jeudi, 25 octobre 2012

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


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

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

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

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

* *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The writer is a professor of International Relations at Sargodha University

lundi, 15 octobre 2012

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pierre Dortiguier

samedi, 13 octobre 2012

Russland zwischen Souveränität und Abhängigkeit


Russland zwischen Souveränität und Abhängigkeit

Fjodor Lukjanow für RIA Novosti


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

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

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

Russland und der Rest der Welt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vernetzte Welt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selbstzerstörerende Welt

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

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

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

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

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

Souveränität über alles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


mardi, 09 octobre 2012

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

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

1 + 2


samedi, 06 octobre 2012

Salafismo e CIA: destabilizzare la Federazione Russa?


Salafismo e CIA: destabilizzare la Federazione Russa?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Traduzione di Alessandro Lattanzio - SitoAurora

vendredi, 05 octobre 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2012 Global Research

Traduzione di Alessandro Lattanzio - SitoAurora

mardi, 25 septembre 2012

Global Blitzkrieg: West's Terror Battalions Eye Russia Next

Global Blitzkrieg: West's Terror Battalions Eye Russia Next

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

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

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


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

US is Attempting to Undermine and Overrun the Russian Political Order

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

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

Corporate Media Laying Groundwork for Renewed Terrorism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

vendredi, 21 septembre 2012

An interview with Daniele Scalea

An interview with Daniele Scalea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




jeudi, 20 septembre 2012

Allemagne/Russie: alliance eurasiatique!




Allemagne/Russie: alliance eurasiatique!


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


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


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






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


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






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


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


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



Article paru sur le site:

URL:’alleanza-eurasiatica/16549/print/ - Mis en ligne le 26 juillet 2012.



(1)   Corriere della Sera, 24 avril 2012.

(2)   Il Tempo, 30 novembre 2009.

(3)   Ibid.

(4)   Frankfurter Allgemeiner Zeitung, 30 mars 1991.

(5)   Ibid.

(6)   Welt am Sonntag, 1 mars 1992.

(7)   Zbigniew Brzezinski, Le grand échiquier.

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

Unthinking Liberalism:
Alexander Dugin’s The Fourth Political Theory



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing:

URL to article:

mardi, 18 septembre 2012

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

Tiberio Graziani:

'US uses Europe as a bridge-head

to attack Eurasia'


mardi, 24 juillet 2012

L’itinéraire d’un géopolitologue allemand: Karl Haushofer


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

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

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

En mission au Japon

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

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

Début d’une carrière universitaire

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

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

Réflexions pendant la première guerre mondiale

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

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

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


Les résultats du Traité de Versailles

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

Redevenir un “sujet de l’histoire”

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

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

Une géopolitique révolutionnaire dans les années 20

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

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

Un bloc continental défensif

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

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


Sympathie pour la Chine mais soutien au Japon

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

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


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


Réflexions sur l’Inde

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

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

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

Robert Steuckers,
Forest-Flotzenberg, juin 2012.


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

samedi, 16 juin 2012

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

QUO VADIS, TURCHIA? di Aldo Braccio

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

TURCHIA E SIRIA di Aldo Braccio

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


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

“TRIPOLI, SUOL DEL DOLORE…” di Alessandra Colla

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


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


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


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


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

INTRIGO CONTRO LA SIRIA di Alessandro Lattanzio

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


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


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


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


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

LA PRIMAVERA EGIZIANA DEL 1919 di Lorenzo Salimbeni

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

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

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

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


INTERVISTA A FRANCO CARDINI a cura di Enrico Galoppini

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


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

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

mercredi, 13 juin 2012

Civilization as political concept

Civilization as political concept

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

Interviewed by the Global Revolutionary Alliance’s own Natella Speranskaja 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is something completely new that  will be created.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mardi, 12 juin 2012

Multipolarity as challenge

Multipolarity as challenge

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



vendredi, 20 avril 2012

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


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

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

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

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

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

dimanche, 08 avril 2012

Spengler profeta dell'Eurasia

Andrea VIRGA:

Spengler profeta dell'Eurasia


Questo breve articolo è recentemente uscito sul numero III (dedicato all'Eurasia) della rivista Nomos, alla cui redazione collaboro.
spengler.jpgNon ci si stancherà mai di raccomandare la lettura di Oswald Spengler (1880 – 1936), eclettico filosofo della storia tedesco e teorico del socialismo prussiano, le cui opere hanno riscosso successo e interesse negli ambiti più disparati, da Mussolini a Kissinger, dalla Germania di Weimar alla Russia contemporanea. Tra i vari motivi per cui risulta ancora oggi molto attuale, non possiamo non citare le sue ipotesi storiche riguardanti la Russia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[1] O. Spengler, Prussianesimo e socialismo, Ar, Padova 1994, p. 111 ssg.
[2] Id., Il tramonto dell’Occidente. Lineamenti di una morfologia della storia mondiale, Longanesi, Milano 2008, pp. 931 ssg.
[3] Ibid., p. 111.
[4] Id., Il doppio volto della Russia e il problema della Germania ad Est, in Forme della politica mondiale, Ar, Padova 1994, pp. 28 ssg.
[5] Id., Gli albori della storia mondiale, Ar, Padova 1996, 2 voll.
[6] Cfr. la conferenza Der Streitwagen und the Seine Bedeutung für den Gang der Weltgeschichte, 6 agosto 1934, Monaco; in Reden und Aufsätze, C. H. Beck, München 1937 [inedito in Italia].
[7] R. Steuckers, Atlantis, Kush, & Turan: Prehistoric Matrices of Ancient Civilizations in the Posthumous Work of Spengler, in Nouvelles de Synergies européennes, n° 21, 1996.
[8] J. von Leers, Contro Spengler, All’Insegna del Veltro, Parma 2011.
[9] O. Spengler, Anni della decisione, Ar, Padova 1994.
[10] Id., Prussianesimo e socialismo, cit.
[11] A. Moeller van den Bruck, Il Terzo Reich, Settimo Sigillo, Roma 2000.

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

lundi, 05 mars 2012

Eurazië, nieuwe zet van Moskou


Eurazië, nieuwe zet van Moskou

door Georges Spriet


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mercredi, 29 février 2012

Les ONG américaines se mêlent des projets nucléaires indiens

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

Les ONG américaines se mêlent des projets nucléaires indiens



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

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

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

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

dimanche, 12 février 2012

EURASIA - BRICS: i mattoni del nuovo ordine

BRICS: i mattoni del nuovo ordine

BRICS: i mattoni del nuovo ordine

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


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


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


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

samedi, 21 janvier 2012

L’aéronautique européenne met le cap sur la Sibérie

L’aéronautique européenne met le cap sur la Sibérie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Les Echos

mercredi, 18 janvier 2012

Welke bedoelingen heeft Poetin met de Euraziatische Unie?



Welke bedoelingen heeft

Poetin met de Euraziatische


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

Uit: Eurasisches Magazin 12-11 · 12.12.2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poetin wilde eigenlijk een vrijhandelszone van Brest tot Vladivostok

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

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

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

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

De Euraziatische Unie is geen nieuwe Sovjetunie

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

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

EM: Wat moeten we daaruit opmaken?

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

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

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


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

Interview: Hans Wagner


mercredi, 11 janvier 2012

Former Soviet States: Battleground For Global Domination


Former Soviet States: Battleground For Global Domination

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


The framework for the piece is contained in this paragraph:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Howard added:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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

vendredi, 23 décembre 2011



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

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

vendredi, 09 décembre 2011

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

„Wir können die Herausforderungen der Zukunft nur zusammen mit Russland meistern“
Alexander Rahr, Leiter des Berthold-Beitz-Zentrums in der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, über die Rolle Russlands in Europa, die Modernisierung des Landes und die „westliche Arroganz“.

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

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

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

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

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

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

„Die Deutschen sind das Lieblingsvolk der Russen“

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

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

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

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

Deutschland als wichtigster Rechtspartner

EM: Worum geht es beim deutsch-russischen Rechtsdialog? 

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

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

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

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

EM: Welche „kommenden Gefahren“ meinen Sie?

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

„Die grassierende Korruption ist Russlands größtes Übel“

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

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

„Auf Russland wird eingeprügelt, wo es nur geht“

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EM: Und was ist mit Gas und Öl?

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

EM: Was hat Russland von unserer Technologie?

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

„Russland hat keine Feinde, aber auch keine Verbündeten“

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

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

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

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

„Die Abhängigkeit Russlands vom Rohstoffhandel ist demütigend“

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Das Interview führte Hans Wagner