning the post-Soviet states, in particular Russia, the Central Asian republics, and the Transcaucasian republics. A prominent example of this usage is in the name of the Eurasian Economic Community, the organization including Kazakhstan, Russia, and some of their neighbors, and headquartered in Moscow and Astana. The word "Eurasia" is often used in Kazakhstan as the name of the continent or region in which that country is located. Numerous institutions in that country use it in their name, e.g., L. N. Gumilev Eurasian National University, the Eurasian Media Forum, the Eurasian Culture Foundation, the Eurasian Development Bank , or the Eurasian Bank. In 2007, Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan Nazarbayev proposed that a “Eurasia Canal” be built to connect the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea via the Kuma - Manych Depression in Russia, providing Kazakhstan and other Caspian-basin countries with a more efficient access path to the ocean than the existing Volga-Don Canal. This usage is somewhat analogous to the U.S. usage of the term Western Hemisphere when referring to the concepts and organizations dealing with the Americas (e.g., Council on Hemispheric Affairs or Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation)[2].

These texts are public and very easy to be found by anyone. The last site with great importance for our question (What is Eurasia) is www.eurasiancenter.org, an important site from Unites States of America. We present it here, because today it is considered the US as the single global power, so, we must be concern about the initiatives started from this part of the word.

2. On the other part, the main wisdom in Eurasian problems belongs o both continents – because the common history speaks louder. In the same time, on this big scientific and concept map the main role of debate belongs, naturally, to Russia and to Russian specialists.

In this case, we must note also few ideas:

a)                  Russia is the country to have the biggest part of its territory on both continents[3][4], but its position is not perfectly favorable to develop a total discourse on Eurasia, because the most emergent part of it is situated in Europe[5];

b)                 Russia represents a perfect roof for the world – in this case, its Eurasian idea represents a correspondence with a human body with two special arms: the body is settled in northern Siberia, near the Arctic Ocean. In the same time, the arms has a double significance: a left arm who keep a shield in the Asian direction (mainly China – for extension, yellow race people), and the right one, the most efficient and productive, is stretched to the Europe. In this case, we must note something special: the left had defended Europe from the Vladivostok to the Pamir Mountains, and the right one is over the Moscow and Petersburg. So, a logic question: where is situated the sight of Russia? In our opinion, this is settled to a big area, with a fragmented history: Central Asia – Caspian Sea – Black Sea, as always in the history of humanity, from the North (Sever) to the South (Yugo);

c)                  Eurasia is a new concept for history – it appeared in the 19th century, and only because it was on that time two empires who were important position on both continents: Russian and Turkish one. In this case, we must note an analogy: Christian Russia was opposed to Muslim Turkey on the same logic met after 1945 between Soviet Union and United States;

d)                 Eurasia is an old concept related to European union, because the unionist ideas on Europe was blocked always by the presence of Muslim Constantinople, and, more than that, by the internal battle between main European land powers (with a “big brother” behind – Great Britain);

e)                  If Russia is the main territory for this idea, we must note that in the 21st century ideas must be kept by a stronger population[6]; thus – the future of Eurasian ideas in Russia must be accompanied by a better demography.

3. Our opinion about Eurasia is expressed in a very “scholar language” for a correct order of ideas.

Eurasia is a great political concept, but not completes, because the map limits are not always well understand.

Looking to the world map, we must note that the human land is separated between two big parts, understood as Old World and New (Columbus) World. All scientists have a great problem when the want to separate the Old world, because:

a)      Western Europe is more or less catholic, protestant or atheist and is strong separated by the eastern Europe (history and economy, mainly after European Union creation;

b)      Eastern Europe don’t have a real limit, because Russia is situated on both continents;

c)      Southern Europe is presented much more as part of Western Mediterranean Sea;

d)      Southern Europe is related – because of Gibraltar and the same sea to Northern Africa;

e)      Northern Africa is separated by a big desert (Sahara) to the rest of African continent (which is much richer with mineral resources than the Maghreb and Egypt);

f)        Near East or Proche Orient[7] means Turkey (the other state with double Eurasian continental dimension), Caucasus, Jordan river territory and Egypt (a country belonging mainly to another continent (African), with a step in Asia (by territory and history) and ho was occupied and created as modern state by European powers of 19th century;

g)      Near East is separated by the main Arabic population and energy resources by another strong desert;

h)      Middle East has two important borders (mainly because of history): Central Asia – where the Russian influence is the main actor for the last almost 200 years – and the Chain Mountains Pamir – Himalaya;

i)        India is separated by big rivers and big chain mountains to Pakistan (Indus), South East of Asia (yellow race) and China;

j)        China is the Middle Empire, with one hand related to the south and with the other one to the north. Today we are not sure where Beijing looks straight: to Pacific Ocean or to Middle East, Russia and India[8] in the same time. Last years show us that both directions are possible; in our opinion, always the middle position obliged the state claiming this position to watch more carefully inside;

k)      South East of Asia is related more with Australia, where an important position is kept by the United Kingdom (the same chief of state In Australia and New Zealand);

l)        Japan represents – somehow – a padlock for almost all Asian powers with interests of Pacific Ocean: here, the key belong to Washington sea power (on Mahan admiral doctrine).       

Thus, we cannot consider that the actual dimension of Eurasia is correct, related with the geography and mainly to the history. Despite all innovative technology, the desert is still a desert, a big chain mountain remain on the same position.

It is true: maritime ships can transport a lot of products (it is very interesting to observe the Chinese offensive in weak Europe’s ports[9]) and pipe-lines create a faster way to transport energy resources, but we must understand another limits:

a)                  Pipe-lines represent land states, land powers cooperating or in a perpetual competition (the differences between two attitudes is not always clear). In this case, we must note few moments when tensions can create bigger problems, as blocking of oil transport in Ukraine or terrorist attacks on pipe-lines. In the same time, it is very easy to control a pipe-line, because it is stable on the land for kilometers, and no one can pay guards for every 100 meters to have a perfect safety of them;

b)                 Maritime transport means to control the straits, and for Eurasia there are four very important ones: Skagerrack, Gibraltar, Malacca and the sea in the front of Arabian Peninsula, to control Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. We see here a strong position of United Kingdom, USA and to the sea powers by excellence. Inside this perimeter, there is Bosporus, Suez channel and a lack of military fleet for the “land powers of Eurasia”.

As conclusion: the author believe that Eurasia is a small concept, we need to add here Africa too – minimum the northern part, from French part of Senegal to Bab-el-Mandeb strait near the Ethiopia and Somalia; today Chinese politics introduce in the geopolitical equation whole Africa … and, in our opinion, soon we must be extend with Australia.

In this case, every state must understand its political dimension and its role on the Eur-Asi-African (our tri-continental proposal), named EAA, and to play well its card.

Following this idea, we must note the words of Professor J.L. Granatstein, on April 2011, at the reunion of Canadian Forces College[10]: “can a small or middle power have a Grand Strategy? Former diplomat Daryl Copeland defined Grand Strategy as a unifying, long-term vision of a country’s global values and interests; an expression of where the country is, and where it wants to go in the world; and an analysis of its potential and capacity to achieve its objective. I consider it a core element of statecraft.

That sounds difficult to derive for most nation-states, but to me it does not sound like Grand Strategy, at least not for smaller powers. Smaller countries can fight wars against other smaller powers or maneuvers to avoid them. They can join Great Power alliances or not. They can follow particular economic policies or decide not to. But they do not have Grand Strategies because they lack the human, industrial, and military resources to sustain them. In other words, the God of Grand Strategy is only found on the side of the big battalions. But small countries do have, like every other state, national interests, and their policies are (or should be) focused on advancing or protecting these interests and on their national survival.”

4. If we analyze Eurasia in this dimension, we must express another idea about the legal concept of Eurasia.

Legal concepts exist as it is written. In this scientific branch, words are words, and they cannot be understood in different senses. For any word it is a clear definition and a complex base for any different sense regarding any legal institution[11].

Eurasian is not a concept for legal sciences; we need international treaties to proclaim the existence of this new legal institution. Thus, the author will analyze briefly only few ideas, because the potential for this scientific debate is huge and we don’t have here enough space for it.

First of all, we must underline that inside Eurasia there are many legal systems, with many traditions – to create a real, single and unite Eurasia as concept and political entity, we need to harmonize these differences. For that, we can use only the legal principles, but …

“Although confirmed by Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the idea that there exist general principles of law that are recognized by civilized nations has lost ground in recent years. This fact raises the question of whether such general principles have any order-providing meaning or value beyond the State. If compared to the apparently “natural” systematic structure of state legal orders, the global legal space appears to lack a body of general rules and seems dominated by sectionalism and fragmentation. Indeed, it resembles the medieval legal order, characterized as that was by the simultaneous presence of various legal orders competing with each other. In reality, studies of legal history have led to a different understanding. We now know that that systematic structure was not natural. It was an integral part of a general pattern of morphological transformations undergone by the legal orders of states.”[12]

In this case, we don’t know which legal principles must be fulfilled, because there are many differences between European continental law and religious Islamic law; between Chinese system law and the Britain law. For this debate we can write books, but, of course, in national parliaments it will be a complicate debate, because no one wants to renounce to the history (at least).

Second question: if we want a single Eurasia, where it might be the capital of the state? Any political entity without a center (capital) collapse in less than 5 years: thus, where it must be!

Logics speak: at the middle of the distance, because it is necessary to offer equal access to all persons to all services which are ruled from this big center. So, we can look to Caucasus, maybe to the Near East: Damascus – or Baghdad? … Islamic capital means a different kind of administration of it, because here it was in the last two decades the most important military conflicts – it is need to a new urban architecture, for a capital of almost 4 billion inhabitants!

A lot of new institutions must be settled in this new capital: a Eurasian parliament, which must be able to adopt important, ethic laws, with a great availability for flexible interpretation, because:

a)             These laws cannot be applied from the first moments, because it will be a great problem with internal constitution of the states, and with all secondary (administrative) legislation;

b)             Looking to European Union constitutional treaty of 2006 and to the Lisbon Treaty of 2007, we can see the huge dimension of the texts[13]: if this it was possible for a group of 27 states with common legal tradition (Roman Empire, in fact), can we predict the legal dimension of a Constitution for Eurasia?

c)             In that moment it must be start a global educational change, not only in Law faculties, to understand and to apply new law, but also in every state, because the complexity of changes cannot be seen in one day.

In this context, we have a single question: the loyalty of every person of Eurasia will belong to whom? Because the history never must be forgotten[14]!

Another question is related about the administrative organization of the territory – now, only one big state, but what kind of internal autonomy inside every small part of every state who compose the Eurasian state, because without a strong centralization is impossible to build a functioning state.

The last question is about the justice – where it must be The Supreme Court of Justice? Where it must be The Constitutional Court?

Regarding this; we must note that:

a)      How many procedural steps (appeal, recourse and more) a person must do to be judged by the Supreme Court of Justice?

b)      How it must be invoked the control from The Constitutional Court?

c)      Who are the administrative institutions who shall fulfill the decision of the Eurasian justice? Only one example: in one state a person is affected by the behavior of another state. He claims the state, but this state is too strong to be punishing easily … ca we have equality between states?      

 

Conclusion

In this case, Eurasia is a seductive idea. However, it can be tried to create such a state, but, in our opinion, legal problems are the “big stone”, in front of any political ideas. In fact, we must note the process of negotiations – it is not simple, and, of course, somebody negotiate in a big state, but national parliaments must accept, and, after that, because the dimensions of Eurasia are too big for today human society, it must be approved on referendum by citizens. And today we are not sure about their political opinions …          


[2] This description is used at the bottom of the page, so, we can understand the option of the page author (and of a lot people, because this site is created by “everyone”).

[3] Turkey has less.

[4] In a lot of European institution (as football or music) Israel is included in Europe.

[5] Despite the land reality.

[6] The catastrophic demography of Russia is not always positive to implement big ideas abroad.

[7] A French concept.

[8] India is an “obstacle for a perfect seeing” to the South African rivers and mineral resources.

[9] In a famous report: Global trends 2025 – A transformed world made by National Intelligence Office (Washington, 2008), there are few observations about Chinese limit of economic development related to export of goods (p. 29 – 31).

[10] J.L. Granatstein: Can Canada Have a Grand Strategy?, Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute, p. 2 – 3.

[11] E. Balan: Institutii administrative (Administrative institutions), CH Beck, Bucharest, 2008, p. 8

[12] E. Chitti, B.G. Matarella: Global administrative law and EU administrative law, Springer, London, 2011, p. 89

[13] 300 pages or more, it depends by the editor.

[14] Title of a famous book about World War II. 

 

samedi, 30 mars 2013

Poutine veut un BRICS stratégique, vite…

brics195082191.jpg

Poutine veut un BRICS stratégique, vite…

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

Le président russe Poutine annonce qu’il proposera à la prochaine réunion du BRICS, les 26-27 mars à Durban, en Afrique du Sud, une extension décisive du rôle de ce regroupement jusqu’ici essentiellement économique de cinq puissances de ce qu’on a coutume de nommer un peu vite “le monde émergent”. Poutine prend garde d’identifier le BRICS comme “un élément-clef du monde multipolaire émergent”, ce qui a une toute autre signification, quasiment opposée, à l’expression “monde émergent”. L’expression “monde émergent”, avec sa connotation dégradante ou implicitement méprisante rappelant l’expression “Tiers-Monde”, implique évidemment le suprématisme anglo-saxon étendu au bloc BAO, conduisant à considérer le modèle BAO comme la Lumière du monde en tous points mais essentiellement économique et moral pour satisfaire les convictions de la modernité, le “monde émergent” évoluant avec comme destin fatal de s’intégrer au bloc BAO. Poutine voit le BRICS comme un élément d’une alternative à la structure du monde actuel régentée par le bloc BAO, alternative fondée sur la multipolarité contre l’unipolarité arrogante, ex-USA et désormais bloc BAO. (Selon notre rangement, nous qualifierions les puissances du BRICS, effectivement selon une vision multipolaire, comme déterminant un “monde se constituant aux marges du Système”, disons “un pied dedans, un pied dehors”, ou encore “dans le Système d’une certaine façon, avec un œil critique et éventuellement réformiste sur le Système d’une autre façon”.)

Cette annonce est faite dans une interview de Poutine à l’agence ITAR-TASS, avec le texte retranscrit le 22 mars 2013 sur le site de la présidence. En préliminaire, Poutine rappelle ce qu’est le BRICS, et surtout les principes sur lesquels est fondée ce regroupement. On retrouve l’accent sur le respect de la légalité internationale et sur le principe de la souveraineté… «BRICS is a key element of the emerging multipolar world. The Group of Five has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to the fundamental principles of the international law and contributed to strengthening the United Nations central role. Our countries do not accept power politics or violation of other countries' sovereignty. We share approaches to the pressing international issues, including the Syrian crisis, the situation around Iran, and Middle East settlement.»

Puis une des questions porte sur le rôle géopolitique du BRICS : «Does it go beyond the purely economic agenda and should the BRICS countries accept greater responsibility for geopolitical processes? What is their policy with regard to the rest of the world, including its major actors such as the United States, the European Union, Japan… What future do you see for this association in this regard?» On trouve dans la réponse de Poutine la présentation et l’explicitation de son initiative.

«At the same time, we invite our partners to gradually transform BRICS from a dialogue forum that coordinates approaches to a limited number of issues into a full-scale strategic cooperation mechanism that will allow us to look for solutions to key issues of global politics together.

»The BRICS countries traditionally voice similar approaches to the settlement of all international conflicts through political and diplomatic means. For the Durban summit, we are working on a joint declaration setting forth our fundamental approaches to pressing international issues, i.e. crisis in Syria, Afghanistan, Iran and the Middle East.

»We do not view BRICS as a geopolitical competitor to western countries or their organisations — on the contrary, we are open to discussion with any country or organisation that is willing to do so within the framework of the common multipolar world order.»

Notre ami M K Bhadrakumar a repris instantanément la nouvelle sur son blog (Indian PunchLine), le 22 mars 2013. Manifestement, il juge extrêmement importante la proposition russe. Par ailleurs, selon son scepticisme habituel pour la direction indienne qu’il tient en piètre estime, il se demande quelle va être l’attitude de l’Inde… M K Bhadrakumar note que Poutine envisage cette transformation du BRICS comme graduelle et étendue sur un laps de temps.

«What stands out is the stunning suggestion Putin has made to reorient the BRICS. He said, “we invite our partners [Brazil, India, China and South Africa] to gradually transform BRICS from a dialogue forum that coordinates approaches to a limited number of issues into a full-scale strategic cooperation mechanism that will allow us to look for solutions to key issues of global politics together.” [Emphasis added.] Putin acknowledges that such a profound transformation will take time. Aside across-the-board harmonization of foreign policies amongst the BRICS members, a fundamental reorientation of the foreign-policy doctrines may also be required.

»How India responds to the grand idea remains to be seen. To be sure, a ‘leap of faith’ is required. India has been comfortable with the fact that the leitmotif of BRICS is economics. Putin’s proposal would fundamentally readjust the BRICS’ orientation…»

… Justement, nous différons quelque peu de M K Bhadrakumar sur l’appréciation du tempo que Poutine voudrait voir suivre pour la transformation du BRICS. Il nous semble que sa proposition, loin de n’être que théorique et laissée au temps pour mûrir, est d’ores et déjà basée sur des propositions spécifiques de prises de position sur des problèmes précis («…a joint declaration setting forth our fundamental approaches to pressing international issues, i.e. crisis in Syria, Afghanistan, Iran and the Middle East»). Cela peut aussi bien signifier que la Russie aimerait voir, dès le sommet de Durban, le BRICS prendre position sur les problèmes spécifiques identifiés, – on verra cela d’une façon concrète la semaine prochaine. Cette perspective signifierait que les Russes voudraient au contraire aller très vite. La position de l’Inde paraîtrait sans aucun doute parmi les plus incertaines vis-à-vis d’un tel projet, quoique les Indiens, comme l’avait signalé M K Bhadrakumar lui-même, ont été les premiers à prendre l’initiative de réunir les conseillers de sécurité nationale des pays du groupe (voir le 7 janvier 2013), ce qui va évidemment dans le sens prôné par Poutine.

Quoi qu’il en soit et si l’on s’en tient à une appréciation objective, il serait évidemment logique de penser que les Russes veulent aller vite, parce que la situation générale des relations internationales et des crises continue à se détériorer à une très grande vitesse et demande la mise en place de forces, soit pour contenir cette descente dans le désordre, soit pour équilibrer les autres forces (le bloc BAO, principalement) qui alimentent ce désordre. Il paraît également très probable que les Russes ont le soutien de la Chine pour ce projet. (Le président chinois commençait sa visite à Moscou le jour où cette interview de Poutine était diffusée, ce qui ne peut être tenue pour une coïncidence, et au contraire doit être apprécié comme un signe puissant dans le sens d'une communauté de vues Russie-Chine.) D’une façon générale, on pourrait apprécier que la proposition russe vient à son heure, qu’il existe autour du BRICS une urgence d’évolution et d’intervention, selon laquelle un tel rassemblement peut difficilement restreindre sa propre dynamique au seul champ économique ; c’est notamment, voire essentiellement par le champ économique que le Système active son travail de déstructuration et de dissolution, et par conséquent des acteurs de cette importance, regroupés autour du champ économique dans la situation pressante qu’on connaît, ne peuvent pas ne pas considérer tous les effets engendrés par ce domaine.

Le projet russe n’a rien à voir, à notre sens, avec la constitution d’un pôle de puissance pouvant éventuellement concurrencer d’autres pôles de puissance (le bloc BAO, évidemment), – comme le dit justement Poutine et, selon notre approche, en exprimant sa véritable pensée. Le BRICS, s’il était réformé dans le sens voulu par Poutine, ne constituerait pas une partie prenante dans la situation actuelle, mais bel et bien une tentative de stabilisation de la dite situation. De ce point de vue, les Russes cherchent des partenaires capables de les épauler, ou au moins de les soutenir, dans cette même entreprise de “tentative de stabilisation”, comme ils font en Syrie, et leur initiative vers le BRICS est une démarche naturelle.

Continuant à considérer objectivement la situation, le BRICS n’apparaît en aucun cas assez puissant et assez organisé pour bouleverser complètement la situation générale. Il est vrai qu’il n’a pas affaire seulement à d’autres groupes dont la plupart sont déstabilisateurs, mais, au-dessus, à une tendance générale de déstructuration-dissolution qui dépasse évidemment les capacités humaines d’organisation ou de désorganisation. Le BRICS transformé-selon-Poutine, serait une saine et juste réaction face à cette tendance, mais absolument insuffisante pour espérer la stopper de quelque façon que ce soit. Par contre, et sans que ce soit justement le but conscient et élaboré de Poutine, cette évolution du BRICS apparaîtrait au bloc BAO comme un défi, ou bien une pression nouvelle et menaçante, – même faussement apprécié mais peu importe, le bloc BAO vit dans ses narrative, – et l’effet général serait d’accentuer le trouble et l’inquiétude au sein de ce même bloc, c’est-à-dire d’y attiser un désordre dont les effets seraient bienvenus, au moins pour la raison évidente que le bloc BAO est le principal relais des forces de désordre qu’on a identifiées.

Aucune force politique n’est aujourd’hui capable de stabiliser la situation générale du monde et, encore moins, d’en restructurer les composants pour transformer cette restructuration temporaire en une structure nouvelle et solide. La marche du désordre dépend de forces hors du contrôle humain et disposent donc d’une complète immunité sur l’essentiel du mouvement. Le véritable apport d’un BRICS renforcé serait, justement, de renforcer les puissances qui le composent et de les conduire à rassembler leurs forces ; et, ce faisant, d’accentuer la pression sur le bloc BAO qui est le principal vecteur de désordre, donc d’accélérer les pressions qui l’affectent du point de vue de sa situation intérieure. L’effet net d’une telle évolution serait alors d’accroître le désordre interne, et donc le processus de déstructuration-dissolution des forces du bloc BAO. Objectivement, il s’agirait d’une accélération supplémentaire du désordre en cours, – mais, bien entendu, d’une accélération vertueuse puisque le désordre se développerait dans un champ éminemment défavorable au bloc BAO, et influant directement sur la cohésion et la solidité interne des membres de ce bloc.

lundi, 25 mars 2013

Interview with Mr Leonid SAVIN

 savin.jpg

Interview with Mr Leonid SAVIN of the International Eurasian Movement

 

- Could you describe in a few key words the essence and goals of your movement? Does it place itself in an existing sociopolitical-historical trend of Russian politics? Does it lobby in Russian government circles to achieve its goals?

 

The main idea and goal of the International Eurasian Movement is to establish a multipolar

world order, where there will be no dictatorship of the U.S. anymore or of any other country or actor of world politics. In the sector of ideology we strongly reject (neo)liberalism and the

globalization process as its derivative. We agree that we (as well as other nations) need a

constructive platform for our alternative future. In the search of it, our work is directed to

dialogue with other cultures and peoples who understand the meaning and necessity of

conservative values in contemporary societies. Speaking about Russian reality, we are heirs and assigns to the former eurasianists (this ideology was born in the 1920s): Piotr Savitsky, Nikolay Trubetskoy, Nikolay Alekseev as well as Lev Gumilev – the famous Soviet scholar. They all studied historical processes and proposed a unique vision of our history, separate from the eurocentric science approach. The understanding that Russia is not part of Europe or Asia, but forms a very own unique world, named Eurasia, is also implemented in our political activity. In cooperation with members of parliament or the Council of the Federation or other governmental bodies, with our advices and recommendations, we always provide a strong basis linked to our history, culture, diversity and so on. And I must tell you that many people understand and support our ideas and efforts (in governmental structures, local and regional authorities, science and education, religious institutions and in society at large).

 

- What is your vision on a multipolar world? Which role do you see for Western European

nations? Do they have any future at all on the world stage of the 21st century? Will they

surmount the actual crises on a demographic, metaphysical and mental level?

 

In my opinion, a multipolar world is the order with 5 or more centers of power in the world and this reality will keep our planet more safe and balanced with shared responsibility between the regions. But it is not just interdependence by the logic of liberalism: some regions might well exist in relative political and economic autarky. Beside that, there might exist a double core in one center (for example Arabs and Turks in a large Muslim zone or Russia and Central Asian states for Eurasia) and shifted and inter-imposed zones, because, historically, centers of power can be moved. Of course at the moment the most significant centers of power are described in terms of nuclear arms, GDP, economic weight/growth and diplomatic influence. First of all we already have more poles than during the Soviet-US opposition. Secondly, everybody understands the role of China as a ‘Bretton Woods-2’, as well as emerging countries under acronyms as BRICS or VISTA, “anchor countries” and so on. And, thirdly, we see the rise of popular and unconventional diplomacy and the desire of many countries (many of them are strong regional actors such as Iran, Indonesia and Brazil) to not follow the U.S. as satellites or minor partners.

 

Of course, Washington does not like this scenario and tries to make coalitions based on states

with a neocolonial background or on dutiful marionettes. But even in the U.S., politicians and

analysts understand that the time of unipolar hegemony has gone. They are trying to build a more flexible approach to international relations, called ‘multilateralism’ (H. Clinton) or ‘non-polarity’ (R. Haas), but the problem is that the U.S. do not have enough confidence in foreign actors united as joint, but who still have no strong alternative to the contemporary world order. So, they use another option for destabilization of rising regions, known as controlled chaos. Because of its military presence over most parts of the globe and its status of promoter of democracy and the protection of human rights, the White House can justify its own interests in these places. And cyberspace is also the object of manipulation, where the whole world is divided in two camps that remind us of the times of the Cold War (I call it ‘Cold Cyber War’).

 

We think that the contemporary West European nations are one of the poles (centers of power) in a forthcoming multipolar world order). But the problem for now is their engagement in U.S. proatlanticist politics, as manifested in the Euro-Atlantic chart of cooperation (common market, legislation and regulation mechanisms, including items of domestic politics), as well as NATO activity. The same we see on the other side of Eurasia – attempts of Washington to start trans-Atlantic cooperation with Asian countries. The contemporary crisis is neither good nor bad. It’s a fact. And the European nations must think about the way they’ll choose, because it will form the future (at least in Europe). It is not the first time in history: during the middle ages there was decline of population because of pestilence and wars. Religious schisms also occurred, so Europeans have some experience in metaphysics and ethics dealing with system failure too. The point is that now we have more interconnected reality and the speed of information sharing is fantastic, that was not possible, imagine, a century ago. And European society becomes more consumerist! But even in Europe, there are a lot of voices in respect of nature (organic greens), anti-grow movements (in economics) and traditionalists who try to keep and preserve ethnic and historical values and manners. Even the Soviet experience could be useful: after the Great Social Revolution there was a strong anti-church attitude promoted by the government, but after 70 years we’re back at our roots (of course during all this time not all people were atheists and the return to church happened during Stalin’s period when the institute of the Patriarchy was restored).

 

- How do you see the dialogue of civilizations in the light of more than 10 years of wars

between the West and the Muslim world? Where does Russia stand in this opposition? Are there fears of an islamization process within the Russian Federation, or are Russian

authorities setting on long-time accommodation with Muslim minorities and actors?

 

At first we must bear in mind that the idea of Huntington (the ‘clash of civilizations’) was

developed out of necessity of justifying the U.S.’s military and economic expansion. His book

was issued when the first wave of globalization as the highest principle of Westcentrism just

began its tide in the Third World. By the logic of neoliberal capitalism it must be re-ordered and re-programmed in the search for new markets. All non-western societies must consume western products, services and technologies by this logic. And let’s remember that war against the Muslim countries originated from the neocons from Washington. So, these 10 years of wars that you to mention is nothing more than a provoked conflict by a small group that was very powerful in American politics at the beginning of the 2000s. By the way, all kinds of radical Islam (Wahhabism) were promoted by the United Kingdom. This version of Islam was founded in Saudi Arabia only with London’s special support. The Great Game in Eurasia was started many years ago and Britain has played here a most significant role. The U.S. took this role only after WW2, but many destructive processes were already unleashed. Of course, Russia is suspicious of the radical Islam, because emissaries of the wahhabis and al-Qaeda were already in the Northern Caucasus. And still now, there are different terrorist groups with the idea of the socalled “Emirate of the Caucasus”. There were also attempts to spread another sectarian belief promoted by Fetullah Gullen (Nurjular), but for now this sect is prohibited here. Actually Islam is not a threat to Russia, because, traditionally, a lot of people living here are Muslim. Regions like Tatarstan, the North Caucasus republics, Bashkortostan have an Islamic population. And our government supports traditional Islam here.

 

- What do you think about the American/Western strategy of strategic encirclement of

Russia? Can we see this as well in the process of the so-called 'Arab Spring'? Is an open,

Western-waged war against Syria and Iran possible and would it be the onset to a major

world conflict, a 'Third World War'? Where would Russia stand?

 

It works. Not only because of the reset of the Anaconda strategy for Eurasia by means of military presence. Sometimes it doesn’t manifest in classical bases. Logistics is the main element of contemporary warfare, as well as C4ISR – Command, Control, Computer, Communications, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance – works in the vein of smart engagement. Other tools are: economics, promotion of democracy and human rights, cyber politics. The Arab Spring is a very complex phenomenon – there are a couple of components, but you can see that the U.S. has a bonus anyway: Egypt has asked for a huge loan from the World Bank; Western companies go to Libya; Muslim extremists are being manipulated against moderate Muslims, because they are a threat to western interests and so on. Organized chaos is just another view on the socio-political reality in turbulence. As Steve Mann (famous theorist of the chaos principle in diplomacy) wrote: the state is just hardware and ideology is its soft version. It were better to use ‘virus’ (in other words ‘promoting democracy’) and not to break PC. Syria and Iran are interesting for many nations now. The hysteria of Israel is not good, because this country has nuclear weapons. What will come of Israel using it? The Palestinian question is also on the table. I think that Israel is a more serious problem than Syria and Iran. Russia firmly supports Syria and takes a moderate

position on Iran. During the presidency of Dmitry Medvedev, Russia declined to provide the “S-300” rocket complex to Iran (we had already signed the contract) and the deal was canceled. You bear in mind that during the same time Russia supported resolution 1973 of UN Security Council and the West started operation “Odyssey Dawn” against Libya. So, even VIP politicians in Russia sometimes do wrong things! But Mr. Putin is actively pro-Syrian and I think that the position of Russia about Iran and about Western pressure will be more adequate than before. As foreign minister Sergey Lavrov told: “we got experience with Libya and don’t believe the West anymore”.

 

- What do you think about the Western Europeans: should they remain loyal to their

historical-political heritage of individualism and atlanticism, or should they rethink

themselves and orient themselves towards Russia and continentalism? What about pro-

Russian elements in European society? Can they be partners or are they, politically and

socially spoken, too marginal for that?

 

John M. Hobson, in his brilliant work The eurocentric conception of world politics, made very

clear that the West is rooted in the logic of immanence instead of the logic of co-development

that is characteristic of non-western societies. He continues that the formula “the West and the Rest” is wrong, because without the rest there is no place for the West. Now we see one United Europe, but in real life we have two levels. The first one is presented by the bureaucratic establishment with its symbols, history, power projections and procedures. The second one is active publicity with movements, political parties and personal activists who are not interested in an Orwellian future with “Big Brother”, universal values and so on. Actually, in geography we have more than one substance. And where is the border between Southern, Western and Eastern Europe? It’s mostly in the minds. From history we remember the Celtic space, the Roman Empire, the Germanic and nomad invasions (Huns, Avars, etc.), that shows that the face of Europe permanently changed throughout the centuries. Now the European population includes people from Africa and Asia and soon the demographic balance will change. Political culture will change too. Without Russia, Europe is impossible. Not only because of geography (just look at the map and you will see that the EU is just the small, overpopulated western peninsula of Eurasia), but also because of the role of Russia in European history. Napoleon and Hitler – the two most significant unifiers of Europe - were stopped and defeated in Russia and, after that, new political orders were established. And for now in Europe we have so many Russian “prints”: in culture, history, the role of some persons and diasporas. I think that pro-Russian elements just now have a very good choice, because the window of opportunity is open. All these elements could form an avant-garde of a new kind of cooperation: in trade relations, science, art and education and public diplomacy. The last one is the tie for all activities. Actually Minister Lavrov just today (i.e. 26.02.2013) announced that, because of the Russia year in the Netherlands and vice versa, there will be more than 350 actions on state level. It is a good sign of mutual respect and it may be deeper.

 

- What about key power Germany? Do you believe in, let's say, an 'Indo-European bloc',

an axis Berlin-Moscow-New Delhi, as a formidable counterweight to the atlanticist bloc of

the axis Washington-London-Paris? Do the horrors of the Second World War still affect

Russians' views of Germany and the Germans, or is it possible to turn the page on both

sides and look forward? What about the French: do they belong in the atlanticist bloc, or

can they be won for the continentalist bloc without giving in to their chauvinism? And what

about China: will it turn out to be an even more dangerous enemy than the USA, or will

both Russia and China remain strategic partners, e.g. within the SCO?

 

Because the EU has two levels, the same is true for Germany. One Germany, represented by the political establishment, is pro-U.S. and cannot do anything without Washington. Another one (latent or potential) is looking for closer cooperation with Russia. At the time of the Russian Empire a lot of German people came to our country at the invitation of Empress Catherine the Great. Even before that, many foreigners were in Russia as military officers, teachers, technical specialists, etc. People’s potential can do a lot of things. We must keep in mind that, besides Sea Power and Land Power in geopolitics, we have Man Power, which is the unique and main axis of any politics. The problem is that, after WWII, there was in most European countries a strong influence of Britain and the U.S.. They used very black propaganda and the peoples of Europe were afraid of a communist invasion. The U.S. even started more horrible projects in Western Europe (for example Propaganda-Due and operation “Gladio” in Italy, as well as “Stay Behind” NATO secret armies, formed from right-wing extremist elements). Still now in the EU, we see anti-Russian propaganda, but our borders are open and any European can go to Russia and see what happens here. The case of Gérard Depardieu is just one example.

 

If we look at what happens in China we’ll understand that it is a very strong actor and that its

power grows from year to year. In the UN Security Council China is an important partner of

Russia (for the Syria voting too). Russia is a supplier of oil and gas to China and we have new

agreements for the future. Besides that we provide military equipment to China, though they

have good weapon systems of their own as well. In the SCO we had good results and I think that cooperation in this organization must be enlarged through strategic military elements with the entry at least of Iran, Belarus, India and Pakistan (they have an observer or dialogue partner status). Turkey is interested as well, but because of its NATO membership it will be difficult to join.

 

I know that some Russians and Europeans describe China as a possible enemy, a “yellow threat” (the Polish writer Ignacy Witkiewicz even wrote about it in his novel in 1929!!!) and so on, but in reality China has no intents of border pretence to Russia. We have had some incidents in Siberia with contraband, but these are criminal cases which do not deal with state politics. China will focus on Taiwan and on the disputed islands in the Pacific and it will take all geopolitical attention and may be some loyalty from Russia and SCO members.

 

Also China has the same view on the future world order – multipolarity. Actually this idea

(duojihua) was born in China in 1986. And with the strategic cooperation with many other

countries in Africa and South America, joint efforts against western hegemony will be fruitful.

So, I think China and Russia can do a lot for a reform of the forthcoming world order.

A lot of people now want to forget their own origins and the origins of other peoples. Bavaria,

for example, was populated centuries ago by Avars from Asia (part of them still live in the

Caucasus) during the Migration Period. Groups of Turkish origin also went to lands of

contemporary Austria. So in contemporary Europe we have a lot of Asian elements. And vice

versa in Asia we have people of Aryan origin. Not only in the North of India, but also in

Tajikistan, Pakistan, Iran (arya is the self-name of the people of Iran and India). And

hybridization is continuing as we speak in Europe and in other regions. Just before Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union we had a pact with Germany and had been cooperating extensively in technologies and in the economy. And France was attacked first by Germany, but now relations between both countries are normal. I think that historical harms between Germany and Russia have been mostly forgotten. And I think that many Germans still remember that the most destructive attacks did not come from the Soviet army but from U.S. and British air forces (Dresden, Leipzig...). It was not a war, but a deliberate destruction of cities and non-armed refugees. Actually now Germans is mostly good businessmen for Russians, compared to representatives of other European nations (these facts have been confirmed by many friends who do business with Europeans).

 

I can not to speak with enough certainty of what happens with Russian-French relations, because I'm not very interested in this sector. During the XXth century we had many deals with France and after WWII it was the idea of Stalin to give the winner status to France. Charles de Gaulle also was pro-Soviet in a geopolitical sense. But after the legalization of the gay marriage in France, many Russians feel suspicious about this country. But every people and every country has its own specifics. We have had many interesting philosophers from France who have had influence on Russian thinkers too.

 

- Turning to domestic Russian problems: Russia under President Putin has been able to

make enormous progress in the social field, mainly due to energy sales during the 2000s.

Has this changed the face of Russia? Has this period come to an end or is there stagnation? How will Russia cope with its domestic problems, such as the demographic crisis, which it shares with Western Europe? Should the Siberian land mass be 're-colonized' by Russians and other Europeans, in order to make it an impregnable 'green lung fortress' for the white peoples?

 

The grand contribution of Mr. Putin is that he stopped liberal privatization and the process of

separatism in Russia. Persons such as Chodorkovsky were representatives of the Western

oligarchy, especially of powerful financial clans (for example, he is a personal friend of

Rothschild) and he had plans to usurp power in Russia through the corruption of parliament. We still have the rudiments of predatory liberalism such as misbalances, corruption, fifth column, degradation of traditional values, etc. For now we see in Russia efforts to build a smarter kind of economics, but it must be done very carefully. The questions that must be at the center are: how to deal with the Federal Reserve System? What about a new currency order that may be represented by BRICS? How to start mobilization? What to do with the neoliberal lobby within the government? The demographic crisis is also linked with neoliberalism and consumerism. A century ago, there was a rise of population in Russia, but two world wars have cut it. Even during Soviet times we had a good demography index. Now the government has started supporting young families and the process of human reproduction. In addition to birth programs we have an initiative dealing with the return of compatriots to Russia and all people who were born in the USSR can come to Russia very easily and get certain funding from the state. But I think that, because the Russians were the state-forming people, there must be a preference for Slavonic origin, because migrants from Asian countries (who do not speak Russian and have other traditions) will flow to Russia for economic reasons. Many Russian activists who take a critical stance on Asian people are already disappointed by this program. I think that the attraction of Byelorussians and Ukrainians can equalize this disproportion. But, strategically, the state must support a system of child-bearing with all necessary needs (fosterage, education, working place, social environmental, etc.). In some regions governors personally start up that kind of programs dealing with local and regional solidarity. First of all, Siberia is still Russian. The Siberian type of Russian is different from citizens from the central or southern regions, but till now it's still mainly Russian, not only institutionally, but also ethnically. Actually, according to our statistics, most labor migrants to Russia come from Ukraine! So, in spite of strange relations between both countries and with strong anti-Russian stances on the part of Ukrainian nationalists and pro-western "democrats", people just make their own choice. Rationally speaking, Siberia is not only interesting, because of its virgin forests and natural resources, but also because of its neighbors - and China is one of them with an emerging economy. So Siberia could serve as a hub in the future. I think that Europeans would also go to

Russia (not only to Siberia), but this migration must be done meticulously, because of the

language barrier, with a period of adaptation to different social conditions and so on. Maybe it could be useful to organize towns of compact residence and also city-hubs for foreign people who come to live in Russia, where they can live and work in new conditions. New Berlin, New Brussels, New Paris (of course translated into the Russian language) will then appear on a new Russian map.

 

- What is your opinion about the future of Putinist Russia? Will the government be able to

enduringly counter Western propaganda and destabilization campaigns, and come to a

'generation pact' between the older generation, born during Soviet times, and the younger

generation, born after 1991? What will be President Putin's fundamental heritage for

Russian history?

 

The key problem for Russia is a neoliberal group inside the Kremlin. Putin has the support of

people who want more radical actions against corruption, western agents and so on. But a

“colored revolution” in Russia is impossible, because the masses do not believe in the prowestern opposition. Ideas of democracy and human rights promoted by West have been

discredited worldwide and our people understand well what liberalization, privatization and such kind of activities in the interest of global oligarchy mean. And because of the announcement of the Eurasian Customs Union Russia must work hard the coming years with partners from Kazakhstan and Belarus. As for counterpropaganda, the new official doctrine of Russian foreign policy is about soft power. So Russia has all the instruments officially legalized to model its own image abroad. In some sense we do this kind of work, just as other non-governmental organizations and public initiatives. You mention a “generation pact”, referring to different ideals of young and older people, especially in the context of the Soviet era. Now, you would be surprised that a figure as Stalin is very popular among young people and thinking part of the youth understands well that Soviet times were more enjoyable than contemporary semi-capitalism. As I told in my previous answer, Putin is important because he stopped the disintegration of Russia. He already is a historical figure.

 

- Is there a common 'metaphysical future' for the whole of Europe after the downfall of

Western Christianity (catholicism, protestantism)? Can Russian Orthodoxism be a guide?

What do you hold of the modest revival of pre-Christian religious traditions across the

continent? What about countering the influence of Islam on the European continent? Is

there a different view concerning that discussion between Russia and Western Europe?

 

Russian Christian Orthodoxy is not panacea, because there are also some problems. Christianity in XIIth century, XVIth century and nowadays is very different. Now many formal orthodox Christians go to church two times a year, at Easter and at Christmas. But Orthodox Christianity is also a thesaurus of wisdom where you can find ideas from ancient Greek philosophy, metaphysics, cultural heritage, transformed paganism and psychology. In this sense, Russian Christian Orthodox old believers keep this heritage alive and may be interested as well in forms (ceremonies) as in the spiritual essence with its complex ideas. Speaking about paganism, Russia is the only country in Europe that still has authentic pagan societies (Republics of Mari-El, Mordovia, Komi) with very interesting rites and traditions. Actually Finno-Ugric peoples historically were very close to Slavonic people and assimilated together, so there is a good chance to research these traditions for those who are interested in Slavonic pre-Christian culture. But the postmodern version of a restored paganism in Europe or any other region to my opinion is just a fake and there is not so much from true paganism. As for Islam, as I told before, in Russia there exist a couple of versions of traditional Islam, which are presented by several law schools (mazhabs). In the Northern Caucasus, the regional government has tried to copy the idea of multiculturalism and to implement EuroIslam as an antithesis to spreading wahhabism. But it has not worked and now more attention is paid to traditional religious culture linked with education and the social sector. But the project of multiculturalism has failed in Europe as well, so all common Euro-Russian outlooks on Islam are finished. But, to be honest, I think that Europe must learn from the Russian experience of coexistence of different religions (not forgetting paganism and shamanism – this belief is widely found in Siberia). In Europe, they use the term tolerance but we, eurasianists, prefer the term complimentarity, proposed by Lev Gumilev, meaning a subconscious sympathy between different ethnic groups. As Gumilev explained, Russia became so large because Russians, during the expansion, looked on other people as on their own and understood them. This differs from the point of view (more specifically in ethnosociology) that all ethnic groups have the idea of “We are” against “The Other”, represented by another group. The imperial principle works with the idea of mosaics where every ethnos is a “We are”. And our famous writer and philosopher Fjodor Dostoevsky told about all-human (all-mankind) nature (not common to all mankind) that is represented by

the Russians, because inside, you can find all radical oppositions. I think it is a good reason to turn to Russia and its people.

 

Thank you, Mr Savin, for this very interesting and open-hearted interview.

 

vendredi, 22 mars 2013

The Mackinder factor: On the inconvenience of being Russia

MACKINDER.JPG

The Mackinder factor: On the inconvenience of being Russia

Russia replaces the Mongol empire.
Halford Mackinder (1904)

By Nicolas Bonnal

Well, nothing new under the sun: the fear of Russia in Europe was as we know mainly created by the British imperialists, and then 'refurbished' by the American generous and ubiquitous interventionists. As I already showed, British writer Hobson considered that the British Empire was often established on manipulation, false motives, humanitarian reasons, well, on propaganda, to speak a modern word. There was often no economical rationality in it; this is why the financiers and politicians who armed expeditions necessitated propagandists like Kipling. Think of the motivations of one of his most famous short stories, the man who would be a king: Two hundred and fifty thousand men, ready to cut in on Russia's right flank when she tries for India! Napoleon boasted once that from knowing the geography of a state he could deduce his foreign policies. This is why diplomacy has always been a cabalistic science in Russia, a so great country that it had always more than ten boundaries and an incomparable skill in these matters. Disraeli already greeted in his best conspiracy novel that mysterious Russian Diplomacy which so alarms Western Europe...

Western hostility and geopolitical fear of Russia is nothing new. It was embedded since two centuries on various factors: despotism, modern banking system (which the tsars banned), Orthodox faith and then of course communism. Another main factor has been of course the legendary and overvalued theory of Mackinder about the Heartland.

In 1904 this geographer who had written atlases and books for schoolboys, and had been a principal of college, writes a famous article: the geographical pivot of history. Mackinder seems obsessed with the waves of Mongols and tartars that indeed threatened, murdered and plundered more the Russians and Slavic people than the British and the Americans! And he insists, possessed by his idea, upon the following fact: the Russian pass way is fundamental; the Mongol empire is still there, under another name. Famous French historian Grousset wrote later in his balance of history that the red army was 'the new empire of the steppes, blinded and motorized! Unfortunately it is not only a metaphor.

I quote two passages of this famous text. In the first, Mackinder compares the deeds of the West and Russia. In Russia, he defines his intuition:

While the maritime powers of Western Europe have covered the ocean with their fleet, Russia has organized the Cossacks and policed the steppes by setting her own nomads to meet the Tartar nomads.

Is not the pivot of the world's politics that vast area of Euro-Asia which is inaccessible to ships, but is today covered with a network of railways?

The problem is that Mackinder's discovery has become the main ingredient of American interventionism and adventurism since then. We can read in the grand Chessboard of well-known Mr Brzezinski:

Genghis Khan and his successors, by defeating their regional rivals, established centralized control over the territory that latter-day scholars of geopolitics have identified as the global heartland, or the pivot for world power.

As if he was inspired by Tolkien (one ring to rule them all!), Mr Brzezinski adds with his familiar enthusiastic tone:

He (Mackinder) popularized his heartland concept by the famous dictum:

Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;

Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;

Who rules the World-Island commands the world.

This credo of course justifies the western behaviour toward Russia. And I maintain what I wrote earlier: Mackinder's concept may have been wrong or superficial: it just serves western fantasies and agenda. The Heartland means empty and cold areas, devoid of infrastructures and people; they may be rich in resources, but as are many areas in the world; finally there is a great deal of exaggeration in presenting them as the new nest of Genghis Khan, unless you need a giant enemy to fight with. But of course this presentation did not fall into deaf ears. Adds joyfully Mr Brzezinski:

Geopolitics was also invoked by some leading German political geographers to justify their country's "Drang nach Osten," notably with Karl Haushofer adapting Mackinder's concept to Germany's strategic needs. Its much-vulgarized echo could also be heard in Adolf Hitler's emphasis on the German people's need for "Lebensraum."

It is well known now that Mackinder and Karl Haushofer's doctrines of Macht und Raum (power and space) accompanied Hitler's insane policies ("any extension of territory must be done at the expense of Russia") and proficient armies that produced twenty-six millions dead in Slavic countries. The Mongols did come again but from the West. Nazis and fascist presented themselves as the defenders of western civilization against a barbaric and Mongolic bolshevist Asia. This bleak future did not prevent Prophet Mackinder from writing the following lines:

Russian pressure on Finland, on India, on Persia and on China, replaces the centrifugal raids of the steppe men.

This is comparing barely Russians to the hordes of Mongols! Right, Mr Mackinder except the fact that Russia was not the colonial occupier of India (unless we consider Gandhi a KGB agent), neither among the dominating powers that humiliated China in 1900. And who occupied Persia during WW2? And who now is trying to contain China?

In fact Mackinder initiates the process that defends the Anglo-Saxon right to subjugate the world in any place of the world. Being a democracy or a plutocracy or a messianic state or a maritime power is enough to enunciate or apply any diplomatic barbarity; read Hobson again and his insightful analysis of the British Empire. Mackinder followed the path of Mahan, the first theoretician of modern maritime powers, but went further opening the Russophobe agenda of the century. This is a kind of geopolitical paranoia that easily can be turned into a science: you just have to hire and finance scholars. And the surrounded Russian democracy becomes the menacing power that threats the peace of the... new world! When shall we write a Monroe doctrine for central Asia? Or even for Russia? For as stated Mr Brzezinski,

What is Russia? Where is Russia? What does it mean to be a Russian?

More inspired, Mr Brzezinski recalls that the loss of Ukraine was not only geopolitically pivotal but also geopolitically catalytic. This is what Hitler thought too or the German diplomats who signed the treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918.

They understood that the western factor of the Heartland is of course the most important. Mackinder was wrong but not blind; he added finally that "if Germany were to ally herself with Russia, the empire of the world would be then in sight." This is why England preferred to suddenly ally herself with Russia in 1907, even if this decision precipitates the imprudent war of the Kaiser against Russia. It is clear that a friendly diplomacy between Germany and Russia inducing a new European union would solve our problems. It is clear too that a Russian-Chinese friendship is Washington's nightmare. And clear too that the Mackinder factor must be recalled at any moment to understand the most lunatic steps of western diplomacy against Russia. Let us remember its lemma worthy of the Lord of The Rings:

 
Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;

Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;

Who rules the World-Island commands the world.

Nicolas Bonnal

mardi, 19 mars 2013

Mijmeringen over een Eurazische toekomst

nachbarn_eurasien.gif

Jörg ASTMANN:

Mijmeringen over een Eurazische toekomst

 

Toen me werd gevraagd om deze bijdrage te schrijven, was ik net terug in België van een trip naar het fabelachtige, en toch o zo vibrerende Moskou, veel meer dan Rome en andere hoofdsteden van het vermoeide en op drift lijkende Europa, de enige stad die vandaag de dag het epitheton “Eeuwige Stad” verdient.

Het “Derde Rome” van vroegere generaties politieke exponenten is vandaag nog steeds een waarlijk imperiale stad, die in elke vezel de ambitie van het herwonnen centrum van de Eurazische ruimte uitstraalt.

Niet dat de overdreven protserigheid van de eindeloze winkeletalages en hun dito bezoekers geen weinig benijdenswaardig kantje van de zaak zijn, maar daar zullen we het in dit essay nu even niet over hebben.

 

Doorheen de discussies over de historische rol van Vladimir Poetin en de ontwikkelingskansen van de Eurazische Unie, kwam tijdens de gesprekken en interviews met aimabele, doch bij de pinken zijnde Russische gesprekspartners uit de universitaire en mediawereld steeds opnieuw de vraag naar de identiteit van Rusland naar boven.

De aloude discussie: Europees of Aziatisch? Eurazische grootruimte of eenzame blanke macht auf verlorenem Posten in Noord-Azië?

Het zijn vraagstellingen die, zoals ik hierboven schreef, niet nieuw zijn en naar mijn bescheiden mening ook nooit voorgoed zullen worden beslecht.

Misschien ligt dat wel aan het hybride karakter van wat in het ontzielde Westen nogal gemakzuchtig-romantiserend “de Russische ziel” wordt genoemd: de ziel van een van oorsprong Oostslavisch-Finoegrisch-Scandinavische staat, die in volle middeleeuwse ontwikkeling krachtig onder de voet wordt gelopen en cultureel wordt doordrenkt door de nazaten van de grote Khan, om zich vanaf de 16de eeuw dan resoluut te wijden aan zijn historische missie, zijnde het integreren van de landen van de Grote Steppe en aangrenzende gebieden tot één aaneengesloten geheel, culminerend in de ambitie om dit Rijk een trapje hoger te tillen naar een wereldmacht met een ongeziene aantrekkingskracht op de rest van de onder het juk van het grove geld gebukt gaande wereldbevolking. Of toch delen daarvan.

 

Op delen die er – politiek, militair, economisch – toe deden en nog steeds, zij het in iets mindere mate dan pakweg een halve eeuw geleden, toe doen, was deze aantrekkingskracht veel minder groot: het zogezegde Westen – lees: de VS en de rest van de anglosphere, aangevuld met de verliezers van beide Wereldoorlogen: Europa en Japan.

U leest het goed: de verliezers van de twee Wereldoorlogen, heus niet enkel Duitsland, Japan en occasionele bondgenoten. Ook de “winnaars” Frankrijk en het Verenigd Koninkrijk, en het dozijn kleinere Europese staten en staatjes.

 

En de Sovjetunie, ja, de Sovjetunie betaalde een heel zware prijs, en ongetwijfeld heeft dit haar steile opgang na de Tweede Wereldoorlog ook enigszins gefnuikt, tot grote, heimelijke genoegdoening van haar concurrenten over de grote plas.

Of was het allemaal zo gepland? Hebben de financiers van Wall Street daadwerkelijk een doorslaggevende rol gespeeld in het doen imploderen en revolutioneren van het Russische Rijk, en van de andere keizerrijken van het Oude Europa?

Samenzweringstheorieën doen het altijd goed bij een daarvoor vatbaar deel van de bevolking, maar nooit bij hen die zichzelf au sérieux nemen. Ahum.

 

Wat er ook van zij, dergelijke slachtingen hebben generaties na het gebeurde nog steeds verstrekkende gevolgen.

 

Plaats dat in het grotere plaatje van de Europese burgeroorlog tussen 1914 en 1945 – sommigen gewagen van de Tweede Dertigjarige Oorlog -, en de menselijke en culturele tol wordt nog verschrikkelijker.

De Russische geschiedenis van dit tijdsgewricht toont een bijzonder jammerlijk beeld: na de slachtingen in de loopgraven van de Eerste Wereldoorlog, met een leger vol pronkerige officieren en soms met slechts stokken bewapende soldaten, volgen de wreedheden van de Burgeroorlog tussen Wit en Rood, pakkend beschreven in de nog steeds beklijvende memoires van de voormalige Duitse krijgsgevangene en latere nationaal-revolutionair Edwin Erich Dwinger, Zwischen Weiß und Rot. Die russische Tragödie 1919-1920.

 

Na een periode van nieuwe moed en revolutionaire experimenten is het de beurt aan Stalin om wat er rest aan oude structuren nog eens grondig overhoop te halen en de veelgeroemde Russische ziel danig op de proef te stellen. Zowat elke familie in de voormalige Sovjetunie kan daarvan meespreken.

Al willen we natuurlijk niet elke daad van de Vader der Volkeren negatief duiden. Zijn mobilisatie van alle krachten in de Sovjetsamenleving na een eerste fase van vertwijfeling na de Duitse inval, dwingt ook vandaag nog respect af. Zijn opbouw van de Sovjetmacht tot een geopolitieke en militaire gigant evenzeer.

Er zijn vele aspecten aan de voormalige Sovjetleider die in het Westen vaak te weinig belicht worden.

 

Maar wat blijkt?

Ondanks de wreedheden, die werden begaan door de troepen van nazi-Duitsland, ondanks de wraak van Sovjetsoldaten op de bevolking van, ondermeer, Oost-Pruisen en Berlijn, ondanks de veelvuldige, diepzittende wonden, blijven de Duitsers het volk dat als enige van de Europese volkeren ten volle in staat is om de Russische ziel te vertalen, te duiden en te her-talen naar de sceptische, individualistische West-Europeaan toe.

 

Ik moet bekennen dat mijn Ruslandbeeld in een eerste fase door het Duitse Ruslandbeeld beïnvloed werd.

Of beter gezegd: het positieve Ruslandbeeld, dat van die vele Duitsers en Oostenrijkers die, al dan niet doorspekt met persoonlijke ervaringen uit oorlogs- en andere tijden, die magische wereld van mystiek en oneindigheid in de meest zoete bewoordingen beschreven.

 

Niet het Ruslandbeeld van die andere Duitsers, de Duitsers uit de atlantische traditie – Hitler voorop -, voor wie de Russische ruimte een despotisch geregeerde buitenaardse planeet is.

Of erger, ranziger.

Dat Duitsland bestaat helaas ook, en ik zou durven stellen dat het zelfs anno 2013, zij het in een “gekuiste”, niet-racistische versie, nog steeds een niet te verwaarlozen deel van de Duitse elite uitmaakt.

Dat officiële Duitsland, van de Atlantik-Brücke tot het journalistieke geweld van de Springerpresse, met slechts enkele uitzonderingen die de spijtige regel bevestigen.

Het Duitsland dat zich liever opwerpt als de beste Europese leerling in dienst van de meesters van het internationale grootkapitaal, dan het hart van een zelfbewust en traditiegericht Europa te zijn.

 

Terug naar ons Ruslandbeeld.

De vraag is wat dat positieve beeld precies beschrijft: een beeld van Rusland als nationale staat der Russen of een beeld van de Eurazische ruimte, grosso modo het vroegere Russische Rijk of de Sovjetunie, dat mysterieuze gebied van steppen, taiga, toendra en woestijnen, dat veelvolkerenrijk, naar de woorden van Andreas Kappeler, dat, méér dan een nationale staat in de (West-)Europese betekenis van het woord, een schoolvoorbeeld was en is van een staatsdragend volk – de Russen, of zie de hierboven summier geschetste genealogie – dat zichzelf, surfend op zijn eigen losbarstende passionariteit – dixit Lev Gumiljov – overstijgt en zich als een veelkleurige vlinder ontpopt tot een rijksvolk, dat zijn samenstellende volkeren door eenheid in verscheidenheid integreert tot een nieuwe identiteitslaag, de Euraziër.

Dit alles zonder zijn eigen nationale, Russische identiteit te verliezen, of dit van de andere samenstellende volkeren te vragen. Of toch min of meer.

 

En meer nog dan de som van zijn samenstellende delen en meer nog dan een sterke geopolitieke realiteit is dit Eurazië, gebaseerd op zijn rijke culturele tradities, een Rijk van de Geest, een rijk van het Land, van de Kwaliteit, dat staat tegenover het Rijk van de Zee, van de vloeibaarheid, de massa, de kwantiteit. Het Rijk van de Orde tegen dat van de chaos. Het Rijk van Sint-Joris tegen het rijk van de draak, van de duivel.

De Russische dubbeladelaar met zijn wapenschild spreekt wat dat betreft boekdelen en het is ongelooflijk veelzeggend dat de Russische staat dit staatsembleem in ere hersteld heeft.

Het vat zijn ambitie ten volle samen.

 

Het is in de Russische ziel, die, doorheen historische ervaringen en interculturele uitwisseling met voornamelijk Turks-Mongoolse volkeren, mens geworden is in de Euraziër, dat wij als West-Europeanen een glimp opvangen van wat de mens in zijn bindingen met de wereld was en nog zou moeten zijn: een mens gebonden in de Traditie, in de Orde.

 

Alleen is een glimp niet genoeg voor de Europeaan: er moet een alternatief voor de huidige toestand voorhanden zijn. Een alternatief dat rekening houdt met het feit dat het civilisatorische subject van de Euraziër niet zomaar getransponeerd kan worden naar het individualistische West- en Centraal-Europa, met zijn eigen cultureel-historische ervaringen.

Het is mooi als voorbeeld, maar de Europeanen moeten hun eigen invulling geven aan de terugkeer naar de Traditie.

Slechts een terugkeer naar die Traditie, en, bijgevolg een afkeer van de materie, van de moderniteit in al haar vormen, van het liberalisme in al zijn uitingen, vermag de fundamenten te leggen voor een politiek en economisch partnerschap met de rest van Eurazië, en met de Russische ruimte in het bijzonder.

 

Een economische, of zelfs politieke aaneensluiting, is slechts het sluitstuk van iets wat veel fundamenteler is dan alledaagse economie of politiek.

Een vrijhandelsruimte van Lissabon tot Vladivostok, en van Reykjavik tot Delhi is slechts het logische gevolg van een mentale, zelfs metafysische aaneensluiting op basis van de afwijzing van de (post-)moderniteit.

 

Deze weg, en dat moge duidelijk zijn, zal niet over rozen verlopen.

Er is namelijk een gigantisch probleem – naast andere, meer alledaagse problemen, zoals het geopolitieke en economische eigenbelang van nationale staten.

 

Om het juiste uitgangspunt te bereiken, moeten de Europeanen nu uitgerekend breken met wat hen rest aan grootsheid uit hun eigen geschiedenis, moeten zij, met andere woorden, een haast rituele zuivering ondergaan.

 

Want, laat ons eerlijk wezen, het is allemaal mooi dat de rest van de wereld het Westen, en Europa in het bijzonder, kastijdt omwille van zijn koloniale verleden en alle mede daaruit voortvloeiende cultuurverschijnselen – niet in het minst de eurocentrische blik op de wetenschappen. Dat neemt niet weg dat dit, in de ogen van de rest van de wereld verachtelijke, verleden mede een onderdeel is van de Europese identiteit en hoe deze beleefd wordt.

 

Met andere woorden, indien Alexander Doegin in zijn Fourth Political Theory pleit voor een alliantie van alle antimoderne krachten ter wereld, dus ook in Europa, dan moet hij beseffen dat hij, afgezien van enkele politieke randgevallen – “identitairen” en andere, door westerse inlichtingendiensten gemanipuleerde politclowns -, nooit aansluiting krijgt bij wat de massa in Europa voelt en hoe ze in deze onzekere tijden verder wenst te evolueren naar iets wat op een mooie toekomst voor de Europeanen lijkt.

Doegins analyse van de moderniteit is correct en lovenswaardig, alleen is deze op maat gesneden van Russen, Chinezen, Latijns-Amerikanen, enzovoort, maar veel minder op maat van de Europeaan zelf, omdat Doegins analyse in het geval van de Europeaan tegelijk een soort diagnose is, waarbij de genezing in veler ogen gelijk staat met euthanasie.

De Europeaan moet dus een daadwerkelijk alternatief krijgen alvorens men een kans heeft hem te overtuigen van de noodzaak om het roer om te gooien en wat er rest van de wereld te behoeden voor de neoliberale ondergang.

 

En dat alternatief moet rekening houden met de culturele eigenheid van de Europeanen, en mag niet de fout maken om gegrondvest te zijn op een cultureel-historische vernedering en ontworteling van de Europeanen. De moderniteit zelf heeft wat dat betreft al meer dan haar “best” gedaan in de Europese samenlevingen.

Dat alternatief moet ook rekening houden met het feit dat de verhouding van een orthodoxe Rus tot een islamitische Tataar anders is gegroeid dan de verhouding tussen een ontwortelde, ontkerkelijkte Europeaan en een ontwortelde, maar islamitisch gebleven Noord-Afrikaan uit de massamigratie. Om maar één voorbeeld te noemen.

 

Laat ons heel eerlijk zijn: allianties met Afrikaanse en Latijns-Amerikaanse partners zijn allemaal zeer wel en lovenswaardig, het raakt niet eens de koude teen van hypermacht Amerika. En deze van de internationale financiële groepen achter uncle sam nog minder. Enkele drones of een paar gerichte aanslagen, en het probleem is van de baan.

 

Het is pas wanneer de Europeanen toetreden tot de globale alliantie tegen de krachten van de moderniteit, dat deze alliantie kans op slagen heeft.

En wie zegt Europa, zegt toch op de eerste plaats – laat ons daar nuchter in blijven – Duitsland.

Het is precies dat land, dat nog niet zo lang geleden door zijn eigen minister van Financiën Schäuble werd omschreven als een land dat sinds de capitulatie van de Wehrmacht in 1945 niet meer soeverein is geweest, dat, meer dan andere Europese landen, bevrijd moet worden van de atlantistische clique die het land en zijn volk opnieuw in de dieperik dreigt te storten, als ze haar weg van Europa-wijde blinde begrotingsdiscipline, 1-euro-jobs en Umvolkung mag voortzetten.

We willen wat dat betreft verwijzen naar de groeiende anti-Duitse stemming, niet enkel in de Europese Unie.

 

Het is ook precies Duitsland, dat de brug kan vormen met de Eurazische ruimte, meer nog dan het Frankrijk met zijn vele nakomelingen van Russische emigranten en zijn russofiel gaullisme, meer nog dan Italië met zijn vele antikapitalistische sympathisanten van de Eurazische zaak, meer nog dan het nuchtere Zweden met zijn geografische en mentale nabijheid, en meer nog dan de Slavische broeders uit het westen, die al te vaak uit kortzichtigheid en onverwerkte historische trauma’s gemene zaak maken met de geopolitieke belangen van de VS.

 

De officier-avonturier Oskar von Niedermayer en zijn ideologische mentor Ernst Niekisch, hoofdfiguur van de Duitse Nationaal-Bolsjevieken, wisten het al: het is het Pruisische aspect in Duitsland – in 1947 in zijn staat geworden vorm afgeschaft door de geallieerden –, de “geest van Tauroggen”, die de ware brugfunctie met de Eurazische ruimte vormt.

Jammer dat de DDR wat dat betreft de verwachtingen tijdens de Koude Oorlog niet of onvoldoende heeft ingelost!

 

Net zoals het Oostenrijkse element voor West-Europa de brug kan vormen naar de Turkse ruimte en het Midden-Oosten.

 

Beide vroegere Germaanse machten – in de woorden van de generaal en geopoliticus Heinrich Jordis von Lohausen ooit de hoekstenen van de Europese ordening, nu nog slechts beperkt overlevend in bepaalde staatstradities van hun opvolgerstaten – zijn essentieel voor de mentale aaneenschakeling waarvan ik hierboven sprak.

Beide elementen zijn essentieel om de rest van Europa de weg te tonen naar een Eurazië, en, bij uitbreiding, een wereld waar de postmoderniteit en het postliberalisme niet verder kunnen uitgroeien tot de enige, niet langer als een ideologie beschouwde, maar als “natuurlijk” aangevoelde condition humaine.

 

Hoe moet die Eurazische toekomst er dan concreet uitzien, na de overwinning op de machten van de moderniteit, die van het Euraziatische continent – niet enkel van Rusland, maar ook van Europa, China en India – één gigantische kolonie van ruwe en menselijke grondstoffen willen maken?

In dit Groot-Eurazië als groothandelsruimte tussen Lissabon en Vladivostok, als völkerrechtliche Großraumordnung mit Interventionsverbot für raumfremde Mächte, om het met de woorden van de legendarische Carl Schmitt te zeggen, komt de centrale plaats zonder twijfel toe aan de Russische Federatie als kern van de voormalige Sovjetruimte – de ruimte van de voormalige Sovjetunie of Eurazië in de zin van de evrazii en als brug tussen Europa en Azië proper -, met aan haar flanken sterke en betrouwbare bondgenoten, zoals Duitsland en Frankrijk in het westen – al dan niet in een hervormde Europese Unie -, en Iran en India in het zuiden. Wat betreft de Turkse wereld en de Chinese wereld, gekristalliseerd rond respectievelijk Turkije en China, daar zal de toekomst moeten van uitwijzen wat hun plaats in dit geheel is.

 

Door de Turkse volkeren in de Russische Federatie en de snelweg van de Grote Steppe is er via de Eurazische ideologie natuurlijk een directe link met Turkije mogelijk – we verwijzen naar het pionierswerk van de hierboven aangehaalde geniale historicus en etnoloog Lev Gumiljov -, maar de geschiedenis leert ons ook dat de (Anatolische) Turken vaak, zoniet altijd geopolitieke vijanden van Europa én Rusland zijn geweest. Bovendien staat Turan altijd in oppositie met Iran, staat de Turks-Mongoolse traditie doorheen de geschiedenis, ondanks interculturele wisselwerking, tegenover de Indo-Europese traditie. Maar het blijft mogelijk om tot een vergelijk te komen.

Vooral als een veelbelovend land als Kazachstan, de parel van de Eurazische Steppe, hierin het voortouw neemt.

 

Hetzelfde geldt voor China. Mij lijkt de Shanghai Cooperation Organisation vooral een bondgenootschap te zijn dat op de eerste plaats de belangen van China dient en het de nodige ademruimte in de op gang komende globale strijd tegen de Amerikaanse hegemonie verschaft.

We zijn benieuwd om te zien in welke mate China zijn bevolkingsoverschot in de toekomst enkel naar de verre landen van het zuiden – Australië op de eerste plaats - zal duwen, en niet het onmetelijke land boven de Amur in bezit zal willen nemen. Me dunkt is dit een gevaar waar de meeste evrazii te licht over gaan, en waar we – misschien voor één keer – in het Westen een nuchterder kijk op hebben?

 

Waar we evenwel met al deze en vele andere actoren uit Azië, Latijns-Amerika en Afrika in moeten overeenstemmen, is in onze afwijzing van de postmoderniteit, van het neoliberalisme, van de clash-of-civilizations-retoriek en van de breuk met de Traditie, en in ons gezamenlijk streven naar een multipolaire wereld, die vertrekt van de complementariteit van culturen die respect hebben voor elkaars eigenheid en voor de Traditie die ons allen verbindt.

 

Jörg Astmann,

Brussel, maart 2013.

mercredi, 27 février 2013

La Russie aux temps postmodernes

La Russie aux temps postmodernes

par Georges FELTIN-TRACOL

 

RUSSIAN-1-1.jpgPenseur néo-eurasiste influencé par les œuvres de René Guénon et de Julius Evola, polyglotte émérite à l’insatiable curiosité, Alexandre Douguine incarne pleinement ce que le communiste italien Antonio Gramsci qualifiait d’« intellectuel organique ». L’auteur d’une abondante bibliographie qui va de la géopolitique à l’étude sociologique des musiques contemporaines vient de publier la traduction française de sa Quatrième théorie. Il faut en saluer la parution tant ses écrits demeurent rares et méconnus dans le monde francophone. La sortie de cet essai est un grand événement éditorial !

 

Lecteur attentif d’Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, de Claude Lévi-Strauss, de Georges Sorel, Alexandre Douguine s’est aussi inspiré des travaux de Martin Heidegger, Francis Fukuyama, Carl Schmitt, Gilles Deleuze ou Guy Debord.

 

Pragmatique partant d’un constat accablant, le fondateur du Mouvement international eurasien se demande : « Comment faire de la politique quand il n’y a pas de politique ? Il n’existe qu’une seule solution : refuser les théories politiques classiques, tant vaincues que triomphantes, et faire preuve d’imagination, saisir les réalités du nouveau monde global, déchiffrer correctement les défis du monde postmoderne et créer quelque chose de nouveau, au-delà des affrontements politiques des XIXe et XXe siècles (p. 12). » Prenant par conséquent acte de la victoire de la pensée libérale qu’il appelle “ Première théorie ” et des échecs du communisme, « Deuxième théorie », et du « fascisme » (au sens très large du mot), « Troisième théorie », Alexandre Douguine esquisse une « Quatrième théorie politique » « non pas comme un travail ou une saga d’auteur, mais comme la direction d’un large spectre d’idées, d’études, d’analyses, de prévisions et de projets. Tout individu pensant dans cette optique peut y apporter quelque chose de soi (p. 13) ».

 

Cela fait très longtemps qu’Alexandre Douguine était en quête d’une nouvelle solution politique. Dès 1994, il en exposait les prémices théoriques dans un entretien passé inaperçu paru dans le n° 119 nouvelle série du magazine Le Crapouillot (mai – juin 1994), intitulé « Créer l’Europe des ethnies (pp. 9 – 13) ». Estimant que « le temps de la gauche anti-capitaliste est définitivement passé (art. cit., p. 9) », Douguine prévoyait l’entrée « dans l’ère de la droite anti-capitaliste – donc nationaliste, identitaire, différencialiste et organiciste (art. cit., p. 9) ». Il ajoutait plus loin que « nous sommes en présence de la naissance de la nouvelle idéologie anti-libérale, qui unira, en son sein, trois tendances politiques collectivistes, à savoir : le nationalisme, le socialisme et la démocratie, en opposition à la tendance libérale qui est essentiellement individualiste (art. cit., p. 12) ».

 

Contre le libéralisme postmoderne

 

Une nouvelle vision du monde s’impose, car le début du XXIe siècle marque l’achèvement de l’ère moderne ainsi que l’obsolescence de ses trois grandes théories mobilisatrices au profit d’une fluidité croissante et d’une mutation majeure de la doctrine libérale elle-même. Ce changement s’opère néanmoins dans un monde saturé d’idées libérales qui, du fait de leur réussite même, engendrent un « post-libéralisme » ou un « libéralisme 2.0 », promoteur d’une « société de marché globale (p. 21) ». C’est parce que « le libéralisme, mettant toujours l’accent sur la minimalisation du politique, a décidé, après sa victoire, de supprimer de façon générale la politique (p. 11) » que « le monde global doit être dirigé seulement par les lois économiques et la morale universelle des “ droits de l’homme ”. Toutes les décisions politiques sont remplacées par des techniques (p. 21) ». Ce « post-libéralisme » commence même à modifier la nature humaine. Douguine désigne donc clairement « le libéralisme et ses métamorphoses (p. 37) » postmodernistes (terme à préférer à celui de « post-moderne ») comme l’ennemi principal à abattre. Émanation des Lumières, « l’individualisme est devenu le sujet normatif à l’échelle de toute l’humanité. Apparaît alors le phénomène de la mondialisation, et le modèle de la société post-industrielle commence à se manifester, l’époque du postmoderne commence. Désormais, le sujet individuel n’apparaît plus comme le résultat d’un choix mais comme une certaine donnée générale obligatoire. La personne est libérée de  “ l’appartenance ”, l’idéologie “ des droits de l’homme ” devient communément acceptée (du moins – en théorie) et, dans les faits, obligatoire. L’humanité, composée d’individus, tend naturellement vers l’universalité, devient globale et unifiée. Ainsi naît le projet d’« État mondial » et de “ gouvernement mondial ” (le globalisme) (p. 20) ». Ses méfaits, réels, insidieux et profonds, dévastent tout autant les milieux naturels pollués que les psychismes. Il relève que « la logique du libéralisme mondial et de la mondialisation nous tire vers l’abîme de la dissolution postmoderniste dans la virtualité. Notre jeunesse a déjà un pied dans cet abîme : les codes du globalisme libéral s’introduisent de plus en plus efficacement au niveau de l’inconscient, dans les habitudes, la publicité, le glamour, les technologies, les modèles de réseau. La perte de l’identité, non seulement nationale ou culturelle mais aussi sexuelle et bientôt humaine, est désormais chose commune. Et les défenseurs des droits de l’homme, sans remarquer la tragédie de peuples entiers sacrifiés selon les plans cruels du “ nouvel ordre mondial ”, hurleront demain à la violation des droits des cyborgs ou des clones (p. 54) ». L’égalitarisme prôné par le « libéralisme 2.0 » est l’ultime réductionnisme de l’Occident globalitaire anomique.

 

Ce dispositif total, néo-totalitaire, de nivellement général bénéficie d’un redoutable modèle attractif : les États-Unis d’Amérique. Fille de la Modernité et matrice d’un postmodernisme « ultra-moderne », « l’Amérique prétend désormais à une diffusion universelle d’un code unitaire, qui pénètre dans la vie des peuples et des États par des milliers de voies différentes – comme le réseau global – à travers la technologie, l’économie de marché, le modèle politique de la démocratie libérale, les systèmes d’information, les clichés de la culture de masse, l’établissement du contrôle stratégique direct des Américains et de leurs satellites sur les processus géopolitiques (p. 47) ».

 

Décomposition des droites et des gauches

 

Contre cette « Hydre de Lerne » postmoderniste, un regard critique sur l’histoire des idées politiques est indispensable afin de concevoir une théorie novatrice. Alexandre Douguine prévient qu’elle « ne peut être une tâche individuelle pas plus que celle d’un petit cercle d’individus. L’effort doit être synodique, collectif. Les représentants d’autres cultures et d’autres peuples (d’Europe, ainsi que d’Asie), qui se rendent compte également de façon aiguë de la tension eschatologique du moment présent (p. 32) ». On y décèle ici la double influence de l’« impersonnalité active » chère à Evola et du sobornost de l’Orthodoxie. Il espère que la Quatrième théorie politique sera « une alternative au post-libéralisme, non pas comme une position par rapport à une autre, mais comme idée opposée à la matière; comme un possible entrant en conflit avec le réel; comme un réel n’existant pas mais attaquant déjà le réel (p. 22) ».

 

À cette fin, il devient utile de dresser la généalogie et la taxinomie des idées politiques modernes. L’anti-conformisme de la démarche de Douguine est déjà ancienne puisque cela fait longtemps qu’il propose de comprendre les auteurs de l’ultra-gauche d’un œil révolutionnaire-conservateur et de commenter les penseurs de l’« extrême droite » à l’aune de Marx, de Toni Negri et d’autres théoriciens gauchistes. Tout en reprenant la distinction classique entre la « droite » et la « gauche », Douguine dynamite en réalité cette dichotomie familière en discernant trois idéologies de « gauche » : les « vieilles gauches » avec les marxistes, les sociaux-démocrates et les zélateurs travaillistes d’une pseudo-« troisième voie » du Britannique Giddens, gourou de Tony Blair; les « nouvelles gauches » qui rassemblent sous ce label les néo-gauchistes, les altermondialistes et les postmodernistes genre Negri; et les « nationalistes de gauche », à savoir les tendances nationales-bolcheviques, nationales-communistes et « nationales-gauchistes ». Quant à la « droite » que Douguine préfère nommer « conservatisme » parce que c’« est un “ non ” adressé à ce qui est autour. Et au nom de quoi ? Au nom de ce qui était avant (p. 86) », il distingue :

 

— le conservatisme fondamental où l’on retrouve les écoles de la Tradition et les monothéismes dits « intégristes », y compris un certain islamisme;

 

— le libéral-conservatisme qui « dit “ oui ” à la tendance principale qui se réalise dans la modernité mais s’efforce de freiner à chaque nouvelle étape de la réalisation de ces tendances (p. 92) »;

 

— les forces conservatrices-révolutionnaires qui « ne veulent pas seulement geler le temps à la différence des libéraux-conservateurs ou encore revenir dans le passé (comme les traditionalistes) mais arracher à la structure de ce monde les racines du mal et annihiler le temps en tant que propriété destructrice de la réalité, réalisant le dessein secret, parallèle et insoupçonné de la Divinité elle-même (p. 97) ».

 

Douguine analyse finement l’approche contre-révolutionnaire (Maistre, Bonald, etc.) pour qui « le postmoderne avec sa dérision suive son cours, qu’il dissolve les paradigmes déterminés, l’ego, le super-ego, le logos, que le rhizome et les masses schizophréniques ainsi que la conscience morcelée entrent en jeu et que le néant entraîne derrière lui tant le contenu du monde, alors s’ouvriront des portes secrètes et les archétypes ontologiques anciens, éternels, apparaîtront à la surface et de façon terrible mettront fin au jeu (pp. 99 – 100) ».

 

Après avoir déterminé idéalement ces tendances politiques, Alexandre Douguine les recherche sur la scène politique russe avec d’inévitables mélanges contextuels. Le Parti communiste de la Fédération de Russie de Guennadi Ziouganov est sans conteste national-communiste alors que le mouvement Rodina (« Patrie ») fut inconsciemment national-gauchiste. Si l’opposition à Vladimir Poutine, malgré Limonov, verse plus ou moins dans le libéralisme et l’occidentalisme, Russie unie défend une conception sociale-conservatrice. Enfin, son eurasisme radical puise à la fois dans la Tradition et dans la Révolution conservatrice. Mais toutes les formations politiques russes communient dans un ardent patriotisme, ce que ne comprennent pas les observateurs occidentaux…

 

Il ne fait guère de doute que l’eurasisme constitue, aux yeux d’Alexandre Douguine, le cœur de la Quatrième théorie politique. Discutant des thèses culturalistes du « choc des civilisations » de Samuel Huntington, il dénie à la Russie tout caractère européen. Par sa situation géographique, son histoire et sa spiritualité, « la Russie constitue une civilisation à part entière (p. 167) ». Déjà dans son histoire, « la Russie – Eurasie (civilisation particulière) possédait tant ses propres valeurs distinctes que ses propres intérêts. Ces valeurs se rapportaient à la société traditionnelle avec une importance particulière de la foi orthodoxe et un messianisme russe spécifique (p. 146) ». Et quand il aborde la question de la Russie et de son peuple-noyau, les Russes issus des Slaves orientaux, Alexandre Douguine déclare son amour à son peuple et à sa terre. « Peuple du vent et du feu, de l’odeur du foin et des nuits bleu sombre transpercées par les gouffres des étoiles, un peuple portant Dieu dans ses entrailles, tendre comme le pain et le lait, souple comme un magique et musculeux poisson de rivière lavé par les vagues (p. 302) », les Russes incarnent un peuple tellurique.

 

Un conservatisme rénové

 

Via l’eurasisme s’élabore une nouvelle approche du conservatisme, un conservatisme repensé, révolutionnaire et adapté à la phase post-moderne des temps. Alexandre Douguine affirme que « le conservateur aime ce qui est grand et dans l’homme, il aime ce qui est grand et élevé (p. 111) ». Il est logique que « le conservatisme, défendant l’éternité, défend également l’éternité de l’homme, de l’homme en tant que structure douée de signes intangibles et d’une vie inaliénable. L’Homme est un concept conservateur (p. 110) ». La modernité libérale et le postmodernisme post-libéral nient au contraire l’homme singulier pour mieux valoriser un homme abstrait doté de droits fallacieux ou extravagants (voir la dernière lubie lyssenkiste en date avec la pseudo-théorie du genre).

 

« Pluralisme gnoséologique, [… l’eurasisme est] une forme spécifique de conservatisme, qui se différencie des autres versions de conservatisme proches (à la différence du libéral-conservatisme), par le fait qu’elle trouve une alternative au moderne non pas dans le passé, ou dans un renversement conservateur révolutionnaire exceptionnel, mais dans les sociétés cœxistant avec la civilisation occidentale mais géographiqement et culturellement distinctes d’elle (p. 101). » Fort de ce constat, Douguine se permet de « déconstruire » la démocratie dans sa pratique libérale hypocrite. Il remarque d’abord que « le principe de prise de décisions collectives constitue le fondement de la démocratie (p. 58) » et que « la démocratie constitue la forme d’organisation politique la plus ancienne, la plus archaïque, la plus primitive et, si l’on veut, la plus barbare (p. 57) ». Ne craignant pas de se mettre à dos les belles âmes occidentalocentrées, il assène que « la démocratie ne reconnaît aucunement l’égalité des individus. Elle comporte une limite très stricte qui sépare ceux qui ont le droit de participer à l’extase politique de la décision de ceux qui ne le peuvent pas (p. 58) ». L’octroi du droit de vote aux étrangers va à l’encontre de cette stricte différenciation et favorise plutôt « la tyrannie [qui] remplace la démocratie en tant que forme d’organisation politique plus contemporaine où pour la première fois se manifeste très clairement un individu distinct, dans notre cas le tyran (pp. 59 – 60) ».

 

L’émergence d’une nouvelle figure tyrannique résulte de l’occidentalisation du monde. « Puisque modernisation et occidentalisation constituent des synonymes (Occident = moderne), il est impossible de mener une modernisation séparée de l’Occident et de ne pas copier ses valeurs (pp. 127 – 128). » Pis, « la fosse noire et vide de sens du postmoderne réalisé brille au centre de l’Occident global, les États-Unis et les pays de l’Alliance transatlantique (p. 138) ». Or, « pour combler le vide, la Russie a besoin d’une nouvelle idée politique. Le libéralisme ne convient pas, tandis que le communisme et le fascisme sont inacceptables (p. 13) ». Dès lors, « seule une croisade mondiale contre les États-Unis, l’Occident, la mondialisation et leur expression politico-idéologique, le libéralisme, peut constituer une réponse adéquate (p. 55) », d’où l’importance d’une Quatrième théorie politique particulièrement adaptée à la Russie.

 

« La lutte contre la métamorphose postmoderniste du libéralisme en postmoderne et un globalisme doit être qualitativement autre, se fonder sur des principes nouveaux et proposer de nouvelles stratégies (p. 22). » C’est le but tactique de l’eurasisme et de la Quatrième théorie politique. Contre le « nomadisme de l’asphalte (p. 258) » célébré par les médiats occidentaux globalitaires ultra-individualistes et ochlocratiques, Alexandre Douguine, en chrétien orthodoxe vieux-croyant conséquent, désigne l’atlantisme, « mal absolu (p. 258) », comme l’hérésie contemporaine contre laquelle le combat doit être implacable. « Pour les eurasistes, le moderne est un phénomène spécifique à l’Occident tandis que les autres cultures doivent démasquer les prétentions à l’université de la civilisation occidentale et construire leur société sur leurs valeurs internes (p. 101). »

 

De l’empire au grand espace

 

Guidé par les travaux de Johann Gottfried von Herder, Friedrich Ratzel, Jean Parvulesco et Raymond Abellio, Alexandre Douguine veut que « l’eurasisme se positionne fermement non pas en faveur de l’universalisme, mais en faveur des “ grands espaces ”, non pas en faveur de l’impérialisme, mais pour les “ empires ”, non pas en faveur des intérêts d’un seul pays, mais en faveur des “ droits des peuples ” (p. 207) ». Dans un monde enfin multipolaire, chaque pôle d’influence mondiale s’édifiera autour d’un grand espace géo-culturel particulier.

 

Homme de Tradition qui se réfère à l’ethnosociologie, à la géopolitique et à la théologie, Alexandre Douguine se défie des concepts d’État et de nation. Si le premier, malgré sa froideur intrinsèque, reste pour lui nécessaire, le second ne correspond pas à l’esprit des steppes eurasiennes. Mais sa critique ne coïncide pas avec celle des libéraux. En effet, pour un libéral, « la “ nation ” désignait l’ensemble des citoyens de l’État, dans lequel s’incarne le contact des individus qui le peuplent, unis par un territoire de résidence commun, ainsi que par un même niveau de développement de l’activité économique (p. 41) ». Quant à l’État-nation, il « représentait une sorte de “ corporation ” ou d’entreprise, créée selon l’accord mutuel de ses participants et qui peut être théoriquement dissoute pour les mêmes raisons (p. 42) ». Or, répondant aux discours tenus par des « nationaux-souverainistes » russes, Douguine affirme que le destin de la Russie n’est pas de devenir une nation, mais de rester un empire. « Entre l’Empire et le “ grand homme ” (homo maximus), il existe une homologie directe. L’Empire est la société maximale, l’échelle maximale possible de l’Empire. L’Empire incarne la fusion entre le ciel et la terre, la combinaison des différences en une unité, différences qui s’intègrent dans une matrice stratégique commune. L’Empire est la plus haute forme de l’humanité, sa plus haute manifestation. Il n’est rien de plus humain que l’Empire (p. 111). » « L’empire constitue une organisation politique territoriale qui combine à la fois une très forte centralisation stratégique (une verticale du pouvoir unique, un modèle centralisé de commandement des forces armées, la présence d’un code juridique civil commun à tous, un système unique de collecte des impôts, un système unique de communication, etc.) avec une large autonomie des formations sociopolitiques régionales, entrant dans la composition de l’empire (la présence d’éléments de droit ethno-confessionnel au niveau local, une composition plurinationale, un système largement développé d’auto-administration locale, la possibilité de cœxistence de différents modèles de pouvoir locaux, de la démocratie tribale aux principautés centralisées, voire aux royaumes) (pp. 210 – 211). »

 

L’idée d’empire est plus que jamais d’actualité dans les faits, car, si l’Union européenne demeure un « empire hésitant (p. 218) », Alexandre Douguine souligne avec raison que les élites étatsuniennes raisonnent, elles, dans ces termes avec le Benevolent empire. Idem chez les islamistes qui rêvent, eux, d’un califat universel et dont « le projet islamique en tant que réponse à la mondialisation américaine coïncide pleinement avec la définition de l’empire. […] Il s’agit d’un projet d’empire mondial alternatif (pp. 217 – 218) ».

 

L’empire correspond de nos jours à la notion géopolitique de civilisation. « La mise en évidence de la civilisation en qualité de sujet de la politique mondiale au XXIe siècle permettra de mener une “ globalisation régionale ”, une unification des pays et des peuples qui se rapportent à une seule et même civilisation (p. 187). » En clair, faire des civilisations des « grands espaces ». Théorisé par Carl Schmitt, l’un des plus grands penseurs du XXe siècle, « le “ grand espace ” ne constitue qu’une autre dénomination de ce que nous comprenons sous le terme de civilisation dans son sens géopolitique, spatial et culturel. Un “ grand espace ” se distingue des États-nations existant aujourd’hui précisément en ceci qu’il se construit sur le fondement d’un système de valeurs et d’une parenté historique, ainsi que par le fait qu’il unit plusieurs, voire un grand nombre d’États différents liés par une “ communauté de destin ”. Dans différents grands espaces, le facteur d’intégration peut varier : dans un cas, la religion peut jouer ce rôle, dans un autre, l’origine ethnique, la forme culturelle, le type sociopolitique ou la situation géographique (p. 188) ».

 

Arme géopolitique anti-mondialiste par excellence, « le “ grand espace ” découle d’une stratégie anticoloniale et présuppose (d’un point de vue purement théorique) une alliance volontaire de tous les pays du continent s’efforçant d’affirmer collectivement leur indépendance (p. 194) ». Ainsi peut-on soutenir, concernant la politogenèse européenne, que « les continentalistes affirment que les États-Unis et l’Europe ont non seulement des intérêts divergents, mais également des valeurs divergentes (p. 140) » parce qu’avec les grands espaces civilisationnels, « il n’y aura aucun étalon universel, ni matériel, ni spirituel. Chaque civilisation recevra enfin le droit de proclamer librement ce qui constitue pour elle la mesure des choses. Ici, ce sera l’homme, là, la religion, ailleurs, l’éthique, ailleurs enfin, la matière (p. 191) ». Si l’Union européenne paraît dans l’impossibilité de former un grand espace impérial conscient de son destin, Douguine appelle cependant les Européens à ne pas céder au fatalisme et au pessimisme. Certes, « aujourd’hui l’axe Paris – Berlin – Moscou apparaît plus que jamais fantomatique mais […] de ces mêmes fantômes naissent parfois de grands phénomènes (pp. 229 – 230) ». Il souhaite en revanche que la C.E.I. (Communauté des États indépendants) et les autres organisations de coopération comme l’Organisation du traité de sécurité collective (O.T.S.C.), la Communauté économique eurasiatique (C.E.E.), l’Organisation de coopération centre-asiatique (O.C.C.E.) et l’Union de la Russie et du Bélarus jettent les bases solides de « l’empire eurasiste du futur (p. 223) » capable d’affronter l’Occident financiariste et mondialiste.

 

Dans cette lutte à venir (mais qui a dès à présent commencé avec les actions médiatiques des bandes pétassières des Pussy Riots et des FemHaine ou les attaques anti-russes des cloportes du Congrès étatsunien), la Russie est à l’avant-poste de la bataille. Toutefois, Douguine se désole que « la position du pouvoir russe contemporain envers l’Occident (dans son incarnation actuelle) demeure indéterminée. Le pouvoir a rejeté un occidentalisme direct sans pour autant occuper une position alternative (slavophile, eurasiste). Le pouvoir s’est figé, de même que quelquefois un ordinateur cesse de fonctionner. Ni dans une direction, ni dans l’autre (p. 165) ». Il déplore que les blindés ne se soient pas entrés dans Tbilissi à l’été 2008. Ces atermoiements sont préjudiciables à la Russie qui, en tant que Troisième Rome potentiel, pourrait déjà pratiquer une diplomatie multipolaire, « même si actuellement seuls l’Iran, le Venezuela, la Syrie, la Bolivie, le Nicaragua, la Corée du Nord, la Biélorussie et, avec prudence, la Chine, la défendent (p. 163) ».

 

Dépassement des idéologies modernes et formulation nouvelle d’un conservatisme traditionnel et impérial, « la Quatrième théorie apparaît donc comme un projet de “ croisade ” contre le postmoderne, la société post-industrielle, le projet libéral réalisé dans la pratique, le globalisme et ses fondements logistiques et technologiques (p. 23) ». C’est une déclaration de guerre qu’il convient d’apprécier ! L’assomption de l’Europe passe bien par la Quatrième théorie politique.

 

Georges Feltin-Tracol

 

• Alexandre Douguine, La Quatrième théorie politique. La Russie et les idées politiques du XXIe siècle, avant-propos d’Alain Soral, Ars Magna Éditions, Nantes, 2012, 336 p., (B.P. 60 426, 44004 Nantes C.E.D.E.X. 1). Pour recevoir le livre, écrire à l’éditeur, en accompagnant cette demande d’un chèque de 32 € franco.

 


 

Article printed from Europe Maxima: http://www.europemaxima.com

 

URL to article: http://www.europemaxima.com/?p=2958

mardi, 26 février 2013

Remembering Sven Hedin

sven-hedin2.jpg

Remembering Sven Hedin

By Savitri Devi

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

Editor’s Note: 

We are presenting the following excerpts from Savitri Devi’s And Time Rolls On: The Savitri Devi Interviews [2] in honor of the birthday of the great Swedish explorer Sven Anders Hedin (February 19, 1865–November 26, 1952). For a brief account of his life and work, see his Wikipedia [3] article. 

Hedin’s feats of exploration and his magnificent books recommend him to the attention of all mankind. What recommends him to the North American New Right is his devotion to the survival and flourishing of European man and civilization, which he believed was endangered by both communism and Anglo-Saxon capitalism.

As a Swede and a European, Hedin saw the Second German Reich as the best vehicle for the preservation of European civilization, and when Germany revived under the Third Reich, he reposed his hopes there, enjoying the friendship and admiration of Adolf Hitler, Hermann Göring, and other leading National Socialists.

As this text also makes clear, Hedin had more than a nodding knowledge of the traditional religions and spirituality of Asia.  

. . . I came back to England from Iceland at the end of ’47, and there I had to struggle a long time too. Until it was possible for Mr. Mukherji to send me a little money. He was himself in difficulty at the time. He had no job after the war. His past injured him a lot from the point of view of jobs. In fact, he couldn’t send me anything until ’48. But I already had a job. I got a job in the dancing company of Ram Gopal as a dresser.[1] I had to take care of the costumes of the girls and all that. It was not badly paid: £5 a week in England, £10 a week abroad. I was taken to France. I was taken to Norway. I was taken to Sweden. We stayed two-and-a-half months in Sweden, and that took me to June ’48.

Of course, I didn’t like the surroundings very much, and I don’t mean the surroundings in Sweden. I mean the surroundings in the company. The stage manager, Mr. Ben Topf, was a Jew. A Jew who said in the train he would like to see the larders full and the arsenals empty in Germany, naturally. And I hated him for it. [. . .]

In Sweden on the 6th of June, 1948 I met somebody extraor­dinary. I met Sven Hedin.[2] I wanted to meet him. I knew he was one of our people. But they told me, “Sven Hedin meets nobody after ’45. He doesn’t want to meet anybody. You can try.” So I wrote a letter to him, and he said, “Yes, you can come on Sun­day. You can come at 2:00.” I came there at 2:00, and I told him, “You see, we are going to Germany on the 14th.” I had been spending two or three nights, up all night, writing papers.[3] I had intended to spend all my salary in Sweden buying chocolate, sardines, butter, cigarettes, putting a paper in each box and throwing them from the windows of the Nord Express. We were going to pass through Germany. “And I’d like to know, can we have any hope?”

He said, “Why do you say, ‘Can we have any hope?’ Do you have no hope?” I said, “Well, I’m doing this just as an act of defiance, but what to do? Those of Nuremberg, they have killed them.” Sven Hedin said, “Don’t fear. Germany has more such men.” I said, “Yes, but when will they appear?” “They’ll appear in time.” And I said to him, “What about the Führer? Is he dead or alive?” He said, “Whether he’s dead or alive, he’s eternal. What does it matter to you?” I said, “I’ll never see him if he’s really not alive.” “Well, even if you do see him, what difference would it make? The war is lost anyhow. And his ideas are true anyhow, even with a lost war.” I said, “You are right. You are right.”

And with this sort of talk and with the encouragement he gave me, he said, “You can distribute your papers if you like, all through Germany. If you get into trouble . . .” I said, “I don’t care. I don’t care if I spend my life in an Allied concentration camp.” “In that case, carry on.” I felt my wings, my old wings were growing again. He wanted to give me supper, if you please. I never expected it. “It is 7:00 now, you can have supper with me.” I said, “At 7:00 I must be at the theater. It’s a night show. I have to be there. It’s my job.” He said, “All right.” So I went.

The first person I met in the theater was Ben Topf. He looked at me and said, “Mrs. Mukherji, what happened to you?” I said, “Nothing happened to me.” “You look 20 years younger.” I said, “Do I?” I said, “I met a great man.” “What kind of great man?” I said, “Sven Hedin, the great explorer of Central Asia. The one who found out the real way that Lop Nor and other Central Asian lakes go around and round and round. They fol­low the same route.” He said, “For that you are so pleased to meet that man?” And I said, “Yes I am. I am interested in arche­ology and explorations. What can you expect?” He didn’t believe me, of course. He found it queer. He wouldn’t have found it queer for long.

And Time Rolls On, pp. 54–56

In October ’46, I was staying at 104 Grosvenor Road, in a very quiet room. It was a building for nurses, a kind of hostel for nurses. They used to sleep in the daytime. At night they were on duty. So it was perfectly quiet in the daytime and at night. And that’s what I wanted. I liked physical peace. So I was there on the night of the 15th to 16th of October ’46. And I never read the papers. I didn’t want to read them. I didn’t want to see the evolution of the trial at Nuremberg. I hated it. But I couldn’t sleep. I couldn’t. I couldn’t detach my mind from the fact that I knew, without reading the papers—every­body knew it—that the 11 were to be killed on that night.

I was thinking about it. I was thinking about it. And then sud­denly, I was not asleep, but I felt exactly as I used to feel after my exercises at Hatha yoga ten years before.[4] I was no longer in that room. I don’t know how I went through the walls. I was in Göring’s cell. And I saw Göring just as I see you. He was seated with his hands like this.[5] And suddenly he did like that. As though he saw me and was rather astonished. I had some­thing in my right hand, a tiny little piece of I don’t know what, something I held. And I said to him, “No fear”—“keine Angst.” “No fear. I’m not an enemy. I’m one of your people. I wish I could save you all from this ignominy, but unfortu­nately the heavenly powers gave me permission to save one, and one only, up to my choice, and I chose you because of your kindness to creatures. Because of your solicitude to ani­mals.”

sven_hedinzzzzz.jpg

Göring had been a hunter in his youth. He had given it up. And he liked animals, that’s true. But some hunters do at the same time they’re hunters. He had a leopard for a pet. The leopard used to lie at his feet and purr, like a big cat. I knew that. What I knew also was that he contributed with the Führer to the setting up of the Reichsjagdgesetz,[6] a book thick like that. It is much more than a regulation of hunting. It’s a protection of nature. Traps are forbidden. One man hunting by himself is forbidden. It must be two. If an animal is wounded the other one will shoot it. Mustn’t kill fe­males. Mustn’t, mustn’t, mustn’t, mustn’t. The Führer could not forbid hunting altogether. He did what he could to lessen the effect, and Göring had a part of that.

That I knew before I got into this kind of queer state. I said to him, “Take this,” and gave him what I had in my right hand. I said, “Take this, and don’t allow these people to kill you as a criminal. You are not one. Anything but. Now I must go. Good-bye. Heil Hitler!” And I vanished. And I didn’t see any­thing of the kind. I fell completely unconscious after that. I saw Göring, and I was unconscious. I gave him whatever I had to give him. I was unconscious.

I woke up. It was 10:00 in the morning. I never wake up at 10:00. I wake up at 6:00. I never sleep like that. I opened my eyes. I said, “What a queer experience I had. Where did I go last night?” Anyhow, I bathed quickly, and I went downstairs. It was a rainy day, drizzly. I never bought a paper as I told you. I wasn’t going to buy the paper on the 16th of October, anything but. But I couldn’t help seeing the headlines on the papers. There was a newspaper kiosk just opposite. Headlines like that. Eight centimeters high. “Göring found dead in his cell, half past two in the morning. Nobody knows who gave him the poison. Potassium cyanide.”

I’ll never forget it. And I felt cold all over my body. It seemed to me that I saw the Nataraja, the dancing Shiva, as he is presented in Hindu tem­ples, dancing in the clouds. And I said, “If this has been done through me, use me in greater things still. If it’s me, that’s the best thing I did in my life.” I don’t know what really happened, to this day. I know what experience I had. I know what I felt. I know what I saw. I don’t know anything more. Is it a genuine experience? What is it? I just don’t know. I don’t pretend to know, and I don’t like to speak of what I don’t know.

Less than two years later, on June 6th, 1948, I met Sven Hedin, who is a scholar of Tibetology and has roamed all over Central Asia and seen things in Ladakh and Tibet. I asked him, “What would people in Ladakh or Tibet think of this?” He said, “My dear, they would find that the most natural thing in the world. That is no problem for a Tibetan or for a Ladakhi, for a Buddhist Lama. No problem at all. You went into the astral plane. You gave Göring some astral potassium cyanide, and it materialized in his hand. He took it and died, instead of being hanged.” I said, “I wish I could’ve done it for the 11.” “Well, you could for one. Be thankful that you could for one.” That’s what Sven Hedin told me. I don’t know any more than that. I never had a psychic experience in my life. That’s the only one.

And Time Rolls On, pp. 48–50

Notes

1. Ram Gopal (1912–2003) was one of the leaders of the revival of classical Indian dance and one of the most celebrated and widely traveled dancers of the 20th century. See his Rhythm in the Heavens: The Autobiography of Ram Gopal (London: Secker and Warburg, 1957).

2. On Hedin and Savitri’s first propaganda trip through occupied Germany, see Gold in the Furnace, ch. 4, “The Unfor­gettable Night.”

3. Savitri supplies a translation of the flyer in Gold in the Furnace: “In the midst of untold hardships and suffering, hold fast to our glorious National Socialist faith, and resist! Defy our persecutors! Defy the people, defy the forces that are working to ‘de-Nazify’ the German nation and the world at large! Nothing can destroy that which is built in truth. We are the pure gold put to test in the furnace. Let the furnace blaze and roar! Nothing can destroy us. One day we shall rise and triumph again. Hope and wait! Heil Hitler!” (Gold in the Furnace, 34).

4. See ch. 3, §9 below.

5. According to Sven Hedin (1865–1952), diary entry of 6 June 1948, Savitri told him that, “Han satt med huvudet i händerna” (“He [Göring] sat with his head in his hands”) (The papers of Sven Hedin, box 41, National Archives of Sweden).

6. Reich Hunting Law.


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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/02/remembering-sven-hedin/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Sven-Hedin.jpg

[2] And Time Rolls On: The Savitri Devi Interviews: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/02/and-time-rolls-on-now-in-kindle-and-nook/

[3] Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sven_Hedin

00:05 Publié dans Eurasisme, Histoire, Hommages | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : sven hedin, suède, exploration, eurasie, eurasisme | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

dimanche, 24 février 2013

Eurasian Doctrine of Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev

KazakhstanGF.png

Eurasian Doctrine of Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev: "Thinking space"

 

Kazakhstan becomes a nodal point of the post-Soviet space today. In this context it should be considered not as an ordinary state, balancing between global "centers of power", but as a key element of the great intercivilizational zone stretching through the whole of Eurasia. Whether the zone stays what it was for centuries - the "inner corridor" of Eurasia, separating or linking its civilizations, depends on the Kazakhstan’s fate. That fact brings us inevitably to the geopolitical problems.

It should be noted that for many years Central Asia has been the object of interest for geopoliticians. From the point of view of traditional geopolitics Eurasia is not just a "gap" between "Great Europe" and "Great Asia" - but it is a special cultural and civilizational world, a self-organizing "great space."
 
It should be observed that the debate about the nature and purpose of space in modern geopolitical thought is far from being over. Positivist science of political geography focuses on the phenomena of "objective" external character: the balance of weapons, geographical location of transit infrastructures, etc.
 
Traditional geography and geopolitics are based on the idea of ontological heterogeneity of terrestrial space, on the prevalence of anthropological, civilizational, religious and spiritual factors in determination of the fate and vocation of many nations.
 
For example, modern French researchers do not like to call themselves "geopoliticians", but consider themselves most likely as geographers working at the intersections of geography and history. These sciences, in particular, express their deep surprise that in Germany they still speak about the “Space” (“Raum”) or the "Big space» (“Grossraum”) in the geopolitical discourse. 
 
The concept of “space” is considered “empty” or “abstract” by French researchers, who consequently prefer speaking about the “territory” which  they link to the interests of a certain community and a “collective identity formation”. As a result, according to the French approach the geopolitics itself is defined as the “analysis of contradictions among different types of power institutes of the territory” [1], which narrows the object to geopolitical study, replacing it actually with political geography. 
 
At the same time, within the Eurasian geopolitical research school the desired synthesis has been carried out, and as a result the category of "space" has acquired human, historical, cultural and civilizational contents. That synthesis was embodied in the concept of "local development" which denotes the inseparable connection of space with history and destiny of individuals, societies and nations, with the unique cultural characteristics of the civilization.
 
 As an example of such a "local development" (a model of political, social and economic development which character is defined by country or region location) can be considered as Eurasia in general, so Kazakhstan with its great strategic power as the integral part of “Eurasian space”. What does "to think space" mean, for the founders of states and prominent public figures in this context? 
 
From the author’s point of view it means, first of all, the possibility to correlate spatial, cultural, civilizational and socio-economic characteristics of the states they head with the logic of their history and contemporary political process, and the possibility to draw up the domestic and foreign policy course according to the long-term national, regional and global political trends.
 
One of the founding fathers of classical geopolitics theory K. Haushofer has the same point of view on the “Big space” concept. Speaking on formation of continental alliance connecting European and Asian continents he supposes that “every considerable formations and structures don’t appear ready from the head of some great statesman like the famous Greek goddess of war in her stately spiritual image. A competent person knows that the creation of such formations is a long-term process. I am pleased to admit young colleagues-geographers that I must produce evidence on the formation of a new Euro-Asian continental policy perhaps, more than any other senior representative of the geographical science ". [2]
 
The fullest realization of “thinking space” tendency has been  found in eurasianism  - the movement of Russian intellectuals emigrant groups connected on the first place with the attempt of understanding the origins and consequences of the October Revolution. The movement itself appeared in 1921 in Prague and Sofia, and was founded by four young emigrants from Belorussia - P. Savitsky, geographer, P. Suvchinsky, musicologist, N.Trubetskoy, philologist and Slavicist, Father G. Florovsky, religious philosopher and publicist. Among them there were such prominent Eurasians as religious thinker L.P. Karsavin, famous historian G.V. Vernadsky, lawyer and political scientist Nikolai Alekseev, orientalist V. Nikitin, writer V. N. Ivanov.
 
Much has been said on strong and weak sides of Eurasianism in the historiographical literature. It is admitted that Eurasianism is one of the most significant political theories of the twentieth century bringing up the question on determination of Eurasia’s place in the world. The fact that Eurasians find grounds for necessity of harmonious coexistence of Slavic and Turkish people, Orthodox Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, as a guarantee of integrity and stability of the post-Soviet space are also very important.
 
In parallel the negative sides of the Eurasian doctrine are accentuated. It's pretty clear that when taken to the extreme Eurasianism can act as an ideology justifying totalitarian and autarchic model, causing isolation from the West.
 
How do the subsequent interpretation of this doctrine reproduce and (or) overcome the disadvantages of the "classical Eurasianism"? Perhaps the biggest scientific interpreter of the Eurasianism ideology is Lev Gumilev (1912 - 1992) – a famous Russian historian, anthropologist and philosopher, author of the original teaching about the nature and life of ethnic groups - ethnology. His decade stay at the camp with one of the founders of Eurasianism Peter Sawicki influenced much on his views formation.
 
Actually there were three main ideas of Gumilev’s "Eurasian conception": the first two were adopted, the third was original. The first of them considers the Russian Empire and the USSR historical forms of Eurasian statehood, coming from the empire of Genghis Khan. The second defines the Turkic and Muslim Eurasian peoples as Russian natural allies in their fight against West expansion, as it is equally fatal to any of the "Eurasian power" to unite with it. [3]
 
However, despite the original and profound Gumilev’s interpretation of Russian history, Eurasianism remained for him mainly a geopolitical metaphor. The prominent Russian historian and ethnologist has not formulated yet his specific proposals to arrange the political and socio-economic life of Eurasian countries and peoples. It took time to perceive deeply and completely his ideas.
 
And the time has come. 1990s was the time of large-scale policy changes related to political self-determination and self-assertion in the post-emerging new nation-states, with special and important place occupied by Kazakhstan. At the same time, the 1990s was the period of an increasing interest to the Eurasianism and the conception of underestimated outstanding scientist L. Gumilev.
 
  To bring the key imperatives of Eurasianism to life its entirely new interpretation has been required, as well as the escape from the "mythopoetic" shade, specification of its cultural and civilizational imperatives. This kind of a "modernization" of the Eurasian studies could be used for searching for the most appropriate model of economic and political organization of the post-Soviet space.
 
Thereupon it is no mere chance that the most active and consistent supporter of the Eurasian concept concerning modern political realities is the president of the Republic of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev. The leader of a young and dynamic state saw its realization in his project of the Eurasian Union, subsequently implemented in practice in the model of the Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC), and the Customs Union of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus founded in 2010.
 
The Eurasian Union project declared in the mid 1990s yet, was supposed to unite new independent CIS states (conserving their political sovereignty) into a common economic space. A little later, N. Nazarbayev repeated his offer with a new meaning - he proposed the creation of the Eurasian Economic Union. This project, as experience has shown, had the fundamental political, historical and cultural base as a result of the Kazakhstan’s specificity as a Eurasian power. The ideology of Eurasianism was officially recognized in Kazakhstan, and one of Kazakhstan's leading universities - the Eurasian National University in Astana - was named after a prominent ideologist of Eurasianism Lev Gumilev.
 
In general we can distinguish following basic features of the "Eurasian concept" by President Nursultan Nazarbayev. In the author’s opinion, they consist in a firm compliance with the following principles:
1) A realistic character, absence of "the ideology primacy";
2) The tendency to connect firmly the idea of "Eurasian integration" in the post-Soviet space with the purposes and objectives of modernization;
3) Focus on the priority of interests of the Republic of Kazakhstan as a sovereign independent State;
4) Realistic reflection of the current state of "the post-Soviet space" and main trends of its development.
5) Review of the prospects of "Eurasian integration" in the context of a multidirectional strategy adopted by the Kazakh government.
6) The tendency to close coordination of the economic and political integration.
7) consulting not only Kazakh and Russian interests within the "Integration Project," but the interests of Central Asian states as well. [4]
 
What factors ensure the success of the geopolitical position of Kazakhstan? Firstly, as Kazakh experts noted, Kazakhstan, represented by the leader Nursultan Nazarbayev, has a strong political will. Secondly, after years of independence Kazakhstan has practically implemented its will in the unique economic, social, political and humanitarian projects of modernization. Thirdly, the Republic of Kazakhstan is the heir of the centuries-old nomadic culture, which passionarity has strongly affected the global world formation since ancient times. Today this passionarity has been realized in proposing a number of initiatives answering the meaning and the essence interpreted in the frames of the contemporary Eurasian doctrine.
 
It is president Nazarbayev who has consistently been reinforcing the status of Kazakhstan as the leader country of the Central Asian region, who seeks to carry out in practice Eurasian principles interpreted in a modern key without confirming to politics or economics. Nursultan Nazarbayev is also an author of cultural and civilizational initiatives (World and traditional religions forum) in the contemporary crisis of the world and is trying to strengthen the dialogue between countries, civilizations and continents. Kazakhstan, a member of the main important institutions of post-Soviet space (CSTO, EurAsEC, Customs Union) and international organizations (the Organization “the Islamic Conference”), expanding its cooperation with the European countries within the OSCE, can play a very important role in establishment and realization of the multilateral partnership.
 
All these achievements and efforts could not stay unnoticed by western and eastern leaders. In this context it is not surprising that for the past several years, many states, representing those cultural civilizational "worlds", seek the partnership with Kazakhstan as a promising economic partner and a key political actor in the complex and little predictable Central Asian region.
 
Due to the realization of complex strategies by the leader of the nation modern Kazakhstan successively transforms into the Eurasian hub, one of the most dynamic and stable states in the territory of the CIS. At the same time, it serves a good example of inter-ethnic and religious tolerance, moderate Muslim country that has become a sort of a "bridge between East and West."
 
Domestic policy strategy of Kazakhstan answers the Eurasian imperatives, particularly in the field of nation-building politics. Over the centuries destinies of many people with different cultures, religions and traditions crossed on the historical Kazakh land. So the unique situation was created in when representatives of 140 ethnic groups and 40 confessions live peacefully together with the Kazakhs. Meanwhile a long-term cohabitation of different ethnic groups has formed a strong tradition of tolerance in the society.
 
Thus, today there are all necessary foundations for leaders, elites and peoples of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus to make a new decisive and qualitative step to the “Eurasian integration” - the orientation founded in the early 1990s by the national leader, president of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, who has updated and is filled in the ideology of Eurasianism with a modern and concrete meaning.
 
Cited literature:
1. Lacoste Y. Fuer eine neue und umfassende Konzeption der Geopolitik // Welttrends. – 1994. - № 4. – P. 24.
2. Хаусхофер К. Континентальный блок // Элементы. – 1997. - №7. – P. 32.
3. Гумилев Л. Н. Заметки последнего евразийца. // Наше наследие. – 1991. - № 3. - P. 24 - 26.
4. Назарбаев Н. А. Евразийский союз: идеи, практика, перспективы, 1994-1997. – М.: Фонд содействия развитию соц. и полит. наук, 1997.  – 497 p.
 
English translation by Natalia Biryukova

ON THE EURASIAN ROOTS OF INDIAN SPIRITUAL TRADITIONS

 

ON THE EURASIAN ROOTS OF INDIAN SPIRITUAL TRADITIONS

Kashmir Shaivism and Slavic-Russian Mysticism

Acharya Peter Wilberg

Ex: http://granews.info/

1.       Historical Introduction and Background

This essay will seek to show that here is no more profound and powerful counterpart and complement to Indian wisdom traditions than Slavic-Russian Mysticism and its relation to Nordic-Arctic climate and culture. There is now both archaeological and linguistic evidence to show that  the Vedas and Upanishads and Tantras (including those of Kashmir Shaivism) all had their roots in a highly advanced pre- or proto Indo-European and Arctic civilisation covering the entire area known as Eurasia and with centres not only in the Indus Valley but in many other ancient civilisations such as Sumeria and also Russia and the Arctic.  This pre-historic or ‘primordial’  civilization was founded by ruler priests and teachers from other planets and/or planes of consciousness called ‘Urs’ in the Nordic-Arctic region (‘Ur’ being cognate with the German prefix ‘Ur-’ which means ‘primordial’ – and recalling also both  the Urals in Russia and the name of the Sumerian city called Ur, Uru or Urim. 

According to Levashov (The Untold History of Russia)

“Urs became tutors and guides to the rest of the people. They protected an initially rather small number of settlements of ‘ordinary’ people both from wild nature and ‘biped predators’. Urs trained people and helped them to master primary technologies, and gave them the knowledge necessary for them at that moment as well as knowledge that would be called for only in millennia.

Urs taught them and gave them into the charge of a special caste of keepers – volkhvs[1], who in due time were to convey conserved knowledge, having carried them through millennia and preserved as much of it as possible.

For this purpose those keepers-volkhvs received two runic alphabets, each of them was used by volkhvs of different levels of initiation. Those alphabets were da’Aryan and h’Aryan letters[2].

The memory of Urs, the teachers, has remained in language, for example, in the word ‘cult-ur-e’, which means a system of moral and spiritual concepts, which were transferred by Urs to their wards, the Ruses.

The two-caste system of the ancient Slavs reverberated in the names given them by their neighbours. For instance, the majority of Asian neighbours called an inhabitant of the Slavoniс-Aryan Empire as ‘ur-rus’, uniting the self-names of these two castes in a single word. Even now many Asian neighbours call Russians in the old fashioned manner, as ‘Urruses’.

There was a time when the names of the Slavonic tribes were formed by the addition of prefixes to the root ‘rus’, reflecting distinctive features of these tribes of Ruses, for example, Et-rus-can, P-rus-sian. The prefix ‘et’ before the self-name of Ruses means ‘elucidated Ruses’ – the carriers of highcult-ur-e. The proof of their existence has been found in the north of Italy in the form of inscriptions on stones and works of art. The name ‘Prussian’ meant ‘Ruses of Perun’[3], their other self-name was Venedas[4] (bellicose tribes of western Slavs), was kept in the self-name of the territory where they lived up to the 19th-20th centuries even after the German (gothic) tribes seized this land in 9th-10th  centuries A.D. The gothic tribes destroyed the majority of Prussian-Slavs, assimilated the rest amidst them and borrowed their name. After that one of the German tribes that lived on this territory began to call themselves ‘Prussians’; in the 19th century they played a key role in the merger of German tribes into a united state.

During the thousands of years of history of the Slavs, who initially had a united culture and language, the formation of self-names of the different Slavonic tribes was influenced by different factors. In the Urs’ time all Slavonic tribes have the second name ‘Ur-rus’. After the Urs’ disappearance their functions had to be distributed between their wards, Ruses.

This led to the formation of several castes: a caste of Volkhvs, carriers of knowledge and traditions; a caste of professional warriors, defenders from external enemies; a caste of handicraftsmen, grain-growers and cattlemen. At the top of all castes was a patrimonial aristocracy.

After the Urs’ disappearance, Ruses added to the common tribal name (Rus) one or another prefix reflecting their basic type of activity (Et-rus-can, P-rus-sian).”

The ancient pre- or proto-Aryan civilisation that Levashov describes, with a caste system clearly similar to that of Vedic civilisation, was essentially a Eurasian civilisation with multiple centres, not only in the Indian sub-continent, but also in Sumeria (whose language was neither Indo-European nor Semitic), Babylon and Assyria, the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, Minoan Crete, Troy and Mycenae – and as recent  discoveries show it also had centres in Russia and the Arctic. Evidence for this was found in 1987, when archaeological discoveries were uneathed in the Southern Urals (the so-calledARKAIM site) of an earlier ‘Arctic’ civilisation. This was referred to by Herodotus, Hesiod, Homer and Pindra as Hyperborea (‘beyond the North Wind’ or Boreas) and by Virgil as Thule. It corresponds also to Asgard – the land of the Norse gods or Aesir, one of the nine worlds unified by the world tree called Yggdrasill  and described in the Nordic Eddas as the abode of the  god Odin and his wife Frigg and the site of his fortress – Valhalla. What has since come to be known as the Slavic Vedasshare a similar script to Sanskrit, similar scriptures to the Vedas, and similar sagas to the Eddas – describing a migration south from the Arctic as climatic conditions changed from temperate to glacial.  The singular of aesir is ás related  to the  Sanskrit word asura – referring to the ‘anti-gods’ opposed to but inseparable from their half-brothers, the celestial sura – known in Sanskrit as devasor ‘shining ones’ (from the root *diw meaning “to shine”).

What united all the centres of this proto-Indo-European or Eurasian civilisation was both the ‘pillar’ connecting Sky (ARKA) and Earth (IM)  - also one important meaning of the Shivalingam – and theswastika/svastika symbol  found in so many ancient cultures. This is now understood not as a solar or sun symbol alone but as representing a spiralling or spinning galaxy. In this context it is interesting to note that the Slavic svastika symbol, called kolovrat means ‘spinning wheel’ – just as the Sanskrit chakra also means a ‘wheel’ which turns or spins.   

Neither svastika nor kolovrat essentially symbolise the sun however. For ancient Eurasian religious cultures worshipped the pole star rather than the sun – that star, close to the constellation of the bear (URSA) which lights up the darkness of the night sky and points us North i.e.  towards the planet Nibiru from which the Sumerian ruler-priests were thought to have come, toward the pole star – and toward the giant ‘black hole’ or ‘black sun’ at the very centre of our galaxy around which both the earth and the entire solar system turns or ‘spins’.  All the different geographical centres of the Eurasian civilisation however were seeded and guided long ago in the past by the advanced knowledge of their extra-terrestrial ruler priests or Urs. Conversely however, the rebirth in Russia of a future Eurasian culture and civilisation - one that will replace the currently dominant global capitalist culture of the U.S.A. - was anticipated by the German theosophist Rudolf Steiner. One of the chief current advocates of spiritual-political Eurasianism in Russia is Aleksandr Dugin – erstwhile organiser of the now-banned National Bolshevik Party and National Bolshevik Front in Russia, and founder of the Eurasia Party – now called Eurasia Movement and now leader of the International Eurasian Movement. 

“In principle, Eurasia and our space, the heartland Russia, remain the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution …The new Eurasian empire will be constructed on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us. This common civilizational impulse will be the basis of a political and strategic union.” Dugin —The Basics of Geopolitics (1997)  
 

2. The Metaphysics of Light and Darkness

As early as 1903, Lokamanya Bâl Gangâdhar Tilak (then proprietor of the Kesari and the Mahrattanewspapers, author of the Orion or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas) wrote a book presenting evidence of clear reference to an ‘Arctic Homeland’ in the Sanskrit Vedas and Zoroastrian Avestas.  This in turn formed the basis of a work by J.G. Bennett (metaphysical interpreter of the ‘4th Way’ spiritual movement of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky) entitled ‘The Hyperborean Origin of Indo-European Culture’.  A key argument that Tilak offers are numerous temporal indications in the Vedas of a ‘year’ in which, as is the case above the Arctic circle, the sun rises only once – making it the equivalent of a ‘day’. Nordic-Arctic countries in general are influenced culturally and psychologically by long periods of sunless winter darkness, interspersed with only brief summers in which the sun shines through the night.

This brings us to the central metaphysical theme of this essay – namely that there is no more profound and powerful counterpart  and complement  to both the Vedas, Upanishads  and Kashmir Shaivism itself than Slavic-Russian Mysticism and its relation to Nordic-Arctic climate and culture.

For whereas Kashmir Shaivism places special emphasis on the ‘light’ of awareness, Russian mysticism and even the Russian Orthodox Church has always emphasised the ‘darkness’, ‘dark light’ or ‘luminous darkness’, as expressed in the blackness of the night sky and long winters, rather than the blue sky of summer. Inward depth and darkness of soul go together, just as outward expansiveness of soul goes together with light.

“The divine darkness is not the kind of blackness we experience stumbling into an underground room with no lights. This darkness is a positive reality that helps us to discover God, and hence is called “luminous.” Although it sounds like a contradiction in terms, a luminous darkness is one filled with God’s presence, and by faith, the soul can begin to perceive God in darkness. In fact, the closer that God comes to the soul, the more intense the darkness becomes; it is then that all other things of this world are cleared away. The soul looks up to the Lord and never ceases to desire him.”

St. Gregory of Nyssa

If, as in Kashmir Shaivism, we understand God (Shiva) as ultimately identical with awareness as such or ‘pure awareness’ – and awareness as the ultimate sole reality (what I call The Awareness Principle) then we must also recognise that awareness itself is first and foremost an awareness of the ‘dark’ realm of ‘non-being’ constituted by infinite potentials of awareness – infinite potential consciousnesses or ‘beings’.  It is the very awareness of these potentials that ultimate leads to their actualisation and birth – like the birth of stars in the darkness of the cosmos.

Similarly, The Awareness Principle understands the key Kashmiri Shaivist term Spanda as a primordial tension (German ‘Spannung’) that literally spans the dark realm of potentiality (symbolised by the blackness of Ma Kali) and the light of awareness by which alone all things actual – including the sun and stars – become visible.  Spanda can be compared to a stretched string or ‘monochord’ strung between the twin poles of dark potentiality and illuminated actuality. The chord not only has a fundamental tone – the OM sound or Omkara, but also countless harmonics – each a unique tonal quality or ‘colouration’ of awareness. The Awareness Principle also recognises the universe as amultiverse – a multitude of parallel space-time universes all of which open up like bubbles of space and light within the darkness of a wholly non-extensional ‘space’ of potentiality. For just as light and ordinary ‘extensional space’ are inseparable, so also are ‘intensional’ space and darkness. Within any space-time universe light is what rays out from a centre towards a cosmic circumference, like light raying out from stars in the night sky. Darkness or ‘dark light’ on the other hand, is ‘light’ raying in from that cosmic circumference we behold as the blackness of the night sky itself and its ‘luminous darkness’ – illuminated at all times by the pole star.

According to the colour theory of both Goethe and Steiner, redness is light beheld through darkness. Blueness, on the other hand is darkness behold through light. Hence the two colour poles of the spectrum of darkness and light are red and blue. As the blue-throated one, Shiva has come to be associated with blue.  Yet as we know, one of the principal Vedic gods associated with Shiva isRudra – which is cognate with words such as ruddy or reddish. Similarly the syllable ‘rus’ in Russia is a proto-Slavic word for both bear and ‘reddish-haired’, cognate with ursus or ursa – the constellation of the Bear whose name combines the words ‘ur’ and ‘rus’.  Furthermore, the Slavic ‘s’  in ‘rus’ corresponds to the ‘d’ in the name Rudra itself, which also means ‘to howl’ – like a bear or wolf. Indeed, the Sanskrit ‘Shiva’ may itself be a loan word from the Tamil-Dravidian civa – meaning ‘red’ or ‘angry’. Blue and red have become of course powerful colour symbols in politics. Communists or those on the political left are ‘reds’. Conservatives or those on the political right on the other hand, are signified by the colour blue. Interestingly, since the collapse of the Soviet Union the flag of the Russian Federation is no longer purely red but red, white (the colour of the anti-Bolshevik ‘White Russians’) and… blue.  But let us return to Levashov:

“At the end of the 20th century, people got access to the Slavoniс-Aryan Vedas, which contained a lot of very interesting information that was vainly ignored by modern science. These unique manuscripts translated into modern Russian reveal that last glacial age was a consequence of the war between the Great Russenia and Antlania[5] (Atlantis). This war happened more than 13,000 years ago. Then people moved large distances of planetary scale by means of Vaitmans  [Sanskrit Vimanas]. So, those mysterious rhombic platforms on the three-dimensional map of Western Siberia are nothing else but landing grounds for Vaitmars. The last Vaitmars [travelers in the Vaitmans] left our planet Midgard-Earth about 3500 years ago when the Night of Svarog[6] began.

There is another interesting document – the Book of Veles. The last records in it were made by volkvs of Novgorod at the end of the 10th century. This book covers more than 20,000 years of Slavic history.

To learn something useful is always welcome, but did it happen like this in reality? Let us remember, that in the middle of the 11th century (according to the Christian calendar) a daughter of Jaroslav Mudry, princess Anna became the French queen. Arriving from the «wild» Kievan Rus, the princess did not consider that arrival as entering into civilized Europe but considered Paris a big village. This has documentary acknowledgement in the form of her letters.  She brought with her to the remotest depth of the provinces, which France was then, a part of the library, some books from which returned to Russia only in the 19th century and were found in the library of Mr. Sulakadzaev. It was he who made the first translation into modern Russian of the Book of Veles, which was composed of wooden plates with runic letters on them. After Sulakadzaev’s death his widow sold the greater part of his library to the Romanovs, and after that nobody heard anything about these books. The most interesting fact is that after the appearance of these copies, all originals without exception have disappeared – they either were burned down in bonfires of the inquisition, having been declared as heretical books, or were lost in ‘accidental’ fires and epidemics ‘affecting’ all ancient libraries.The libraries of Alexandria, Athens, and Tzargrad (Constantinopol), along with the Etruscan library in Rome, were burned down almost simultaneously. The libraries of Yaroslav I the Wise (978-1054) and Ivan IV the Terrible (1530-1584) disappeared without a trace. All originals were burned or disappeared, while the copies made from them so «opportunely» have been kept and cherished. Old books were destroyed; new ones were written. They were adjusted so that in new ‘history’ there was no any mention about the Slavonic-Aryan Empire. The period of history before the 10th century in Europe was declared as dark, barbarous centuries, which were illuminated by the light of education brought with the culture of the Sacred Roman Empire.”

Note firstly that the 10th century marked both the apotheosis and the beginning of the decline of Kashmir Shaivism. Note also that the very term ‘dark ages’ places a negative connotation on darkness. Then again, the Bible itself  (Genesis 1) admits that ‘darkness was over the surface of the deep’ even before God said ‘Let there be light’ and supposedly created heaven and earth.  Still today, however, inner knowing or gnosis is associated almost exclusively with ‘illumination’ or ‘en-lightenment’. This is paradoxical given that modern scientific and atheistic ‘rationalism’ had its source origin in the European ‘Age of Enlightenment’.  Yet the modern scientific mode of ‘rationality’ it gave rise to however, is now confronted with an ‘occult’ mystery that threatens to undermine its entire theoretical framework – the mystery of what physicists and cosmologists term ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ – whose nature is completely unknown but which is nevertheless acknowledged to make up 90% of the mass and two thirds of the ‘mass-energy’ of the universe. Levashov:

“…the last record in the Book of Veles and christening of Kievan Rus falls on the same time – the end of the 10th century according to contemporary chronology … What are these Days and Nights of Svarog? These words are mentioned in the Slavonic-Aryan Vedas quite often. It is time to understand what these concepts mean. There are several types of star accumulations in our Universe, such as spiral and spherical galaxies, star nebulas, etc. Our Sun is located in one of four sleeves of our spiral galaxy, in the «backyards» of this sleeve. Every spiral galaxy rotates around its nucleus while traveling on the star roads of our Universe. Seven primary matters form our Universe. The so-called, physically solid matter, which everybody is used to see as galaxies, nebulas, stars, planets, etc., appeared as a result of the merging of these primary matters in the areas of space, where necessary terms for this merging were observed. As proved by ‘scientists’,’physically’ solid matter makes only 10% of the whole matter of the Universe, and the rest (90%) is so-called ‘dark matter’. However, they do not specify what this “dark matter,” which can not be registered by any known modern scientific tool, is; we will forgive them this ‘insignificant misunderstanding’ and will move on to business.”

The galactic ‘nucleus’ that Levashov refers to is recognised to be a huge ‘black hole’ – itself a portal linking our universe to other universes in the ‘honeycomb’ plurality of multiple universes or ‘multiverse’. The types of ‘primary matter’ that Levashov refers to are what is now ‘scientifically’ termed ‘dark matter’. He refers also to the ‘psi-generators’ used in early civilisations, and those which he himself employs as medium of both healing and natural growth and regeneration. These he sees as “made of dark matter” and therefore essentially neither detectable by or requiring any technical or physical instrumentation, except as outward symbols for the subjective manipulation of the dark matter in its different forms.

The Awareness Principle understand the forms of ‘dark matter’ that Levashov refers to as specific potentialities and qualities of awareness - and their dark power or ‘energy’ as the capacity or power (Shakti) for the actualisation of these potentials – itself released by interaction with the invisible lightof awareness (Paramashiva). On the physical plane, this interaction plays itself out as an interaction between solar and earthly magnetism – what we call ‘magnetism’  being itself a bipolar spatial flow pattern of the all-pervasive ‘aether’ of pure awareness known in Sanskrit as Akash.

In modern translations the tantric term Shakti is almost invariably translated as ‘energy’. A closer translation would be ‘power’ or ‘power of action’ (Shak). Indeed this translation of Shakti accords with the root meaning of the term ‘energy’ itself – not as some ‘thing in itself’ but as pure action – the actualisation of those powers or potentialities of action latent in space itself as the ‘aether’ of pure awareness. What I call ‘The Awareness Principle’ is the metaphysical understanding that awareness is ultimate reality – that ultimately ‘awareness is everything’ and ‘everything is awareness’. The Awareness Principle stands in direct contrast to ‘The Energy Principle’ shared by modern science and ‘New Age’ pseudo-science alike – namely the principle that ‘energy is everything’ and ‘everything is energy’. As a ‘Theory Of Everything’ (TOE) ‘The Energy Principle’ is a highly questionable one, resting as it does on an unquestioned notion of energy as some ‘thing in itself’, a notion that is at the same time a distortion of its root meaning as that ‘formative action’ (energein) through which all forms are actualised in awareness. Pure awareness then, like the seeming emptiness of space itself, is no mere formless void but a plenum of formative potentials.  ‘Energy’ in the root sense is the actualisation of these potentials – the emergence of form from the apparent formlessness of space.

The Sanskrit term akash is translated both as ‘space’ and ‘aether’, sometimes spelled ‘ether’. It is understood in Indian thought as pervaded by countless basic units or “animations of consciousness” (Seth) which constitute the very ‘air’ or ‘breath’ of awareness called Prana – and the quintessence of air as such. The Sanskrit term prana is etymologically cognate with the Latin-derived terms ‘spirit’ and ‘spiral’ (from spirare – ‘to breathe’). It is also cognate with the root meanings of the Greek words for ‘spirit’ and ‘soul’ – pneuma (meaning air or wind) and ‘psyche’ (‘vital breath’). To be ‘spiritual’ in the root sense of this word therefore, is to be capable, quite literally, of a wholly different type of re-spiration or breathing – a type of whole body ‘transpiration’ of the clear, luminous expansiveness of the space around us – not through our lungs alone but through every pore of our felt body surface. It is the long-lost experience of breathing the clear, luminous ‘air’ or ‘aether’ of awareness itself that lies concealed behind both the otherwise wholly vague Western notion of ‘spirit’, as well as different classical and modern-scientific notions of a cosmic ‘aether’. Its secret is that invisible breath or ‘air’ of awareness (Prana) that pervades the entirety of space (Akash), both the space around us and the space which pervades and makes up by far the largest proportion of each and every atom of ‘matter’. This space vibrates with spanda – the fundamental tensing spanning the realm of the potential and the actual, together with the vibration of the actual within the potential and of the potential within the actual. Spanda is also what resounds with the inner sound ‘OM’. Hence also the association in Indian thought of the Akash with the element of sound or vibration. The double meaning of the Sanskrit Akash as both ‘space’ and ‘aether’ goes together with the Greek meaning of the word aether itself – as that ‘upper’, less gaseous, purer and thus morespacious air of the sort we breathe at Himalayan mountain summits – or in Nothern polar regions such as the Arctic.  For aether was the ‘higher air’ breathed by the gods themselves in their uppermost abode – whether we call this Olympus, Hyperborea, Thule or Asgard.

Dark Forces?

“I’m not the Devil. I’m much, much older. I watched the beginning and I will see the end. I am the dark behind all the stars. I am the dark inside you all.”

…from the screenplay of the film ‘Event Horizon’

The Greek word Khaos refers to a gaping dark void or chasm. It is cognate with Sanskrit Kha andAkash – referring to space itself, understood as the womb of all things – including the gods. In contrast, the Sanskrit kala means ‘time’ As such it is connected with the name of the great black Indian mother goddess Kali (kal – black / kala – time). Metaphysically, she can be understood as both, the ultimate temporal circumference or ‘event horizon’ of this spatial womb (kala – time) and as an ultimate ‘black hole’ or ‘singularity’ at its heart. Put in other terms, the realm of pure potentiality symbolised by Kali is a realm of unbounded inwardness – an inwardness that cannot be perceived by looking out from some localised centre of consciousness in space, but only by looking inwards from an infinite periphery, circumference or ‘horizon’ of awareness.

If the actual physical universe is a realm of spatial and material extensionality, then the primordial realm of potentiality is a non-extensional realm – a realm of pure intensionality. As such, it is made up not of extensional material bodies in space-time but of pure intensities of awareness in an unbounded ‘time-space’. The massive density of intensities that constitute this realm of unbounded inwardness – deified as Kali – find manifestation only through gravitational densities of matter so great, that they have collapsed themselves into ‘black holes’ with a so-called ‘singularity’ at their core. In physical-scientific terms, a black hole is ‘black’ because at its ‘event horizon’ the gravitational pull of the ‘singularity’ is so great as to bend space itself around itself – allowing no light-information to escape  – only sound in the form of a fundamental tone (the primordial sound of silence known as the Omkara or ‘OM’ sound).

From a metaphysical perspective however, the apparent outer surface of every visible body in space is also an event horizon. For like the visible outer surface of the human body, every ‘physical’ body conceals an unbounded and invisible psychical interiority along with invisible psychical ‘events’. These can never be perceived from without, no matter to what degree the physical interiority of the body is opened up and physiologically examined. For, what we perceive as fleshly bodies, cells and organs too are but outer surface appearances or ‘event horizons’ concealing an invisible psychicalinteriority and invisible psychical events.

When the crew on board the fictional movie spaceship  called ‘Event Horizon’ start ‘hallucinating’ terrifying images of bodies invisible to others (and later perceive each other’s bodies in horrific form) is this because they have entered ‘hell’ in the Christian sense or because, under the influence of the ship’s black hole, they have also unconsciously penetrated the event horizon of their own and each other’s bodies – perceiving events and images within their otherwise invisible psychical interiority in outward bodily form? The root meaning of ‘hallucinate’ is ‘to wander’. The crew’s ‘hallucinations’ are an expression of their wandering into and within the realm of ultimate inwardness associated with the primordial “agony” of creation as described in ‘The SETH Material’ by Jane Roberts – in which what Seth calls ‘All That Is’ (in essence the ultimate and universal awareness) sought a way to release all the potential consciousnesses embraced but still contained in His nebulous, dreamlike awareness into that state of autonomous actuality or being into which they “clamoured to be released”.   

In reality then, every outwardly perceived body is an Event Horizon. And at the core of all material bodies is a ‘black hole’ or “Singularity of Awareness”. This singularity at the core of all material bodies is both a central point (Sanskrit Bindu) and a central tone linking that unit of extensional matter to all other bodies through that dark, intensional realm of unbounded inwardness and inexhaustible potentiality that “flows through and forms all matter”.

This flow is that of the higher air or aether of awareness itself in its twin but inseparable aspects of light and darkness. Darkness is the in-flow of an invisible and wholly translucent ‘light’ of awareness from the cosmic circumference towards a centre just as light is the outward radiance of that invisible light of awareness from a centre. If we learn to sense the entirety of ‘empty’ cosmic space above and surrounding the entire surface of our heads and upper bodies, we can come to to experience ourselves breathing in its innate aetheric vitality of that invisible light and feel its countless centres – each of which have the character of miniature, light-emitting ‘white holes’ – revitalising the inner spaces within every atom, cell and molecule of our body.

If, on the other hand, we sense our lower bodies and let awareness flow inwards from our abdominal surface towards the singularity of awareness at its centre – or a few inches below and behind our navel – we will experience that inner space of our abdomen or hara (Japanese) as filled with inner darkness or blackness. Each out-breath can then be experienced as both an inward and downward flow of a ‘dark light’ of awareness – one that not only rays inwards from the abdomen or toward itshara centre or tanden but also flows downwards from our lower body and abdominal centre to yet lower centres. This dark inward and downward flow of awareness ultimately reaches and roots down below the very ground beneath our feet and  towards the fiery core of the earth itself. Here we contact the ‘dark force’ known in occult literature as Vril or Kundalini – the fire of awareness that then rises from that molten and fiery core – whose spinning is known to be responsible for the earth’s magnetic field.

The felt surface of our bodies then, both unites and distinguishes two spaces or fields of awareness – one extending outward and upward to a heavenly cosmic circumference, the other downward and inward towards a bodily and earthly centre or ‘singularity’ of awareness. The relationship between these two different flows of awareness is essentially a relation between the invisible space or light of awareness in its dual character – as both light and darkness. It also finds expression as the relation between polar or axial magnetism on the one hand and ‘spherical’ magnetism or ‘magnetospheres’ on the other. Thus, like the earth itself, the body has both axial magnetic poles (North and South)  and a ‘magnetosphere’ – the outer surface or ‘event horizon’ surrounding the black hole at its gravitational centre and the fiery core into which it can lead – demonised as the ‘underworld’ or ‘hell’ in both religious mythology and science fiction. The word ‘hell’ however derives from the German Halle (hall) and the verb hallen – to echo or resound, as the  Omkara does from within the event horizon of a black hole.  Polar axial and vertical dimensions of light and darkness, space and gravity, electricity and magnetism are all expressions of axial and vertical flows of awareness – corresponding to the Shivalingam and the vertical axis of kundalini within our body of awareness.  On the other hand, spherical dimensions of light and darkness, space and gravity, electricity and magnetism – all express spherical boundaries, spaces and centres of awareness.

Beyond space, time and ‘space-time’

Time too has a spatial dimension – including a spherical one and not just a linear one. Like a sphere, time (Seth) has an outside and an inside. Behind and beyond ‘space’ ‘time’ and ‘space-time’ as physicists conceive it is a “spacious present” (Seth).  This is ‘space-time’ understood and experienced as a spherical time-space of awareness embracing and yet ‘outside’ all ‘space-time’ universes and embracing also all actual and potential pasts and futures – both of the cosmos and of human civilisation. The interweaving of the actual and potential in the realm of dreams and mythical possibilities – like the interweaving of dreams and mythologies that opens up new possibilities for humankind – are themselves nothing mythical but the ‘dreamtime’ and very loom or tantra of time-space. It finds expression today in the mythological history, credible actuality and futural possibility of the civilisation called ‘Eurasia’ – with both its multiple geographical centres and its single axial pole – pointing to the pole star and to the ‘black hole’ at the centre of our spinning galaxy or kolovrat.

Dream-Land

By a route obscure and lonely,
Haunted by ill angels only,
Where an Eidolon, named Night,
On a black throne reigns upright,
I have reached these lands but newly
From an ultimate dim Thule –
From a wild weird clime, that lieth, sublime,

Out of Space – out of Time.

Edgar Allen Poe 1844

3. Personal Postscript

I might not have come to write this piece were it not for the fact that, lying down on my mother’s sofa one afternoon in the late seventies or early eighties – and despite being wholly ignorant of what was then the still-undiscovered ARKAIM site -  I entered a hypnagogic state in which I experienced the strong but invisible presence of Rudolf and Marie Steiner beside me. Accompanying this, I had a most vivid and lucid dream of an isolated citadel of the future – from within which I found myself peering out at a vast steppe land, one which I knew from the Steiners to be somewhere in Russia – and the centre of a future civilization.

Links:

ARKAIM – ancient Russian city

Michael Kosok  The Singularity of Awareness

Peter Wilberg  THE AWARENESS PRINCIPLE

Peter Wilberg TANTRA REBORN – ON THE SENSUALITY AND SEXUALITY OF THE SOUL BODY

P.Wilberg  EVENT HORIZON – TERROR, TANTRA AND THE ULTIMATE METAPHYSICS OF AWARENESS

J. G. Bennett – THE HYPERBOREAN ORIGIN OF THE INDO-EUROPEAN CULTURE

Lokamanya Bâl Gangâdhar Tilak – THE ARCTIC HOME IN THE VEDAS

Levashov – THE UNTOLD HISTORY OF RUSSIA

INTERNATIONAL EURASIAN MOVEMENT

THE NATIONAL PEOPLES PARTY U.K.

INTERVIEW WITH ALEKSANDR DUGIN SaveFrom.net

EVENT HORIZON – the film

THE BOOK OF VELES


[1]A Volkhv is a cleric, the Supreme priest, and a keeper of ancient sacred texts.

[2] Da’Aryan and h’Aryan characters (letters) are two of four kinds of writing of the Great Race: da’Aryan Trags, h’Aryan Runes, Sviatorussians Images (bukvitca, runica, cherty and rezy) and Russenian Molvitca.

[3] Perun was the god-patron of all soldiers, the defender of the land and the clan of SviatoRuses (Russians, Byelorussians, Asts, Lits, Lats,  Latgalls, Zemgalls, Polans, Serbs, etc.)

[4] Venedas were inhabitants of the Great Venea where Clans and tribes of Venedas migrated. It corresponds to the territory of modern Western Europe.

[5] Antlania was an island in the Atlantic Ocean where Slavonic clan of Ants was lodged. Then their land began to be called as Ant-lan, i. e., the Land of Ants. Ancient Greeks named it Atlantis and its inhabitants – atlantes (modern Ukrainians; U-krai-ne means in Russian outskirts («krai») of the Land of Holy Race).

[6] The Night of Svarog, according to Slavonic tradition, is the name of a dark difficult time when our solar system passes through spaces of the Dark Worlds; or Kali-Uga in Aryan or Indian tradition.

dimanche, 17 février 2013

Interview of Dari Dugina

Interview of Dari Dugina :

“We Live In The Era Of The End”

 

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

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

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

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

What does the Fourth Political Theory mean to you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It shows that something begins to move…

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any closing thoughts you’d like to share?

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

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

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

http://openrevolt.info/2013/01/23/we-live-in-the-era-of-the-end-a-interview-with-dari-dougina/

vendredi, 15 février 2013

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

poutNikol.jpg

Chris Roman:

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

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

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

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

Aparte Unie ?

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

Presidentsverkiezingen: Van Boris Tadic naar Tomislav Nicolic

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tomislav Nicolic en zijn grote liefde Rusland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Servië lid van de Russische Federatie!

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

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

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

russSerb.jpg

De Russisch-Servische plannen: enorme Russische steun aan Servië

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolutie 1244 en Kosovo en Metohija

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russisch compromis met de Amerikanen ?

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

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

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

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

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

Montenegro

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

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

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

Besluit

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

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

De toekomst zal het aantonen.

Kris Roman

Voorzitter Euro-Rus

dimanche, 03 février 2013

Anatomie du durcissement russe

moscow-kremlin-wallpaper-1.jpg

Anatomie du durcissement russe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mercredi, 09 janvier 2013

Eurasia and Europe: Dialogue of “Big Spaces”

speranskaya_1320212648_27.jpg

Natella Speranskaya

Eurasia and Europe: Dialogue of “Big Spaces”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Strategic reorganization of Heartland.

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

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

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

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

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

4. The model of building relations with Europe.

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

5. The project "Great Eastern Europe."

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

6. Heartland and Western CIS countries.

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

7. Eurasian Middle East and the role of Turkey.

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

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

8. Axis "Moscow-Delhi."

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

9. Russian-Chinese relations.

Prof. Dugin focuses on two difficult issues such as:

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

- China's influence in Central Asia.

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

10. Russian - Japanese relations.

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

11. The geopolitics of the Arctic zone.

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

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

Natella Speranskaya

samedi, 05 janvier 2013

War of the Worlds

War of the Worlds

 

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

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

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


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


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

jeudi, 29 novembre 2012

L’ISLAMISMO CONTRO L’ISLAM?

L’ISLAMISMO CONTRO L’ISLAM?

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

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

L’ISLAMISMO CONTRO L’ISLAM?

Lo strumento fondamentalista

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

La “nobile tradizione salafita”

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

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

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

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

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

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

La setta wahhabita

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

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

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

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

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

I Fratelli Musulmani

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

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

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

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

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

NOTE:

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

2. Ibidem, p. 310.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

dimanche, 25 novembre 2012

Die Kurden – Volk ohne Staat

Kurden2.jpg

„Die Kurden – Volk ohne Staat“ von Gunther Deschner

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

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

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

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

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

Die Kurden sind eines der ältesten Kulturvölker der Erde

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

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

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

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

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

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

lundi, 05 novembre 2012

Horseback Riding and Bronze Age Pastoralism in the Eurasian Steppes

Horseback Riding and Bronze Age Pastoralism in the Eurasian Steppes