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

mardi, 25 novembre 2014

Eurasian consolidation and India's policy


Eurasian consolidation and India's policy

By Zorawar Daulet Singh

Ex: http://www;atimes.com

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.

Since English geographer and geopolitician Halford Mackinder's published a Russia containment strategy disguised as a grand theory in 1904, the Eurasian heartland has been perceived by the Anglo-American world as a threat to its global position.

Ironically, as Mackinder was writing his paper, the heartland power, czarist Russia, was in its death throes - Japan's 1904-1905 naval victories in the Pacific had removed all illusions about Russia's status as a first-rate power.

Yet, within three decades, a revolutionary and industrializing.

Russia was emerging as a potential superpower. Stalin's crushing, albeit costly, annihilation of Hitler's Third Reich established the Soviet Union as the second global pole. China's own revolution, inspired and financed by Stalin's Russia, produced the first major consolidation of the Eurasian heartland.

Led by America, the West initiated a sustained grand strategy of countering this new force in world politics. Nicholas Spykman offered a theoretical precursor to this strategy in his 1942 book, America's Strategy in World Politics, which argued for America to project its strategic influence on the "Rimland" regions around the Soviet periphery.

Middle powers like India located on the Eurasian Rimland, however, reacted differently and consciously chose an approach that sought to maintain friendly and constructive ties with both these formidable blocs.

Despite some material costs, the overall developmental and security advantages of such an independent approach has never been credibly challenged. Indeed, this notion of sustaining a balance between the Atlantic and Eurasian worlds became an ingrained feature of Indian thinking and foreign policy practice.

During the interlude between 1991 and the resurgence of the Eurasian powers in the last decade, any notion of a balance between the two worlds became irrelevant. But the dramatic revival of the Eurasian world, and, its ongoing second phase of consolidation since the 1940s and 1950s, has revived the logic of balance in global geopolitics.

How should India view the contemporary alignment of Russia and China?

First, US policies have played an important part in driving Russia away from the West. But China's new post-Dengist identity as a great power seeking to improve its own bargaining equation with the US is also a factor in Beijing's outreach to Moscow.

As Gilbert Rozman of Princeton University perceptively notes, "Moscow and Beijing have disagreements about the future order they envision for their regions. But they agree that the geopolitical order of the East should be in opposition to that of the West."

Unlike the US, India has absolutely no problem with a stronger Russia, and, a Moscow buttressing its Asian identity. A Moscow-Beijing alignment, however, poses some challenges - although not nearly as serious as this development is for America's global position.

What are the implications of this global triangular development for India?

A modicum of a balance of power is a positive development for the overall international system. The short history of unipolarity leaves no doubt about the adverse impact of an unrestrained superpower on the lesser powers. As Russian President Vladimir Putin recently remarked, "The very notion of 'national sovereignty' has become a relative value for most countries."

While India shares some values with the West, such as a commitment to democracy and a liberal vision of a rule-based system, it finds that many Western norms on global governance and managing international security often contradict that liberal vision.

A challenge to Western predominance, and, certainly against its most unilateralist impulses, is not unwelcomed by the Indian strategic elite.

At the regional level, the rise of China is producing a variety of challenges: some evident, others still in flux. For example, China's evolving role beyond its core focus on East Asia is bringing new forms of Sino-Indian strategic interactions, especially in states that overlap the peripheries of India and China. Just as India is discovering the logic of multipolarity, smaller states in Southeast and South Asia are also recognizing the virtues of multiple options to advance their developmental and security interests.

The foreign policies of Vietnam and Sri Lanka exemplify this. Both these states have lived under Chinese and Indian power for most of their existence and are seeking opportunities to make new friends.

In the Sri Lankan case, it is primarily Indian apathy and lack of statecraft that has enabled Colombo to acquire more than the usual maneuvering space. In Vietnam's case, it is the sheer consequence of China's growing power that is impelling Vietnam to pursue multiple strategic partnerships. Ironically, it is Moscow that has assumed the leading role in modernizing Vietnam's military capabilities. For both India and China, the challenge is to ensure that their smaller neighbors remain at the very least non-aligned and sensitive to their respective concerns. India needs to re-discover a rich tradition of statecraft that had got subsumed in domestic instability and parochialism in recent decades.

Globally, India is facing an interdependent world but with the Atlantic and Eurasian great powers intensifying their competition over many issues and regions. Dmitry Trenin argues that the "US-Russian crisis" will spill over into a struggle waged "in the realms of geoeconomics, information, culture, and cyberspace".

The US and China are also competing for the future of an East Asian order but the high economic interdependence between China and its neighbors, and, China and the US (two-way trade in 2013 was US$562 billion) has made the game assume a more complex shape. But with Moscow and Beijing coordinating and backing up each other's core interests, the US ability to divide the Eurasian world has become severely constrained.

While the instinct for a balanced posture comes naturally to Indian policymakers, the pursuit of India's own interests has invariably been a more challenging endeavor. Indeed, this was always the most powerful critique of non-alignment: India got the meta-vision right but struggled with the micromanagement of its own interests and role. Yet, rather than focus on defining Indian interests clearly and sensibly, the contemporary discourse around Indian foreign policy typically revolves around challenging the meta-vision - by posing absurd questions such as 'will India will swing west or east?' This is the wrong analytical level to advance a debate on India's foreign policy.

Only once Indian interests are defined can India pursue and defend these. On core frontier issues, India has recognized it needs to manage its disputes by itself. No great power can solve these questions for India. Fortunately, nuclear conditions have obviated several scenarios of conflict escalation on India's frontiers. As a territorial status quo power, India's future challenge is managing its stalemates with China and Pakistan, and, exercising political will if opportunities for genuine border settlements arise.

But on several other fronts, the opportunity for constructing issue-based partnerships, often with different great powers, is becoming logical. For example, on climate change, Suresh Prabhu, a newly inducted minister in the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has expressed a new realistic position where India cannot secure its interests by riding Chinese coat-tails, because the latter's capacity to assume responsibilities outpaces India's.

Prabhu remarked, "India and China must cooperate. But we must remember that India's interests are not the same as China's. …There is no way India could be asked to take the same kind of climate actions as China."

On developing a framework for cyber governance, India does not agree with the US position. In the July BRICS summit at Fortaleza, Modi noted, "BRICS countries, should take the lead in preserving cyberspace, as a global common good." On terrorism, beneath the veneer of a global consensus, India has found its partners have fleeting attention when it comes to operationalizing a shared revulsion for cross-border terrorism. On global finance, the gradual trend line towards a multiple reserve currency system with an internationalizing yuan offers benefits in terms of a less imbalanced and thus stable system, and, access to diverse forms of international capital.

On the maritime commons, India has common interests with big trading nations such as US and China, who all seek security of shipping lanes, even as India simultaneously seeks to shape the geopolitics on its own maritime frontiers, which are in proximity to international sea lines of communication.

On energy security, India seeks to leverage Western technological advantages when it comes to tapping non-conventional hydrocarbons but also has more durable interests with the energy rich powers such as Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia. On pursuing new lines of communication to Eurasia, India has a long-term common interest with Iran and Russia, the two leading powers with the keys to access that space.

Although the accompanying rhetoric is still measured by Cold War standards, world politics is at an inflexion point where the fierce competition between the Atlantic and Eurasian worlds could fuel more global instability. The competition is a manifestation of a post-unipolar power transition with the great powers disagreeing on both the path towards a new equilibrium or what should be the normative design of a future world order. As Putin remarked at the Valdai Forum in October, "The goal of reaching global equilibrium is turning into a fairly difficult puzzle, an equation with many unknowns."

India needs a more sophisticated outlook and domestic conversation on global and regional affairs, and, the skill and poise to work constructively with a variety of great powers who appear unlikely to get along with each other for the foreseeable future.

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing. Articles submitted for this section allow our readers to express their opinions and do not necessarily meet the same editorial standards of Asia Times Online's regular contributors.

Zorawar Daulet Singh is a research scholar at King's College London.

(Copyright 2014 Zorawar Daulet Singh)

Il nuovo ordine asiatico


Zheng He è un eunuco cinese, di religione musulmana che, circa 600 anni fa, venne messo a capo della flotta marittima cinese, dall'allora imperatore – della dinastia dei Ming – Zhu Di. Le sue imprese sono considerate mitiche (si dice che abbia addirittura scoperto l'Australia e la Nuova Zelanda) e rimandano ad una grandezza navale cinese che non venne mai più replicata.  

In uno dei suoi tanti recenti discorsi, il presidente della Repubblica popolare cinese Xi Jinping, lo ha ricordato, dando il via al lancio del «sogno dell’Asia e del Pacifico». Si tratta di un progetto che prevede investimenti, banche internazionali, infrastrutture per rafforzare la ben nota via della Seta e collegare via mare la Cina all'Asia e ai mercati medio orientali ed europei.

Si tratta di un balzo in avanti non da poco, una sorta di uscita allo scoperto da parte di un presidente che ha ormai collezionato internamente il sufficiente potere per riproporre all’esterno il desiderio di riportare la Cina dove è sempre stata, ovvero alla guida del continente asiatico. I piani di Pechino sono complessi e articolati e includono un accordo di libero scambio in Asia e Pacifico, una Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (Aiib) da 100 miliardi di dollari, con sede a Pechino e un «fondo per la Via della Seta» da 40 miliardi di dollari, annunciato proprio la settimana scorsa.

Secondo Xi Jinping, «la Cina potrebbe stimolare la crescita e migliorare le infrastrutture in tutta la regione per contribuire a realizzare un sogno dell’Asia e Pacifico: con l’aumento della nostra forza nazionale complessiva, ha detto, la Cina ha la capacità e la volontà di fornire un maggior numero di beni pubblici per la regione Asia-Pacifico e per il mondo intero». Per quanto riguarda la banca d'investimenti, il Financial Times - e con esso la comunità finanziaria internazionale - è apparso preoccupato.

«La Aiib e la banca dei Brics, che comprende Brasile, Russia, India, Sud Africa e Cina rappresentano la prima sfida istituzionale grave per l'ordine economico mondiale stabilito a Bretton Woods 70 anni fa, secondo Matthew Goodman, uno studioso del Centro di studi strategici e internazionali di Washington. Meno chiaro è quanto queste nuove istituzioni miglioranno la governance globale o aiuteranno davvero gli interessi dei paesi che li difendono».

Domanda legittima, se per questi Paesi fosse provata l'utilità derivata dalle istituzioni economiche mondiali occidentali, che con le proprie operazioni sono riuscite a mettere al tappeto gran parte del mondo. L’occasione migliore per il lancio di questa nuova, ennesima, svolta storica è l'Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) – il meeting dei 21 paesi dell'area -che si è svolto a Pechino. Xi gioca in casa e non potrebbe avere terreno più favorevole.

A Pechino è arrivato anche Obama, un presidente indebolito (e definito «insipido» dalla stampa locale) dalle elezioni di metà mandato e dal nuovo ginepraio iracheno e più in generale preda di un mondo multipolare, caratterizzato dalle varie spinte di potenze regionali che ormai sfidano apertamente lo status quo, ridisegnando una geografia considerata «colonialista», come nel caso del Califfato tra Iraq e Siria o riproponendo antichi fasti, suffragati dalla nuova forza economica, come nel caso di Pechino. Il mondo è cambiato e l'Asia costituisce la cartina di tornasole economica di questo spostamento del capitale e della sua guida.

«Spetta al popolo dell'Asia gestire gli affari dell'Asia, risolvere i problemi dell'Asia e difendere la sicurezza in Asia», ha detto Xi Jinping, invitando i paesi asiatici a «far avanzare il processo di sviluppo comune e l'integrazione regionale». Mai come negli ultimi anni la Cina ha avuto un campo così vasto davanti a sé: attivare investimenti e fondi per Pechino è la soluzione migliore per rispondere ai dubbi che la debolezza americana sta facendo serpeggiare tra i suoi alleati nella regione, in bilico tra la resistenza ad un'alleanza anti cinese o l'abbandono ai – tanti – soldi che Pechino mette sul piatto.

Washington è riuscita, per ora, a bloccare l'idea di un libero scambio asiatico a matrice cinese, per spingere sul proprio accordo, che esclude la Cina, ma la centralità cinese nella regione sembra ormai inarrestabile e non nasce certo in questi giorni. A Washington c'è già chi parla di un nuovo piano Marshall asiatico, mentre alcuni media occidentali – il Wall Street Journal ad esempio – ricordano i fasti imperiali cinesi e il sistema dei tributi: qualcosa che forse appare più vicino alle intenzioni di Pechino.

Xi Jinping ha infatti proposto la cosiddetta «Cintura economica della Via della Seta» già settimane fa, durante un viaggio in Asia centrale. Si tratta di un corridoio che collega l'Oceano Pacifico al Mar Baltico e che unisce Asia orientale, Asia meridionale e il Medio Oriente per servire un mercato combinato di circa tre miliardi di persone. In Kazhakistan ha stretto un accordo per 30 miliardi di dollari per petrolio e gas e ha fornito un prestito di 3 miliardi di dollari per infrastrutture in Kirghizistan. Una manovra già vista in Africa: prestiti per infrastrutture e servizi, in cambio di risorse.

«Durante il recente viaggio in Indonesia - ha scritto il Wall Street Journal - ha proposto un altro pilastro, un corridoio commerciale marittimo che ha chiamato la Via della Seta Marittima del 21° secolo. Esso comporta la costruzione o l'espansione di porti e aree industriali in tutto il Sud-Est asiatico e in luoghi come lo Sri Lanka, il Kenya e la Grecia, con l'obiettivo di incrementare il commercio bilaterale con il sud-est asiatico a mille miliardi di dollari entro il 2020, più del doppio del livello dello scorso anno».

Il Fondo fornirà sostegno finanziario ai paesi asiatici che mirano a migliorare la connettività, ha detto Xi. «Seduta su una grande riserva di valuta estera, la Cina ha la capacità e dovrebbe assumersi maggiori responsabilità per lo sviluppo comune della regione», ha specificato al Global Times Zhang Baotong, un ricercatore dell'università dello Shaanxi, la provincia nord-occidentale cinese, già punto di partenza dell'antica Via della Seta.

La stampa locale non ha dubbi sul cambiamento dell'equilibrio asiatico, rimarcando il consueto carattere «pacifico» dell'ascesa cinese.

«Gli Usa vogliono sempre guidare il mondo, ma non ne hanno la forza. Non c'è stata alcuna egemonia globale in grado di spazzare via la diversità nel mondo e gli Stati Uniti non fanno eccezione. Se uno dei due paesi tra Cina e Stati Uniti non tiene conto degli interessi degli altri per cercare il proprio interesse, non ci sarà alcun successo nella regione. Quella di una posizione dominante è forse un’idea obsoleta e la lotta per il dominio non beneficerà nessuno dei due paesi».

Simone Pieranni

Simone Pieranni, genovese, laureato in Scienze Politiche, in Cina dal 2006. Nel 2009 ha fondato, con la giornalista colombiana Natalia Tobon, China Files agenzia editoriale specializzata in reportage dall'Asia in italiano e spagnolo. Attualmente, tra Roma e Pechino, lavora alla sezione Esteri del Manifesto.

lundi, 24 novembre 2014

Au coeur du nationalisme ukrainien

Jean-Luc Schaffhauser :

Au cœur du conflit ukrainien



A Permanent Infrastructure for Permanent War


A Permanent Infrastructure for Permanent War
Ex: http://www.tomdispatch.com

In a September address to the United Nations General Assembly, President Barack Obama spoke forcefully about the “cycle of conflict” in the Middle East, about “violence within Muslim communities that has become the source of so much human misery.” The president was adamant: “It is time to acknowledge the destruction wrought by proxy wars and terror campaigns between Sunni and Shia across the Middle East.” Then with hardly a pause, he went on to promote his own proxy wars (including the backing of Syrian rebels and Iraqi forces against the Islamic State), as though Washington’s military escapades in the region hadn’t stoked sectarian tensions and been high-performance engines for “human misery.”

Not surprisingly, the president left a lot out of his regional wrap-up. On the subject of proxies, Iraqi troops and small numbers of Syrian rebels have hardly been alone in receiving American military support. Yet few in our world have paid much attention to everything Washington has done to keep the region awash in weaponry.

Since mid-year, for example, the State Department and the Pentagon have helped pave the way for the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to buy hundreds of millions of dollars worth of High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) launchers and associated equipment and to spend billions more on Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles; for Lebanon to purchase nearly $200 million in Huey helicopters and supporting gear; for Turkey to buy hundreds of millions of dollars of AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM (Air-to-Air) missiles; and for Israel to stock up on half a billion dollars worth of AIM-9X Sidewinder (air-to-air) missiles; not to mention other deals to aid the militaries of Egypt, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.

For all the news coverage of the Middle East, you rarely see significant journalistic attention given to any of this or to agreements like the almost $70 million contract, signed in September, that will send Hellfire missiles to Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, or the $48 million Navy deal inked that same month for construction projects in Bahrain and the UAE.

The latter agreement sheds light on another shadowy, little-mentioned, but critically important subject that’s absent from Obama’s scolding speeches and just about all news coverage here: American bases. Even if you take into account the abandonment of its outposts in Iraq -- which hosted 505 U.S. bases at the height of America’s last war there -- and the marked downsizing of its presence in Afghanistan -- which once had at least 800 bases (depending on how you count them) -- the U.S. continues to garrison the Greater Middle East in a major way.  As TomDispatch regular David Vine, author of the much-needed, forthcoming book Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Overseas Harm America and the World, points out in his latest article, the region is still dotted with U.S. bases, large and small, in a historically unprecedented way, the result of a 35-year-long strategy that has been, he writes, “one of the great disasters in the history of American foreign policy.” That’s saying a lot for a nation that’s experienced no shortage of foreign policy debacles in its history, but it’s awfully difficult to argue with all the dictators, death, and devastation that have flowed from America’s Middle Eastern machinations. Nick Turse

The Bases of War in the Middle East 
From Carter to the Islamic State, 35 Years of Building Bases and Sowing Disaster 

By David Vine

With the launch of a new U.S.-led war in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State (IS), the United States has engaged in aggressive military action in at least 13 countries in the Greater Middle East since 1980. In that time, every American president has invaded, occupied, bombed, or gone to war in at least one country in the region. The total number of invasions, occupations, bombing operations, drone assassination campaigns, and cruise missile attacks easily runs into the dozens.

As in prior military operations in the Greater Middle East, U.S. forces fighting IS have been aided by access to and the use of an unprecedented collection of military bases. They occupy a region sitting atop the world’s largest concentration of oil and natural gas reserves and has long been considered the most geopolitically important place on the planet. Indeed, since 1980, the U.S. military has gradually garrisoned the Greater Middle East in a fashion only rivaled by the Cold War garrisoning of Western Europe or, in terms of concentration, by the bases built to wage past wars in Korea and Vietnam.

In the Persian Gulf alone, the U.S. has major bases in every country save Iran. There is an increasingly important, increasingly large base in Djibouti, just miles across the Red Sea from the Arabian Peninsula. There are bases in Pakistan on one end of the region and in the Balkans on the other, as well as on the strategically located Indian Ocean islands of Diego Garcia and the Seychelles. In Afghanistan and Iraq, there were once as many as 800 and 505 bases, respectively. Recently, the Obama administration inked an agreement with new Afghan President Ashraf Ghani to maintain around 10,000 troops and at least nine major bases in his country beyond the official end of combat operations later this year. U.S. forces, which never fully departed Iraq after 2011, are now returning to a growing number of bases there in ever larger numbers.

In short, there is almost no way to overemphasize how thoroughly the U.S. military now covers the region with bases and troops. This infrastructure of war has been in place for so long and is so taken for granted that Americans rarely think about it and journalists almost never report on the subject. Members of Congress spend billions of dollars on base construction and maintenance every year in the region, but ask few questions about where the money is going, why there are so many bases, and what role they really serve. By one estimate, the United States has spent $10 trillion protecting Persian Gulf oil supplies over the past four decades.

Approaching its 35th anniversary, the strategy of maintaining such a structure of garrisons, troops, planes, and ships in the Middle East has been one of the great disasters in the history of American foreign policy. The rapid disappearance of debate about our newest, possibly illegal war should remind us of just how easy this huge infrastructure of bases has made it for anyone in the Oval Office to launch a war that seems guaranteed, like its predecessors, to set off new cycles of blowback and yet more war.


CJTF J1 Personnel Djibouti, Africa.jpg


On their own, the existence of these bases has helped generate radicalism and anti-American sentiment. As was famously the case with Osama bin Laden and U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, bases have fueled militancy, as well as attacks on the United States and its citizens. They have cost taxpayers billions of dollars, even though they are not, in fact, necessary to ensure the free flow of oil globally. They have diverted tax dollars from the possible development of alternative energy sources and meeting other critical domestic needs. And they have supported dictators and repressive, undemocratic regimes, helping to block the spread of democracy in a region long controlled by colonial rulers and autocrats.

After 35 years of base-building in the region, it’s long past time to look carefully at the effects Washington’s garrisoning of the Greater Middle East has had on the region, the U.S., and the world.

“Vast Oil Reserves”

While the Middle Eastern base buildup began in earnest in 1980, Washington had long attempted to use military force to control this swath of resource-rich Eurasia and, with it, the global economy. Since World War II, as the late Chalmers Johnson, an expert on U.S. basing strategy, explained back in 2004, “the United States has been inexorably acquiring permanent military enclaves whose sole purpose appears to be the domination of one of the most strategically important areas of the world.”

In 1945, after Germany’s defeat, the secretaries of War, State, and the Navy tellingly pushed for the completion of a partially built base in Dharan, Saudi Arabia, despite the military’s determination that it was unnecessary for the war against Japan. “Immediate construction of this [air] field,” they argued, “would be a strong showing of American interest in Saudi Arabia and thus tend to strengthen the political integrity of that country where vast oil reserves now are in American hands.”

By 1949, the Pentagon had established a small, permanent Middle East naval force (MIDEASTFOR) in Bahrain. In the early 1960s, President John F. Kennedy’s administration began the first buildup of naval forces in the Indian Ocean just off the Persian Gulf. Within a decade, the Navy had created the foundations for what would become the first major U.S. base in the region -- on the British-controlled island of Diego Garcia.

In these early Cold War years, though, Washington generally sought to increase its influence in the Middle East by backing and arming regional powers like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Iran under the Shah, and Israel. However, within months of the Soviet Union’s 1979 invasion of Afghanistan and Iran’s 1979 revolution overthrowing the Shah, this relatively hands-off approach was no more.

Base Buildup

In January 1980, President Jimmy Carter announced a fateful transformation of U.S. policy. It would become known as the Carter Doctrine. In his State of the Union address, he warned of the potential loss of a region “containing more than two-thirds of the world’s exportable oil” and “now threatened by Soviet troops” in Afghanistan who posed “a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil.”

Carter warned that “an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America.” And he added pointedly, “Such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”

With these words, Carter launched one of the greatest base construction efforts in history. He and his successor Ronald Reagan presided over the expansion of bases in Egypt, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and other countries in the region to host a “Rapid Deployment Force,” which was to stand permanent guard over Middle Eastern petroleum supplies. The air and naval base on Diego Garcia, in particular, was expanded at a quicker rate than any base since the war in Vietnam. By 1986, more than $500 million had been invested. Before long, the total ran into the billions.

Soon enough, that Rapid Deployment Force grew into the U.S. Central Command, which has now overseen three wars in Iraq (1991-2003, 2003-2011, 2014-); the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan (2001-); intervention in Lebanon (1982-1984); a series of smaller-scale attacks on Libya (1981, 1986, 1989, 2011); Afghanistan (1998) and Sudan (1998); and the "tanker war" with Iran (1987-1988), which led to the accidental downing of an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290 passengers. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan during the 1980s, the CIA helped fund and orchestrate a major covert war against the Soviet Union by backing Osama Bin Laden and other extremist mujahidin. The command has also played a role in the drone war in Yemen (2002-) and both overt and covert warfare in Somalia (1992-1994, 2001-). 




During and after the first Gulf War of 1991, the Pentagon dramatically expanded its presence in the region. Hundreds of thousands of troops were deployed to Saudi Arabia in preparation for the war against Iraqi autocrat and former ally Saddam Hussein. In that war’s aftermath, thousands of troops and a significantly expanded base infrastructure were left in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Elsewhere in the Gulf, the military expanded its naval presence at a former British base in Bahrain, housing its Fifth Fleet there. Major air power installations were built in Qatar, and U.S. operations were expanded in Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman.

The invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and of Iraq in 2003, and the subsequent occupations of both countries, led to a more dramatic expansion of bases in the region. By the height of the wars, there were well over 1,000 U.S. checkpoints, outposts, and major bases in the two countries alone. The military also built new bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan (since closed), explored the possibility of doing so in Tajikistan and Kazakhstan, and, at the very least, continues to use several Central Asian countries as logistical pipelines to supply troops in Afghanistan and orchestrate the current partial withdrawal.

While the Obama administration failed to keep 58 “enduring” bases in Iraq after the 2011 U.S. withdrawal, it has signed an agreement with Afghanistan permitting U.S. troops to stay in the country until 2024 and maintain access to Bagram Air Base and at least eight more major installations.

An Infrastructure for War

Even without a large permanent infrastructure of bases in Iraq, the U.S. military has had plenty of options when it comes to waging its new war against IS. In that country alone, a significant U.S. presence remained after the 2011 withdrawal in the form of base-like State Department installations, as well as the largest embassy on the planet in Baghdad, and a large contingent of private military contractors. Since the start of the new war, at least 1,600 troops have returned and are operating from a Joint Operations Center in Baghdad and a base in Iraqi Kurdistan’s capital, Erbil. Last week, the White House announced that it would request $5.6 billion from Congress to send an additional 1,500 advisers and other personnel to at least two new bases in Baghdad and Anbar Province. Special operations and other forces are almost certainly operating from yet more undisclosed locations.

At least as important are major installations like the Combined Air Operations Center at Qatar’s al-Udeid Air Base. Before 2003, the Central Command’s air operations center for the entire Middle East was in Saudi Arabia. That year, the Pentagon moved the center to Qatar and officially withdrew combat forces from Saudi Arabia. That was in response to the 1996 bombing of the military’s Khobar Towers complex in the kingdom, other al-Qaeda attacks in the region, and mounting anger exploited by al-Qaeda over the presence of non-Muslim troops in the Muslim holy land. Al-Udeid now hosts a 15,000-foot runway, large munitions stocks, and around 9,000 troops and contractors who are coordinating much of the new war in Iraq and Syria.

Kuwait has been an equally important hub for Washington’s operations since U.S. troops occupied the country during the first Gulf War. Kuwait served as the main staging area and logistical center for ground troops in the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. There are still an estimated 15,000 troops in Kuwait, and the U.S. military is reportedly bombing Islamic State positions using aircraft from Kuwait’s Ali al-Salem Air Base.

As a transparently promotional article in the Washington Post confirmed this week, al-Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates has launched more attack aircraft in the present bombing campaign than any other base in the region. That country hosts about 3,500 troops at al-Dhafra alone, as well as the Navy's busiest overseas port.  B-1, B-2, and B-52 long-range bombers stationed on Diego Garcia helped launch both Gulf Wars and the war in Afghanistan. That island base is likely playing a role in the new war as well. Near the Iraqi border, around 1,000 U.S. troops and F-16 fighter jets are operating from at least one Jordanian base. According to the Pentagon’s latest count, the U.S. military has 17 bases in Turkey. While the Turkish government has placed restrictions on their use, at the very least some are being used to launch surveillance drones over Syria and Iraq. Up to seven bases in Oman may also be in use.




Bahrain is now the headquarters for the Navy’s entire Middle Eastern operations, including the Fifth Fleet, generally assigned to ensure the free flow of oil and other resources though the Persian Gulf and surrounding waterways. There is always at least one aircraft carrier strike group -- effectively, a massive floating base -- in the Persian Gulf. At the moment, the U.S.S. Carl Vinson is stationed there, a critical launch pad for the air campaign against the Islamic State. Other naval vessels operating in the Gulf and the Red Sea have launched cruise missiles into Iraq and Syria. The Navy even has access to an “afloat forward-staging base” that serves as a “lilypad” base for helicopters and patrol craft in the region.

In Israel, there are as many as six secret U.S. bases that can be used to preposition weaponry and equipment for quick use anywhere in the area. There’s also a “de facto U.S. base” for the Navy’s Mediterranean fleet. And it’s suspected that there are two other secretive sites in use as well. In Egypt, U.S. troops have maintained at least two installations and occupied at least two bases on the Sinai Peninsula since 1982 as part of a Camp David Accords peacekeeping operation.

Elsewhere in the region, the military has established a collection of at least five drone bases in Pakistan; expanded a critical base in Djibouti at the strategic chokepoint between the Suez Canal and the Indian Ocean; created or gained access to bases in Ethiopia, Kenya, and the Seychelles; and set up new bases in Bulgaria and Romania to go with a Clinton administration-era base in Kosovo along the western edge of the gas-rich Black Sea.

Even in Saudi Arabia, despite the public withdrawal, a small U.S. military contingent has remained to train Saudi personnel and keep bases “warm” as potential backups for unexpected conflagrations in the region or, assumedly, in the kingdom itself. In recent years, the military has even established a secret drone base in the country, despite the blowback Washington has experienced from its previous Saudi basing ventures.

Dictators, Death, and Disaster

The ongoing U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, however modest, should remind us of the dangers of maintaining bases in the region. The garrisoning of the Muslim holy land was a major recruiting tool for al-Qaeda and part of Osama bin Laden’s professed motivation for the 9/11 attacks. (He called the presence of U.S. troops, “the greatest of these aggressions incurred by the Muslims since the death of the prophet.”) Indeed, U.S. bases and troops in the Middle East have been a “major catalyst for anti-Americanism and radicalization” since a suicide bombing killed 241 marines in Lebanon in 1983. Other attacks have come in Saudi Arabia in 1996, Yemen in 2000 against the U.S.S. Cole, and during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Research has shown a strong correlation between a U.S. basing presence and al-Qaeda recruitment.

Part of the anti-American anger has stemmed from the support U.S. bases offer to repressive, undemocratic regimes. Few of the countries in the Greater Middle East are fully democratic, and some are among the world’s worst human rights abusers. Most notably, the U.S. government has offered only tepid criticism of the Bahraini government as it has violently cracked down on pro-democracy protestors with the help of the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).




Beyond Bahrain, U.S. bases are found in a string of what the Economist Democracy Index calls “authoritarian regimes,” including Afghanistan, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Yemen. Maintaining bases in such countries props up autocrats and other repressive governments, makes the United States complicit in their crimes, and seriously undermines efforts to spread democracy and improve the wellbeing of people around the world.

Of course, using bases to launch wars and other kinds of interventions does much the same, generating anger, antagonism, and anti-American attacks. A recent U.N. report suggests that Washington’s air campaign against the Islamic State had led foreign militants to join the movement on “an unprecedented scale.”

And so the cycle of warfare that started in 1980 is likely to continue. “Even if U.S. and allied forces succeed in routing this militant group,” retired Army colonel and political scientist Andrew Bacevich writes of the Islamic State, “there is little reason to expect” a positive outcome in the region. As Bin Laden and the Afghan mujahidin morphed into al-Qaeda and the Taliban and as former Iraqi Baathists and al-Qaeda followers in Iraq morphed into IS, “there is,” as Bacevich says, “always another Islamic State waiting in the wings.”

The Carter Doctrine’s bases and military buildup strategy and its belief that “the skillful application of U.S. military might” can secure oil supplies and solve the region’s problems was, he adds, “flawed from the outset.” Rather than providing security, the infrastructure of bases in the Greater Middle East has made it ever easier to go to war far from home. It has enabled wars of choice and an interventionist foreign policy that has resulted in repeated disasters for the region, the United States, and the world. Since 2001 alone, U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Yemen have minimally caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and possibly more than one million deaths in Iraq alone.

The sad irony is that any legitimate desire to maintain the free flow of regional oil to the global economy could be sustained through other far less expensive and deadly means. Maintaining scores of bases costing billions of dollars a year is unnecessary to protect oil supplies and ensure regional peace -- especially in an era in which the United States gets only around 10% of its net oil and natural gas from the region. In addition to the direct damage our military spending has caused, it has diverted money and attention from developing the kinds of alternative energy sources that could free the United States and the world from a dependence on Middle Eastern oil -- and from the cycle of war that our military bases have fed.

David Vine, a TomDispatch regular, is associate professor of anthropology at American University in Washington, D.C. He is the author of Island of Shame: The Secret History of the U.S. Military Base on Diego Garcia. He has written for the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, and Mother Jones, among other publications. His new book, Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World, will appear in 2015 as part of the American Empire Project (Metropolitan Books). For more of his writing, visit www.davidvine.net.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Rebecca Solnit's Men Explain Things to Me, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

Copyright 2014 David Vine

Hungary’s Viktor Orban: Washington’s New Enemy Image


Hungary’s Viktor Orban: Washington’s New Enemy Image

Hungary and its populist nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orban have come into the cross-hairs of Washington’s political elites. His sin? Not buckling under to the often destructive diktats of the Brussels EU Commission; attempting to define a Hungarian national identity. But his cardinal sin is his deepening relationship with Russia and his defiance of Washington in signing an agreement with Gazprom for bringing the Russian South Stream gas pipeline into the EU via Hungary.

Orban has himself undergone a political journey since he was elected as Hungary’s second-youngest Prime Ministers in 1998. Back then he oversaw the entry of Hungary along with Poland and the Czech Republic into NATO over Russia’s protest, and into the EU. As Prime Minister during far more prosperous economic times in the EU, Orban cut taxes, abolished university tuition for qualified students, expanded maternity benefits, and attracted German industry with low-cost Hungarian labor. One of his American “advisers” then was James Denton, linked with the Color Revolution Washington NGO, Freedom House. Orban seemed the darling of Washington’s neo-cons. In 2001 he was given the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute’s Freedom Award.

But in 2010 after six years in the opposition, Orban returned, this time with a resounding majority for his Fidesz-Hungarian Civic Union Party, Fidesz for short. In fact Fidesz won a 68% supermajority in Parliament, giving it the necessary votes to alter the Constitution and pass new laws, which it did. Ironically, in a case of the pot calling the kettle black, the United States Obama Administration and the European Parliament for placing too much power in the hands of Fidesz. Orban was accused by Daniel Cohn-Bendit of the European Greens of making Hungary on the model of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. He was definitely not playing by the approved Brussels Rulebook for politically submissive EU politicians. Fidesz began to be demonized in EU media as the Hungarian version of United Russia and Orban as the Hungarian Putin. That was in 2012.

Now its getting alarming for the Atlanticists and their EU followers. Orban has defied EU demands to stop construction of Russia’s important South Stream gas pipeline.


Russia’s South Stream gas pipeline would guarantee EU gas together with German-Russian Nord Stream that could bypass the war in Ukraine something Washington bitterly opposes for obvious reasons

Last January Orban’s government announced a € 10 billion deal with the Russian state nuclear energy company to refurbish Hungary’s only nuclear power plant at Paks, originally built during the Soviet era with Russian technology.

That caused some attention in Washington. Similarly when Orban criticized the United States this past summer for failing to ultimately resolve the global financial crisis its banks and its lax regulation caused, and praised China, Turkey and Russia as better models. He declared in words not too different from what I have often used that Western democracies, “will probably be incapable of maintaining their global competitiveness in the upcoming decades and will instead be scaled down unless they are capable of changing themselves significantly.” In addition, Orban’s government managed to free Hungary from decades of devastating IMF bondage. In August 2013, the Hungarian Economic Ministry announced that it had, thanks to a “disciplined budget policy,” repaid the remaining €2.2 billion owed to the IMF. No more onerous IMF-forced state privatizations or conditionalities. The head of the Hungarian Central Bank then demanded the IMF close its offices in Budapest. In addition, echoing Iceland, the State Attorney General brought charges against the country’s three previous prime ministers because of the criminal amount of debt into which they plunged the nation. That’s a precedent that surely causes cold sweat in some capitals of the EU or Washington and Wall Street.

But the real alarm bells rang when Orban and his Fidesz party approved a go-ahead, together with neighboring Austria, of the South Stream Russian pipeline, ignoring EU claims it violated EU rules. Orben proclaimed at a meeting with Germany’s Horst Seehofer in Munich on November 6, “”Es lebe die österreichisch-ungarische Energiemonarchie” („The Austro-Hungarian Energy Monarchy Lives.“)

The US elites sounded the alarm immediately. The ultra-establishment New York Times ran a lead editorial, “Hungary’s Dangerous Slide.” They declared, “The government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary is sliding toward authoritarianism and defying the fundamental values of the European Union — and getting away with it.”

The Times revealed the real cause of Washington and Wall Street alarm: “Hungary’s most recent expression of contempt for the European Union is its passage of a law on Monday that clears the way for Russia’s South Stream natural gas pipeline to traverse Hungary. The new law is in clear violation of the European Parliament’s call in September for member states to cancel South Stream, and of the economic sanctions against Russia imposed by the European Union and the United States after Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Instead of issuing tepid expressions of concern over antidemocratic policies, the European Union should be moving to sanction Hungary. Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, should exercise his power to force Mr. Navracsics to resign.” Tibor Navracsics, has just been named the new European Commissioner of Education, Culture, Youth and Sport, a post in Brussels that has arguably little to do with gas pipelines.

Next we can expect the National Endowment for Democracy and the usual US Government-backed NGO’s to find an excuse to launch mass opposition protests against Fidesz and Orban for his unforgivable crime of trying to make Hungary’s energy independent of the US-created insanity in Ukraine.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
First appeared:

dimanche, 23 novembre 2014

Niet VS, maar Iran stopte ISIS in Irak

Edward Azadi:

Niet VS, maar Iran stopte ISIS in Irak

Iraanse troepen in Irak, terug van nooit echt weggeweest

Ex: http://www.doorbraak.be

Juni 2014: ISIS neemt Mosul in: de 2de grootste stad van Irak. Het Iraaks leger slaat op de vlucht, en laat veel van haar wapens achter. September 2014: In Parijs komen vertegenwoordigers uit meer dan 30 landen samen om een coalitie te smeden in de strijd tegen ISIS. Iran is niet uitgenodigd. 

Volgens Franse diplomaten is Iran niet welkom op uitdrukkelijke vraag van een aantal Arabische landen. Maar ook de VS zijn duidelijk: er kan geen sprake zijn van samenwerking met Iran. November 2014: Volgens de krant Washington Post schrijft President Obama een brief naar Ayatollah Khamenei, waarin hij de deur opent voor een militaire samenwerking nadat er een akkoord wordt bereikt over Iraans nucleaire programma. Iran bevestigd de ontvangst van de brief, het Witte Huis wil in een reactie enkel kwijt dat hun standpunt ongewijzigd is: de VS werken niet militair samen met Iran. Maar intussen stapelen de bewijzen zich op dat Iran wel degelijk militair actief is in Irak. En dat is geen nieuws. Iran heeft al jaren 'boots on the ground' in haar buurland.

Tussen september 1980 en augustus 1988, vochten Irak en Iran een bloedige oorlog uit. Saddam Hoessein veronderstelde dat na Iran militair verzwakt uit de Islamitische Revolutie gekomen was, en probeerde een deel van het land te annexeren. Maar hij misrekende zich. Iran vocht vurig terug. Saddam Hoessein had op papier een sterker leger, en hij had de steun van het Westen. Maar Ayatollah Khomeini had meer kanonnenvlees in de strijd te werpen. Het conflict zou eindigen op een 'Status quo ante bellum'. Een uitkomst waarvoor honderdduizenden doden vielen, waaronder 95 000 Iraanse kindsoldaten.

Net zoals Irak tijdens de oorlog de steun krijgt van de Iraanse Volksmoedjahedien, gaat ook Iran op zoek naar Iraakse bondgenoten. Iran richt verschillende Sjiitische milities op in Irak, waaronder de Badr Brigades. Iraakse Sjiieten vechten met Iraanse wapens, en onder bevel van Iraanse officieren, tegen Saddam Hoessein, en blijven dat ook doen na 1988. De opstand van 1991, de Koerdische burgeroorlog of de Amerikaanse inval in 2003: telkens er in Irak een gewapend conflict losbarst, zijn de Badr Brigades en andere Sjiitische milities erbij betrokken.

Na de omverwerping van het regime van Saddam Hoessein, vormt de Badr Brigade zich om tot de 'Badr Organisatie': een politieke beweging. Officieel leggen ze de wapens neer. Leden van de voormalige brigades, sluiten zich bij het Iraakse leger aan. Maar in werkelijkheid behoudt de Badr Organisatie een militaire vleugel. Sinds de opmars van ISIS, komen ze daar ook opnieuw openlijk voor uit. Hadi Al-Amiri, leider van de Badr Organisatie en minister van Transport in de Iraakse regering, vertelt trots in interviews met Westerse media hoe zijn Badr milities de opmars van ISIS hebben gestopt. Omwille van de militaire successen van Badr (of misschien omwille van de militaire catastrofes van het Iraakse leger) plaatste Eerste Minister Nouri al-Maliki alle Iraakse troepen in de provincie Diyala onder het commando van Al-Amiri. Het ziet er niet naar uit dat de huidige Eerste Minister Haider al-Abadi die beslissing zal terugdraaien. Ook hij heeft de steun van de Badr Organisatie hard nodig. En met de steun van Badr, komt de steun van Iran. In de woorden van Al-Amiri: 'Zonder de hulp van Iran, was ISIS nu al in Bagdad'.

Maar Iran is ook rechtstreeks actief in buurland Irak. Qasem Soleimani stond tot augustus 2014 aan het hoofd van de Quds Eenheid: een speciale eenheid van de Iraanse Revolutionaire Garde. Hij was eerder al actief in Libanon en Syrië, en staat erom bekend de publiciteit te schuwen. Maar sinds augustus duikt hij geregeld op in foto's, genomen in Irak, en gepubliceerd in Iraanse media. De boodschap is duidelijk: de Quds Eenheid is in Irak, en Iran wil dat de wereld dat weet. De Quds trainen Iraakse soldaten, Sjiitische milities en Koerdische Peshmerga. Ze voorzien hen van wapens en munitie, en zouden ook deelnemen aan gevechten. Bronnen binnen de Iraakse regering bevestigden aan de BBC dat het niet zozeer de luchtbombardementen zijn die de ISIS opmars hebben gestopt, maar wel het snelle optreden van Iran.

Ook ISIS zelf bevestigt de aanwezigheid van Iran. De organisatie verspreidt foto's van een neergehaalde Iraanse verkennings-drone. En terwijl de VS officieel een samenwerking met Iran blijven uitsluiten, laat Australië weten dat ze 'gezien de aard van de dreiging', geen graten zien in een samenwerking met de Islamitische Republiek. Volgens het Australische ministerie van defensie is het algemeen geweten dat Irak de hulp gevraagd heeft van Iran in de strijd tegen ISIS. De Australische houding is niet onbelangrijk, aangezien het land met 200 speciale eenheden deelneemt aan de internationale coalitie tegen ISIS.

Maandag 24 november verloopt de deadline om tot een akkoord te komen in de onderhandelingen rond het Iraanse nucleaire programma. De VS lijken elke mogelijke samenwerking met Iran in de strijd tegen ISIS te laten afhangen van het bereiken van een akkoord. Maar intussen is de realiteit dat Iran al volop militair actief is in Irak. En eigenlijk is dat sinds de Iraans-Iraakse oorlog nooit anders geweest. Als het Westen iets wil bereiken in Irak, dan zal het met de factor Iran rekening moeten houden. Met of zonder nucleair akkoord.

Foto: Qasem Soleimani poseert met Peshmerga in Irak. Bron: tadbirkhabar.com

Partenariat transpacifique: la nouvelle ruse de Washington


Partenariat transpacifique: la nouvelle ruse de Washington

Auteur : Daniel Zoubov
Ex: http://zejournal.mobi

Le partenariat transpacifique, ou TPP, est un ensemble de nouvelles règles économiques qui vont s'appliquer à 800 millions de personnes – les citoyens américains, mexicains, canadiens et japonais si Tokyo rejoignait les négociations – et encore 200 millions d'habitants de la région Asie-Pacifique.

Pour reprendre les propos de l'ex-premier ministre malaisien Mahathir Mohamad, "le partenariat transpacifique n'est qu'une ruse des USA pour faire face à une probable continuation de la croissance économique chinoise, en réunissant dans la même poche tous les pays de la région Asie-Pacifique".

Une partie essentielle de l'accord est gardée secrète, à l'abri du regard de ceux qui seront justement soumis à ses dispositions. Cependant, certains termes ont fuité dans la presse et permettent de comprendre les intentions des États qui ont rédigé ce document, notamment sur la protection de l'environnement et de la propriété intellectuelle.

Dans la section "Mécanismes volontaires d'amélioration de la protection de l'environnement", les parties s'engagent à reconnaître que les "mécanismes souples construits sur une base de volontariat, comme un audit volontaire et la publication de ses résultats, les stimulations de marché, l'échange volontaire d'information et d'expérience et le partenariat public-privé peuvent contribuer à la création et au maintien d'un niveau élevé de protection de l'environnement et compléter les mesures nationales de réglementation".

Comprendre: une reddition totale face aux corporations énergétiques, qui risque d'entraîner des victimes humaines et des catastrophes écologiques d'envergure, comme les Américains et les Australiens ont pu s'en convaincre à leur dépens.

Le gouverneur de Caroline du Nord Pat McCrory, qui travaillait auparavant chez Duke Energy, appelait activement à renoncer au rôle régulateur de l’État dans la protection de l'environnement et à octroyer à la compagnie un droit d'"autorégulation". En février 2014, Duke Energy a été responsable du déversement de cendres de charbon et des égouts dans la rivière Dan, empoisonnant cette source d'eau pour des milliers d'habitants de l’État.

Sans entrer dans les détails des autres termes de cet accord, on comprend facilement que les auteurs du document ont été guidés par les intérêts des compagnies énergétiques. Le texte indique également que les gouvernements doivent encourager ces compagnies à promouvoir leurs produits en partant de "l'authenticité, de la véracité et en tenant compte des informations scientifiques et techniques". Les autorités américaines et canadiennes prônent aujourd'hui la production d'huile de schiste. La question est de savoir si ses consommateurs connaîtront la vérité sur la nuisance de ce procédé pour l'environnement. Ou si les gouvernements d'autres pays se soumettront également aux compagnies énergétiques en dissimulant la réalité.

Le sénateur républicain de l’État d'Oklahoma, James Inhofe, qui présidera la commission pour l'environnement et les travaux publics, insiste sur le fait que le réchauffement climatique est une "grandiose mystification". Inutile de dire que sa campagne électorale a été généreusement financée par l'oligarchie pétrolière et gazière, qui tirera beaucoup de profit du futur poste de son protégé. Le même profit se cache derrière les exigences américaines - que la "réglementation volontaire" soit la norme pour l'exploration et l'exploitation des sources d'énergie dans les pays du TPP.

La subordination de la protection de la santé et de l'environnement aux intérêts des multinationales, obtenue au cours de négociations secrètes, est présentée comme un moyen de développer l'économie de la région Asie-Pacifique.

Il se pourrait que les pays asiatiques participant à ces négociations tels que Brunei, la Malaisie, le Viêt Nam et Singapour utilisent ce fait comme moyen de pression sur la Chine. Avec pour objectif de parvenir à signer un accord sur la création de leur propre version du TPP – une zone de libre-échange Asie-Pacifique (FTAAP).

La tentative des USA de renforcer leur influence dans le bassin Pacifique ne s'arrête pas là. Ces dernières années, on note une intensification de la coopération militaire entre les USA, la Corée du Sud et le Japon - Séoul et Tokyo sont ainsi devenus les principaux alliés de Washington hors Otan.

L'ampleur de leur coopération militaire est un autre sujet. Dans le contexte de l'accord commercial, elle se présente comme une tentative agressive des USA de déstabiliser la situation dans la région tout en isolant et en encerclant la Chine et la Russie par une ceinture d'États amis de Washington.

- Source : Daniel Zoubov

samedi, 22 novembre 2014

Le retour de l’Iran


Le retour de l’Iran

par Aymeric Chauprade

La chute de Sanaa n’a été que peu commentée ; pourtant, la prise de contrôle de la capitale yéménite par les rebelles chiites Houthis a d’importantes répercussions et doit surtout être interprétée dans un contexte plus large : la stratégie régionale de Téhéran dont l’influence s’étend désormais sur tout le Golfe.

De l’encerclement à l’offensive…

Ce résultat était pourtant loin d’être acquis : au cours de la décennie précédente, l’influence perse avait été réduite sous les coups de butoir de la diplomatie néo-conservatrice américaine et l’Iran, pratiquement encerclée. Présentes en 2001 en Afghanistan, les forces armées américaines envahissaient deux ans plus tard l’Irak. Au Liban, Assad retirait progressivement son armée sous la pression de Washington (2005), et l’État hébreu commençait de s’entendre avec l’Azerbaïdjan dans un échange dont seul Israël a le secret : devenant conseiller militaire de Baku comme il l’est de Singapour et de New-Dehli, Tel-Aviv lui vendait des armes, lui achetait son pétrole (un tiers de son approvisionnement) et infiltrait ses agents de sabotage via cette base avancée de sa lutte féroce et clandestine contre le programme nucléaire iranien. Enfin, dernier trait, au moment même où Israël recevait enfin de Washington le feu vert pour la fourniture de bombes anti-bunkers (les massive ordnance penetrators), Moscou refusait de livrer à Téhéran le système S-300 de défense sol-air de moyenne portée, indispensable bouclier pourtant de son programme nucléaire…et entamait des négociations avec Ryad pour l’exportation du S-400, le nec plus ultra de la défense sol-air.

Encerclée, l’Iran apparaissait exsangue, au point que les soulèvements post-électoraux de 2009 apparaissaient comme le prologue de la chute annoncée de Téhéran et le couronnement, tardif certes, de la stratégie des faucons néo-conservateurs de Georges Bush junior…

C’était sans compter sans la patience et l’endurance de Téhéran d’une part et les inévitables conséquences des erreurs stratégiques américaines de l’autre. Si les manifestations de 2009 ont surpris le régime des Mollahs, elles ne l’ont pas entamé : la répression fut suffisamment féroce pour être comprise… et le cœur du régime a pu vérifier sa cohésion et sa solidité. Mais le vrai combustible de l’offensive iranienne se trouve dans les errements de la Maison Blanche, du département d’État et du Pentagone, tous unis dans un même aveuglement qui a également déteint sur les meilleurs analystes de la C.I.A, instrumentalisée à des fins idéologiques comme l’a été le S.I.S britannique.

Les néo-conservateurs, tout à leur revanche stérile contre Saddam Hussein, ont effet liquidé le mauvais régime et dispersé les cadres du parti Baas laïc, transformant l’Irak en une Mecque du terrorisme; les apprenti-sorciers de Washington (Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, notamment) consolidaient aveuglément un axe sunnite formé des régimes fondamentalistes musulmans : Qatar, Arabie Saoudite, Émirats Arabes Unis. Cet axe sunnite, unis par le pétrole, les gros contrats d’armement et le terrorisme islamiste, cherchait partout à imposer sa volonté dans la région, notamment en Syrie. Une personne incarnait cette politique : le Prince Bandar bin Sultan, ancien ambassadeur saoudien à Washington et que l’on a souvent décrit comme un agent stipendié par la C.I.A. Sa réapparition au printemps dernier, après une brève éclipse de disgrâce, comme conseiller spécial du Roi Abdallah, en dit assez quant à l’influence américaine sur Ryad.

Le printemps arabe donnera bientôt à cet axe l’occasion d’accélérer leurs desseins géopolitiques. En 2009, la nouvelle administration américaine, tout aussi idéologique que la précédente, poursuivra son soutien aveugle à cet axe sunnite. La chute de la Libye de Khadafi en 2011 devait annoncer peu après celle du Caire de Moubarak en 2012 avec l’arrivée du Frère musulman Morsi.

Cette politique a provoqué le resserrement des liens entre Damas et Téhéran, tous deux soutenus par Moscou qui, après avoir perdu Le Caire, aux mains des Frères Musulmans, ne pouvait perdre ses deux derniers points d’appui régionaux. Préparant l’avenir, la Russie lançait un vaste programme de réarmement, dont le volet naval très ambitieux, prévoyait une flotte renforcée en Méditerranée et la consolidation de points d’appui : à Chypre (Limassol), à Alger (fourniture de deux Projet 636 armés de missiles de croisière Klub) et naturellement le port de Tartous (la Tortose des Templiers). La livraison de 72 missiles anti-navires Yakhont (P-800) à Damas, mais sous clé russe, l’agrandissement des quais flottants et la modernisation des ateliers de l’ancien port franc symbolisaient l’engagement solide de la Russie envers la Syrie. Dans le vocabulaire des amiraux russes, Tortose est ainsi passée en 2012 de base « d’appui technique » pour des navires en escale à celle de « point de déploiement » en 2013, permettant aux bâtiments de la Mer Noire de rejoindre Aden et l’Océan Indien en quatre jours à 20nd, soit moitié moins qu’au départ de Sébastopol…

Pendant ce temps, l’Iran poursuivait son programme nucléaire. Certes, de sporadiques explosions sur des sites sensibles, la paralysie des systèmes de contrôle des centrales par de mystérieux virus informatiques et l’assassinat ciblé d’ingénieurs en ralentissaient l’avancée. Mais, même fortement ralenti, Téhéran n’a jamais été sérieusement arrêté dans sa quête de la maîtrise du nucléaire civil et militaire.

Face à cet axe chiite renforcé, le camp sunnite se fissurait : le Qatar, grenouille pétrolière qui voulait devenir le bœuf régional, s’enhardissait au point de vouloir renverser les régimes saoudien et émirien, jugés trop occidentaux et décadents dans la foulée du Caire. Ce fut le pas de trop : Ryad et Abu Dhabi, dans un geste rare sommaient publiquement Doha en mars dernier de cesser toute ingérence sur leurs territoires, et pour bien être sûr d’être compris, entreprenaient des procès de « frères musulmans » à grand spectacle, aidaient le maréchal Abdel Fattah Saïd Hussein Khalil al-Sissi à renverser le président Morsi dans un coup d’État que Malaparte aurait certainement pris pour modèle s’il vivait encore….Washington, hésitant, laissait faire au Caire, tout en fournissant aides et armes aux rebelles « modérés » islamistes syriens depuis leur satellite régional, la Jordanie.

Le retour en force de l’Iran…

Résistance de l’axe chiite soutenu par les Russes, fissures de l’axe sunnite, hésitations américaines au Caire : telle était la situation à l’été 2014. La Blitzkrieg d’un nouvel acteur féroce, l’État islamique, fléau régional aux origines multiples, a radicalement rebattu les cartes du grand jeu régional en s’emparant progressivement de provinces entières irakiennes et surtout de ses gisements pétroliers.

Cette guerre-éclair islamiste, cruelle et médiatique, a soudainement ouvert les yeux de Washington. N’empruntant pas encore le chemin de Damas, l’Administration Obama a pris celui de Téhéran, ce qui vaut Canossa… Le marché conclu est simple : souplesse diplomatique dans les négociations sur le programme nucléaire iranien en échange d’un soutien militaire de Téhéran en Irak.

Marginalisé, sanctionné, l’Iran redevient courtisé par un de ces revirements soudains dont seule la diplomatie américaine a le secret, mais c’est oublier qu’entre-temps, Téhéran a avancé partout ses pions.

L’Iran a en effet consolidé son pouvoir sur quatre capitales : Damas où les pasdarans soutiennent le régime, à Beyrouth où le Hezbollah continue d’être l’arbitre discret de la scène politique, à Bagdad où les Chiites reprennent peu à peu les leviers du pouvoir et désormais Sanaa conquis par les Houthis, qui joueront le même rôle au Yémen que le parti de Dieu au Liban.

L’encerclement de l’Arabie

Ce vaste ensemble de manœuvres régionales vise deux objectifs : l’élimination de la dynastie des Saoud, jugés hérétiques, corrompus et décadents, et la destruction d’Israël.

Pour parachever son encerclement de l’Arabie, Téhéran s’attaque depuis quelque temps désormais à Bahreïn, majoritairement chiite. Cet objectif en vise d’ailleurs un autre par ricochet : la base de la Vème Flotte américaine. Pour une fois, le renseignement a été correctement analysé par l’U.S.Navy. Dans un rapport passé totalement inaperçu en juin 2013, « No plan B : U.S Strategic Access in the Middle East and the Question of Bahrain » publié par la prestigieuse Brookings Institution, l’auteur, Richard McDaniel un officier de l’U.S.Navy ayant stationné de nombreuses années dans le Golfe, expliquait en effet qu’il existait une possibilité non négligeable que le pouvoir des Al-Khalifa tombât un jour prochain sous la pression de la rue chiite, mettant ainsi en danger l’infrastructure la plus stratégique des États-Unis dans le Golfe, hub irremplaçable non seulement pour les opérations interarmées américaines mais également point focal des actions combinées avec les alliés britanniques. L’officier en appelait alors à « un plan B » (Oman en l’occurrence).

Combien de temps Bahreïn tiendra-t-il ? Sous contrôle saoudien, le sultanat n’en a pas moins passé commande cet été d’armes russes (des missiles anti-chars Kornet E) pour se concilier Moscou, un allié toujours précieux pour qui veut dialoguer avec Téhéran…

L’asphyxie de l’Arabie vise aussi la destruction de l’État hébreu, un des buts de guerre de Téhéran. Le double contrôle des détroits d’Ormuz et de Bal el-Mandeb est censé également déstabiliser le cas échéant l’économie israélienne.

Ainsi, sur tous les fronts, l’Iran sort vainqueur de l’affrontement dur avec le monde sunnite, en large partie grâce aux erreurs d’appréciation américaine. Avec la bombe nucléaire d’une part et le contrôle de deux détroits, Téhéran sera de facto en situation d’hégémonie. L’arsenal des pays du GCC ne servira en effet à rien car Washington en bloquera l’utilisation politiquement et technologiquement.

L’Arabie saoudite, au seuil d’une succession difficile, y survivra-t-elle ? Rien n’est moins sûr. Salman, le prince héritier et actuel ministre de la défense, est atteint de la maladie d’Alzheimer et prince Muqrin, n°2 dans la succession, respecté et sage, est cependant issu d’une Yéménite et non d’un clan royal saoud. La génération suivante est, quant à elle, pleine d’appétits, frustrée, à 55 ou 65 ans, de n’être toujours aux manettes du royaume…

L’observateur attentif aura remarqué un signe de la panique qui s’empare du régime et qui ne trompe pas : la transformation de la Garde Nationale (la SANG) en un armée (mai 2013) sous contrôle d’un ministre (le fils du Roi, Prince Mitaeb). La garde prétorienne remplace ainsi les légions jugées peu fiables. Prince Mitaeb a pris soin de doter la SANG d’armements modernes (avions d’armes F-15S, hélicoptères de transport et de combat, véhicules blindés et défense sol-air) venant de fournisseurs diversifiés (France, notamment) et surtout différents des forces armées traditionnelles (un cas répandu dans le Golfe pour éviter les embargos et préserver le secret).

Leçons pour la France

Face à ce tableau, quelle est la politique de la France ? Celle « du chien crevé au fil de l’eau ».

L’alignement français sur les positions américaines, nette depuis la réintégration française du commandement intégré de l’OTAN (mars 2009), a fait perdre à Paris toute marge de manœuvre pour jouer un rôle, pourtant taillé à sa mesure compte tenu de sa tradition diplomatique et de ses alliés régionaux. Apprentie sorcière en Libye (en février 2011), aveugle en Syrie (au point d’entraîner et d’armer les islamistes « modérés » et d’être à deux doigts d’envoyer des Rafale en août 2013 rééditer l’erreur libyenne), tournant le dos à l’Iran (en réclamant toujours plus de sanctions), elle a été prise de court par le revirement estival américain. Ce cocufiage de Paris par Washington ne serait que ridicule s’il n’emportait pas des conséquences tragiques sur le terrain et pour l’avenir.

Paris n’a ainsi plus une seule carte en mains : les routes de Moscou, de Téhéran et de Damas lui sont fermées et il n’est pas sûr que celles du palais saoudien d’Al Yamamah et de la Maison Blanche lui soient pour autant ouvertes. Délaissant sa tradition diplomatique, sourde aux réalités du terrain (l’armement de rebelles incontrôlables, le massacre des chrétiens, les effets terroristes sur son propre territoire), elle s’est fourvoyée dans cet Orient compliqué qu’elle connaissait pourtant si bien.

Pour jouer un rôle conforme à sa tradition et aux attentes de ses alliés régionaux, la France n’aura pas d’autre choix que de retrouver le chemin de Moscou, Téhéran et de Damas. Ce faisant, elle apportera un canal de discussions apprécié par les belligérants de la région et, même gageons-le, par la future Administration américaine. Participer à tout et n’être exclu de rien : tel est en effet le secret de la diplomatie.

Aymeric Chauprade

Obama en Australie: une quasi déclaration de guerre à la Chine


Obama en Australie: une quasi déclaration de guerre à la Chine

par Jean Paul Baquiast

Ex: http://www.europesolidaire.eu

Les commentaires faits par les médias concernant le sommet du G20 n'ont pas suffisamment insisté sur les propos tenus le 15 novembre par Barack Obama à l'Université de Queensland. On peut en fait y voir l'affirmation que les Etats-Unis utiliseront tous les moyens dont ils disposent, y compris sans doute des moyens militaires, pour empêcher la Chine de menacer l'hégémonie américaine en Asie-Pacifique.
Une bonne partie de son intervention a été consacrée à recenser les manoeuvres diplomatiques contre la Chine que Washington a menées depuis l'annonce par Obama du « pivot vers l'Asie » devant le parlement australien en 2011. Il s'est vanté de la manière dont les Etats-Unis ont renforcé leurs liens avec le Japon, la Corée du Sud et les Philippines, ont ouvert de nouvelles bases en Australie et à Singapour, ont encouragé l'Inde à jouer un plus grand rôle militaire dans la région et poursuivi des relations plus serrées avec le Vietnam, la Malaisie et la Birmanie.

Il a souligné que le pivot vers l'Asie était indissociable de la guerre menée par les Etats-Unis au Moyen-Orient, de ses interventions en Ukraine contre la Russie et de l'escalade des opérations menées en Afrique sous le mot d'ordre de la lutte contre le virus Ebola. Il a demandé en conséquence que le pivot, autrement dit le rééquilibrage des engagements militaires américains vers l'Asie ne consiste pas seulement à ce que les Etats-Unis s'investissent davantage en Asie, mais aussi que la région Asie-Pacifique s'investisse plus avec eux dans le monde entier. A l'encontre de la Chine, il a répété que Pékin devait « adhérer aux mêmes règles que les autres pays » pour éviter tout conflit.

Obama a précisé ce que devaient être selon lui ces règles. « Nous pensons qu'un ordre de sécurité efficace pour l'Asie ne doit pas être basé sur les sphères d'influence, la coercition ou l'intimidation des grands pays envers les petits, mais sur des alliances pour la sécurité mutuelle, un droit international et des normes internationales qui sont respectées. ». L'Amérique défend « l'ouverture des marchés et un libre négoce qui soient équitables et libres » En termes à peine diplomatiques il voulait ainsi stigmatiser l'action de la Chine à l'égard des autres pays de la zone. Il ne mentionnait évidemment pas les sphères d'influence que l'Amérique avait développé dans cette région du monde immédiatement après sa défaite au Viet-Nam. Il n'a pas insisté non plus sur le fait que l'Amérique cherche à former des blocs commerciaux discriminatoires tels le partenariat transatlantique (Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP) qui exclura la Chine et forcera ses membres à accepter les termes fixés par les entreprises américaines.

La démocratie à la mode américaine

Les principaux alliés en Asie, courtisés par Obama, sont l'Australie et le Japon. Il a été moins disert concernant la Corée du Sud, certainement soucieuse de conserver un minimum de bonnes relations avec la Chine. Personne malheureusement n'a osé lui rappeler que Washington n'avait jamais tenu compte du droit international dont il se vante pourtant d'être le garant. Le gouvernement américain se conduit sur la scène internationale avec un total mépris des lois, s'arrogeant le droit d'intervenir partout où il estime que ses prétendus intérêts nationaux sont menacés. L'ensemble de sa politique étrangère est fondé sur la coercition et l'intimidation. Reprendra-t-il en Asie une politique qu'il avait couramment pratiqué depuis des décennies en Amérique centrale et latine, et qu'il a depuis trois ans remise en service à l'est de l'Europe?

Dans l'intention évidente de donner des leçons à la Chine à la face du monde, Obama a déclaré: « Nous croyons en la démocratie – que l'unique source de légitimité est l'approbation de la population, que chaque individu est né libre et égal en droits, des droits inaliénables, et qu'il incombe aux gouvernements de faire valoir ces droits. » Or le monde commence à comprendre, même en Europe, pourtant profondément américanisée, que le gouvernement américain est au service d'une oligarchie financière contrôlant tous les aspects de la vie politique et qui a supervisé le renforcement d'un massif appareil de renseignement pour espionner le monde entier. Les Etats-Unis prennent de plus en plus le caractère d'un Etat policier, que dénoncent, mais jusqu'alors sans grand succès, un opposition libérale interne encore très minoritaire.

On peut se demander ce qu'il adviendrait si l'actuel gouvernement chinois décidait de contrer systématiquement les efforts de l'Amérique pour dominer encore plus qu'actuellement la zone Asie Pacifique. La Chine ne dispose pas de moyens militaires comparables, mais des réactions locales de type militaire pourraient être décidées pour pousser l'Amérique à une riposte armée massive, c'est-à-dire pour transformer en ennemis avérés de l'impérialisme américain 2 à 3 milliards d'asiatiques et d'indiens qui cherchent encore des accommodements entre les deux blocs.

Jean Paul Baquiast

jeudi, 20 novembre 2014




Por Manuel Fernández Espinosa
Ex: http://movimientoraigambren.blogspot.com
El presente texto, con el mismo título, encontró su primera publicación en la Revista Arbil, nº 107. Algunos años han pasado desde su publicación, sin embargo el autor lo presenta en RAIGAMBRE tal y como fue publicado. Un tema tan extenso siempre puede ser objeto de análisis más profundos y amplio: daría para un libro. Sin embargo, de lo que aquí está dicho el autor lo único que considera prescindible es la que hoy considera excesiva atención a las ideas rocambolescas de Valle-Inclán, muy parecidas -por cierto- a lo que algunos arbitristas de nuestra tradición sostenían. Y juzga que faltaría un ahondamiento en Yanguas Messía, de cuyo pensamiento muy poco se sabe.
Antecedentes geopolíticos en España: Ángel Ganivet,
Yanguas Messía y

El sueco Rudolf Kjellen (1864-1922) acuñó el término "geopolítica", pero esta ciencia había sido llamada con anterioridad "geografía política" y sus desarrollos más rigurosos se debieron principalmente a las especulaciones del inglés sir Halford McKinder (1861-1947). El término se importó posteriormente a la Europa continental merced a los oficios del profesor alemán Karl Haushofer (1869-1946) y el nazismo, por último, desacreditaría la geopolítica al adoptar Adolf Hitler los conceptos imperialistas de Haushofer. Hitler que trató de hacer realidad las líneas que teóricamente había trazado Haushofer. El nacionalsocialismo integraría los sueños que el viejo general y profesor alemán había abrigado sobre la fundación de un Reich de mil años que ampliaría sus fronteras sobre un territorio vastísimo a costa de los territorios del Este de Europa. El tan implacable como hadario expansionismo que la Alemania hitleriana ejecutó hacia el Este haría saltar Europa por los aires en una segunda conflagración mundial que supuso, como Hitler predijo, la fragmentación del talasocrático Imperio británico.

Felipe II y enemigos.gif

No sólo el Imperio de Su Graciosa Majestad sucumbiría. Después del tan cacareado triunfo de las democracias, vino el reflujo de las antiguas colonias sobre las otrora metrópolis. Después de retirarse de la política, el General Charles De Gaulle se instaló en un pequeño pueblecito francés que en español pudiéramos llamar Colombey-Las-Dos-Iglesias. Francia estaba experimentando ya por aquellos años un alarmante crecimiento de la inmigración musulmana que llevó a decir al gran estadista galo: "No es inimaginable que Colombey-las-Dos-Iglesias se transforme en Colombey-las-Dos-Mezquitas". El filósofo rumano afincado en París, E. M. Cioran, parafrasearía esta cita de De Gaulle, expresando en una entrevista a Fernando Savater uno de sus negros augurios: "Mire, -le dijo Cioran a Savater- la realidad es que Francia, por ejemplo, se siente invadida. Hace tiempo me atreví a hacer una profecía: dije que dentro de cincuenta años la catedral de Notre-Dame sería una mezquita." Siempre que leo esta cita de Cioran, resuena en mí el eco de un poema de Gerard de Nerval: "Notre-Dame est bien vieille; on la verra peut-être/Enterre cependant Paris qu'elle a vu naître;" [Notre-Dame es muy vetusta: tal vez se la verá/Sepultar el París que ella ha visto nacer". Pero no es sólo la capital gala, la romana Lutecia, la que está amenazada.
El desenlace de la II Guerra Mundial granjeó a la geopolítica una pésima fama debido al más arriba referido intento hitleriano de realizar las teorías de Haushofer, pero la Geopolítica puede aspirar a convertirse en una ciencia tanto más urgente en cuanto que estamos asistiendo a unos movimientos migratorios que están poniendo en tela de juicio las identidades de las naciones históricas, desdibujando la fisionomía de nuestra Patria y sus pueblos, así como el resto de naciones europeas.
Aunque Haushofer popularizó el término "geopolítica" no cabe duda que fue McKinder el "padre de la geopolítica", convirtiéndose su modelo básico en punto de partida para todas las demás especulaciones que a partir de él se hicieron en este campo. Su acierto fue saber delimitar y comprender determinadas leyes objetivas de la historia política, geográfica y económica de la humanidad.
Según nuestro contemporáneo, el geopolítico ruso Alexander Dugin: "La esencia de la doctrina geopolítica podría reducirse a los siguientes principios. Dentro de la historia planetaria existen dos visiones enfrentadas y competidoras sobre la colonización de la superficie de la Tierra: el enfoque "terrestre" y el enfoque "marítimo". La elección de uno de ellos depende de la orientación ("terrestre" o "marítima") que siguen unos u otros estados, pueblos o naciones. Su conciencia histórica, su política interior o exterior, su psicología, su visión del mundo se forman siguiendo unas reglas determinadas. Teniendo en cuenta dicha particularidad, se puede hablar perfectamente de una visión del mundo "terrestre", "continental" o incluso "esteparia" (la "estepa" es "tierra" en su estado puro ideal) y de una visión del mundo "marítima", "insular", "oceánica" o "acuática". Señalemos de paso que los primeros indicios de semejante enfoque los encontramos en las obras de los eslavófilos rusos Jomiakov y Kireévski."
Antecedentes geopolíticos en España.
Haciendo por ahora caso omiso a los avatares históricos de la "geopolítica" en el sentido más riguroso y estricto, podríamos empezar diciendo que la geopolítica es, y debe ser, ante todo un conocimiento propio. (No en balde el "Conócete a tí mismo" es el principio de todo conocimiento.)
España tuvo sus propios conatos geopolíticos avant la lettré, algunos de los cuales, los más destacados, vamos a considerar: el primer bosquejo geopolítico podemos decir que fue trazado por Isabel la Católica en su testamento, custodiado por el Cardenal Cisneros de feliz memoria. Concluida para bien nuestra reconquista había que saltar el estrecho de Gibraltar y anular la amenaza afroislámica, pero en el ínterim se descubrió un mundo y los españoles nos lanzamos sobre él. Poco después el veterano soldado y poeta Francisco de Aldana (muerto en 1578) advirtió nuevamente la amenaza africana, trazando en octavas reales sus negros presagios. El poeta y soldado de Felipe II, el bravo español de Extremadura que cayó en la batalla de Alcazarquivir desapareciendo con el Rey Don Sebastián de Portugal, escribió antes de su partida estas octavas reales a Felipe II:
"Mas quiero proponer que no suceda
(así lo quiera Dios) esto que digo;
harto trabajo de pasar nos queda
en que a nosotros baje el enemigo.
Para poder llegar ¿quién se lo veda?,
pues África le da seguro abrigo,
adonde trabarán, por mar y tierra,
con tus puertas de allá temprana guerra.
Entonces la morisma que está dentro
de nuestra España temo que a la clara
ha de salir con belicoso encuentro,
haciendo junta y pública algazara,
y al mismo punto el aquitáneo centro
volver, de Francia, la enemiga cara,
bajando el Pirineo, aunque no sea
a más que a divertir nuestra pelea."
En "El Criticón", Baltasar Gracián nos ofrece algunos pasajes muy significativos sobre el carácter de los pueblos y la influencia que los paisajes ejercen sobre el natural de los hombres que los pueblan. "-¿No te parece [España] muy seca, y que de ahí les viene a los españoles aquella su sequedad de condición y melancólica gravedad?". "-¿No te parace que [España] es muy montuosa y aun por eso poco fértil?". "-Está muy despoblada". "-Está aislada entre ambos mares". Y si está "muy apartada del comercio de las demás...", a Gracián le parece que "Aun había de estarlo más, pues todos la buscan y la chupan lo mejor que tiene". Según Gracián, los españoles "tienen tales virtudes como si no tuviesen vicios, y tienen tales vicios como si no tuviesen tan relevantes virtudes".
El perfil del español nos lo traza así: Los españoles somos bizarros, "pero de ahí les nace el ser altivos. Son muy juiciosos, no tan ingeniosos; son valientes, pero tardos; son leones, mas con cuartanas; muy generosos, y aun perdidos; parcos en el comer y sobrios en el beber, pero superfluos en el vestir; abrazan todos los estranjeros, pero no estiman los propios; no son muy crecidos de cuerpo, pero de grande ánimo; son poco apasionados por su patria, y trasplantados son mejores; son muy allegados a la razón, pero arrimados a su dictamen; no son muy devotos, pero tenaces de su religión. Y absolutamente es la primer nación de Europa: odiada, porque envidiada".
En fin, para Gracián, "hay genio común en las naciones". Y cuando sus personajes, Andrenio y Critilo, cruzan el Pirineo para adentrarse en Francia: "Admiraron con observación aquellas gigantes murallas con que la atenta naturaleza afectó dividir estas dos primeras provincias de la Europa, a España de la Francia, fortificando la una contra la otra con murallas de rigores, dejándolas tan distantes en lo político cuando tan confinantes en lo material".
Estos primeros ensayos se verán transformados a finales del siglo XIX en teorías geopolíticas sobre España, en lo interior tanto como en lo exterior, un poco más sólidas.
Ángel Ganivet y la apología de los crustáceos.
José_Ruiz_de_Almodóvar.Retrato_de_Angel_Ganivet.1.jpgNacido en Granada el 13 de noviembre de 1865, hijo de Francisco Ganivet Morcillo y Ángeles García de Lara y Siles, a la muerte de su padre en 1875 Ángel Ganivet tuvo que abandonar los estudios, para trabajar como escribiente en una notaría, pero 1880 su jefe le animó a reanudar su educación en el Instituto. En 1885 sacó su Bachillerato con matrícula de honor en todas las asignaturas. En el Instituto de Granada se interesa por las obras de Lope de Vega y empieza a leer a Séneca. Se licencia en Filosofía y Letras en la Universidad de Granada en 1888 y, dos años más tarde, termina la carrera de Derecho.
Pasa a Madrid para cursar el doctorado en Letras y se presenta a las oposiciones al Cuerpo de Archiveros y Bibliotecarios que ganó, siendo destinado a la Biblioteca del Ministerio de Fomento. Su tesis "Importancia de la lengua sánscrita y servicios que su estudio ha prestado a la ciencia del lenguaje en general y a la gramática comparada en particular" obtuvo el premio extraordinario del doctorado, después de haber sido rechazada por Nicolás Salmerón su primera tesis "España filosófica contemporánea".
Frecuentó el Ateneo y, aburrido de su profesión como archivero, intentó hacerse con la cátedra de Griego en la Universidad de Granada. Y conoció a Miguel de Unamuno. En junio de 1892 fue nombrado vicecónsul en Amberes. Residió en Amberes hasta finales de 1895 hasta que se le destinó a Helsingfors (actual Helsinki). Desde Finlandia escribe sus "Cartas finlandesas" (1897) que remite a la "Cofradía del Avellano", grupo intelectual que había sido fundado en Granada. Las cartas de Ganivet se publicaron en "El Defensor de Granada".
En Bélgica había conocido la civilización industrial que le pareció repugnante, como el capitalismo moderno que con ella emergía, por lo que adoptó actitudes antidemocráticas que le llevaron al rechazo del socialismo, el liberalismo, la industrialización, el mercantilismo y la técnica. En Bélgica también se preocupa del colonialismo europeo en África, que le lleva a escribir entre 1893 y 1895 la novela "La conquista del reino de Maya, por el último conquistador español Pío Cid".
Ganivet se traslada en agosto de 1898 a Riga gravemente enfermo, y el 29 de noviembre de 1898 se suicida, arrojándose al río Dwina.
En su "Idearium español" Ganivet se aparta del expansionismo, marginándose del contexto de la época cuando las naciones europeas se habían lanzado frenéticas a la conquista imperialista y colonización del mundo que terminaría confrontándolas trágicamente en la Gran Guerra.
La tesis de Ganivet se cifra en "Noli foras ire, in interiore Hispaniae habita veritas" (No vayas fuera, en el interior de España habita la verdad).
Podríamos aventurar que esta idea fuerza ganivetiana puede ser no otra cosa que la versión laica de la misma idea del integrismo nocedaliano que se expresó en aquella frase que se hizo famosa: "Ya que no podemos encerrar dentro de sí misma a España para que se salve del universal cataclismo, encerrémonos nosotros dentro de nosotros mismos, no para rechazar a nadie, pero para no transigir con ideas, soluciones, con nada que sea contrario, ni siquiera sospechoso, a nuestros principios, cada vez más intransigentes, es decir, cada vez más firmes en nuestros principios" (Ramón Nocedal y Romea, "Discurso en el Palacio de Ciencias de Barcelona", 20 de noviembre de 1892). No se ha indicado la significativa coincidencia que en algunos puntos muestra el pensamiento ganivetiano con el integrismo nocedaliano.
Ganivet es tanto o más elocuente que Nocedal, y cuando lanza su tesis no cree que sea valedera tan sólo para un grupo de personas partidarias de una concepción determianda del mundo, sino que la ofrece con el convencimiento de que esa idea de "interiorizarse" y "enclaustrarse" es válida para toda una nación, la española: "Hay que cerrar con cerrojos, llaves y candados todas las puertas por donde el espíritu español se escapó de España para derramarse por los cuatro puntos del horizonte...". Para él la solución consiste en "la concentración de todas nuestras energías dentro de nuestro territorio".
Para Ganivet, España es "por esencia, porque así lo exige el espíritu de su territorio, un pueblo guerrero, no un pueblo militar". No son expresiones sinónimas; el "espíritu militar" (que no es el español) está en la sociedad y es un esfuerzo de organización, mientras que el "espíritu guerrero" (el genuinamente español) está en el individuo y "es un esfuerzo contra la organización".
El "espíritu territorial" es concebido por Ganivet como algo constante que por las condiciones geográficas determina el carácter del pueblo que tiene su solar y asiento en ese territorio, "lo exige el espíritu de su territorio". Hay pueblos continentales (Francia), pueblos insulares (Inglaterra o Japón) y pueblos peninsulares (España). En los pueblos continentales lo característico es la resistencia, en los peninsulares la independencia, y en los insulares la agresión.
"España -dice Ganivet- es una península, o con más rigor, "la península", porque no hay península que se acerque más a ser isla que la nuestra. Los Pirineos son un istmo y una muralla; no impiden las invasiones, pero nos aíslan y nos permiten conservar nuestro carácter independiente... somos una "casa con dos puertas", y, por lo tanto, "mala de guardar", y como nuestro partido constante fue dejarlas abiertas, por temor de que las fuerzas dedicadas a vigilarlas se volviesen contra nosotros mismos, nuestro país se convirtió en una especie de parque internacional, donde todos los pueblos y razas han venido a distraerse cuando les ha parecido oportuno; nuestra historia es una serie inacabable de invasiones y de expulsiones, una guerra permanente de independencia".
La posición geográfica de España la hace fácilmente expugnable. Según Ganivet, "la tendencia natural de Castilla era la prosecución en el suelo africano de la lucha contra el poder musulmán, del que entonces podían temerse aún reacciones ofensivas". La fatalidad quiso que nos encontráramos un continente, el que descubrió sin saberlo Cristóbal Colón, esos territorios del Nuevo Mundo atrajeron "las fuerzas que debieron ir contra África". En ese sentido, Oswald Spengler pensaba que la conquista de América por españoles y portugueses dejó exhausta a la pensínsula, pues "un torrente de hombres, con sangre nórdica, se vierte hacia América". No hay que olvidar que en la consideración de Spengler obran prejuicios racistas que no podemos consentir. Estamos lejos de pensar que lo que quedó en la península, tras la población de América, fue una masa humana que había perdurado a través de celtas, romanos y sarracenos de peor estofa que la que marchó.
Para seguir con Ganivet, diremos que el granadino sostenía que el "espíritu territorial" de España es el que ha modelado al español como un "pueblo guerrero" y no como un "pueblo militar", lo hemos dicho más arriba. Los españoles siempre hemos estado prestos a unirnos para dar combate al invasor pero de un modo más espontáneo que organizado. Tanto en la lucha por nuestra independencia desde Numancia hasta el 2 de mayo de 1808, como en las conquistas americanas el pueblo español ha mostrado ser un pueblo de guerreros y guerrilleros que secundan con devota fidelidad ibérica a Viriato y al Cid Campeador. "Para nuestras empresas en América no fue necesario cambiar nada, y los conquistadores, en cuanto hombres de armas, fueron legítimos guerrilleros, lo mismo los más bajos que los más altos, sin exceptuar a Hernán Cortés". El pueblo español no se organiza, es "un pueblo que lucha sin organización". Remedando a Ernst Jünger, podríamos decir que el anarquismo echó raíces en España por la íntima constitución del hombre ibérico que, antes que anarquista podríamos decir que es un anarca a la manera jungueriana.
Esa falta de capacidad organizativa constituye un punto débil, y a su vez un punto fuerte. Pero el punto más fuerte es nuestro autoconocimiento: "El peninsular conoce asismismo cuál es el punto débil de su territorio, porque por él ha visto entrar siempre a los invasores; pero como su espíritu de resistencia y previsión no ha podido tomar cuerpo por falta de relaciones constantes con otras razas, se deja invadir fácilmente, lucha en su propia casa por su independencia, y si es vencido se amalgama con sus vencedores con mayor facilidad que los continentales".
Don José De Yanguas Messía.
44462196.PNGNacido en Linares, descendiente de Rui Díaz de Yanguas, caballero calatravo portaestandarte en la Batalla de las Navas de Tolosa, D. José de Yanguas Messía era hijo del jurisconsulto D. José de Yanguas Jiménez y de Doña Luisa Gómez Vizcaíno.
El 6 de abril de 1918 la "Gaceta de Madrid" publicaba el nombramiento de D. José de Yanguas Messía como catedrático de Derecho Internacional en la Universidad de Valladolid. Cursó el Bachillerato en el Instituto de Baeza y estudió en la Real Universidad libre del Escorial. Una vez licenciado y doctorado, fue pensionado por la Junta para ampliar estudios en Francia y Bélgica, investigando la política colonial europea, pasando por las aulas de la Sorbona y bajo el magisterio de Pillet y Weiss. La Gran Guerra interrumpió sus estudios y regresó a España, aquí redactó su "Expansión en África" y "El Estatuto Internacional en Marruecos", interesantes trabajos a los que no hemos podido acceder sino por noticias indirectas de uno de sus más eminentes discípulos, el tosiriano D. Miguel Arjona Colomo (1913-1975) que nos dejó escrito un libro cuyo título es "Personalidad humana y científica de José de Yanguas Messía". Cualquiera que quisiera adentrarse en el mundo de la geopolítica española de principios del siglo XX tendría que acudir a la obra de Yanguas Messía.
Geopolítica de Valle-Inclán.
Más accesibles son los libros de Ramón María del Valle-Inclán. Comúnmente se le considera no más que carlista estético, pero allá por 1909 sostenía, en la más ortodoxa línea foralista, que los nacionalismos periféricos no constituían un serio problema para la unidad de España, si ésta los asumía secundando la riquísima y secular tradición foralista. ¡Felices tiempos en los que podía decirse que los nacionalismos periféricos no eran un problema para España y decirlo sin hacer el ridículo más calamitoso! El dramaturgo gallego creía que el único nacionalismo salvador sería el que estuviera informado por la tradición, entendida como los carlistas la entendían. Sosteniendo semejantes tesis tendríamos que revisar la versión político-correcta que de Valle-Inclán se nos hace, sospechando que, después de dedicar al carlismo su trilogía "Las guerras carlistas" y pensar en comunión con él, no sólo sea un carlista estético, por más estrafalario que nos parezca.
Ramón-María-del-Valle-Inclán.jpgPero, claro es, de Valle-Inclán uno no puede fiarse. Conocidas son sus inclinaciones por el esoterismo y su pertenencia militante en la perniciosa secta de la Sociedad Teosófica. Sus bandazos políticos son similares a los de otros compañeros de esa generación que al menos Azorín llamó del 98. Valle-Inclán muestra una flexibilidad en sus opiniones políticas capaz de desquiciar a cualquier ortodoxo. El genial escritor tiene una relación tan desenfadada con las palabras que nos puede parecer un irresponsable cuando no un perverso.
Valle-Inclán siente una falta atracción por el socialismo diciendo, en diciembre de 1927, que "Todo liberalismo, si tiene una visión de porvenir político del mundo, debe hacerse socialista". (Cosa que no nos parece tan descabellada). Y Valle-Inclán es el mismo cuando venera a Lenin que cuando ensalza a Mussolini.
El dictador que España necesita, en opinión de Valle-Inclán, "ha de tener todas las virtudes inherentes a un político universal, sobre todo austeridad, energía, sentido histórico y la virtud del silencio. ¡Tiene que ser un taciturno!". ¿Se convierte Valle-Inclán -con estas palabras pronunciadas en 1931- en profeta de ese "cirujano de hierro", paisano suyo, que fue Francisco Franco Bahamonde?
De Valle-Inclán no hay que fiarse mucho, pero tampoco hay que dejarlo de lado, desdeñando algunas de sus ideas.
Valle-Inclán nos ha dejado algunos pensamientos que podemos llamar "geopolíticos", aunque nunca madurados, sino derramados en su obra, principalmente en las entrevistas que concedió a periodistas que se acercaban a él con una mezcla de expectación y escepticismo.
En cuanto a su "geopolítica española exterior" podríamos apuntar que toda ella atiende a fijar la mirada en la América hispánica. Valle-Inclán insistirá en esa idea: España tiene que aspirar a una cada vez mayor ascendencia sobre Iberoamérica. La perdida influencia española sobre sus hijos emancipados ha de ser restituida, para ello Valle-Inclán cuenta con la fraterna reintegración de Portugal en la unidad ibérica.
En cuanto a la "geopolítica española interior" nuestro esperpéntico personaje nos ha legado una idea: la que llamaremos como él la llamó, la Teoría de las Cuatro Regiones. Se trata de una teoría que esbozó, pero que no desarrolló con la amplitud debida. Pese a ello, la Teoría de las Cuatro Regiones será repetida por el dramaturgo de luenga barba. En una entrevista concedida al diario El Sol, en 1931, llegará a afirmar que el problema de los regionalismos quedaría resuelto "Con mi teoría de siempre".
En agosto de 1924 llegará a confiarle a Rivas Cherif, en una entrevista concedida al periodista para el Heraldo de Madrid, su Teoría de las Cuatro Regiones. Valle-Inclán nunca las llamó "cantones", sino Departamentos o Regiones.
"Para salvar a España no hay más que volver al concepto romano. La visión de los civilizadores romanos es la única que se ajusta todavía a la realidad de la Península. Cuatro grandes regiones: la Tarraconense, la Bética, la Lusitania y Cantabria; no hay más. Cambie usted la sede capital de Tarragona a Barcelona, conserve usted a Sevilla y Lisboa su supremacía secular y natural, confiérase a Bilbao de derecho la capitalidad que de hecho ostenta en el Norte, atribúyase a esas regiones, históricamente racionales, la autonomía necesaria, y entonces Madrid tendría el valor y la fuerza de un verdadero centro federal. Cataluña vería así cumplidas sus aspiraciones máximas, dentro de la gran Iberia; Portugal, acrecido en sus límites naturales con Galicia, aportaría a la federación la fuerza económica de su imperio colonial. Lo que habría es que encargar a geógrafos e historiadores la delimitación racional de esas grandes comarcas ibéricas. Entonces, y sólo entonces, podría España aspirar a restaurar su influencia moral en América. ¿No habría modo de constituir un gran partido federalista, sustentado por esa gran idea común, sin perjuicio, claro, de que cupiese dentro de él una división de derecha e izquierda, para la actuación política?".
A primeros de junio de 1931 la Teoría de las Cuatro Regiones vuelve a aparecer, ahora en el diario El Sol. Valle-Inclán se la comenta a cierto periodista con quien departe. Será el mismo periodista que lo ha atendido quien comentará sobre el particular:
"Fue un deleite seguir oyendo hablar a don Ramón del Vallé-Inclán. ¡Lección emocionada de Geografía y de Historia de España eran sus palabras! ¡Le vimos trazar la teoría de los cuatro grandes cantones, de los cuatro grandes cantones romanos: el tarraconense, con Barcelona; el cántabro, con Bilbao; el lusitano, con Lisboa, y el bético, con Sevilla! ¡Cuatro grandes cantones por los cuales iba toda la Península, toda Hispania, a verterse en el mar! Sobre éste y otros temas dijo palabras de agudísimo ingenio."
En noviembre de 1931 será el mismo Valle-Inclán el que exponga nuevamente esta curiosa teoría a Francisco Lucientes, esta vez para los lectores de El Sol. Preguntado por su opinión sobre los regionalismos, el Marqués de Bradomín responde:
"-Con mi teoría de siempre: hay que integrar el espíritu peninsular como fue concebido por los romanos. Es lo acertado. Dividir la Península en cuatro departamentos: Cantabria, Bética, Tarraconense y Lusitania. Esto, queramos o no, es así. En la Península sólo hay cuatro grandes ciudades: Bilbao, que es Cantabria; Barcelona, que es la Tarraconense; Sevilla, que es la Bética, y Lisboa, que es la Lusitania. Cada gran ciudad a un mar: el Cantábrico, el Atlántico, el Mediterráneo."
Francisco Lucientes nos revela que, tras decir esto: "Don Ramón, se queda un minuto silencioso, sin duda porque no halla el mar de Sevilla, y porque el Guadalquivir no le parece todo lo importante que pide el gran lienzo. Se recobra pronto, y con esa gran facilidad que tiene para urdir fantasías, repite la anterior enunciación:
-...el Cantábrico, el Atlántico, el Mediterráneo y... el mar Africano. ¡"Ezo", el mar Africano! Dividida la Penísnual en cuatro departamentos, podría hacerse una altísima confederación de mares, y por el Pacífico y Acapulco reanudar el gran comercio con el Extremo Oriente, a base de Filipinas. ¡Pero "zi" es lo eterno! Lo eterno es el pensamiento, la ética y la estética peninsulares. No entro en el debate de dialectos y lenguas aunque sí sé que lo único que mantiene entre los hombres la unidad es el verbo de comunicación".
En cuantro al "Mar Africano" diremos que, pese a estar en otro contexto, Azorín ya había apuntado que "se puede decir con plena exactitud que España llega hasta el Atlas".
Es de suponer que en Valle-Inclán el número 4, por su intrínseco simbolismo, tendría que relacionarse con las cuatro direcciones del espacio así como con el Tetramorfos. Puestos a fantasear con Valle-Inclán, pudiera ser de su agrado que asignáramos a cada una de estas cuatro regiones uno de los cuatro evangelistas, y así el Tetramorfos estaría completado.
Falló la vertebración de esa España que soñaba Valle-Inclán, faltó la capacidad y la voluntad políticas. Pero por excéntrico que nos parezca, en Valle-Inclán latía no sólo imaginación propensa al delirio, sino que eran las suyas inspiraciones que infundía un patriotismo sincero no exento de pretensiones imperialistas impensables en estos tiempos crepusculares en que nos encontramos.
La Península de dos puertas de guardar está siendo invadida incluso por sus ventanas y balcones. Establecido el puente aéreo entre Canarias y la Península, nuestros impuestos facilitan la entrada de avalanchas de inmigrantes que se derraman por España. Si Ganivet no se equivocaba al señalar nuestro carácter peninsular como despreocupado ante toda invasión, los españoles seremos tardos en reaccionar. Si Ganivet se equivocaba, nuestros pésimos políticos -los mejores aliados de nuestros invasores- y la anestesia a la que estamos sometidos harán lo propio para terminar dándole la razón a Ganivet, lo cual será fatal para España y para los españoles.
La morisma está dentro, mi capitán Aldana, y harto trabajo de pasar nos queda. A este paso podemos aventurar que los españoles tal vez tengamos que saltar el estrecho y colonizar África para poner nuestra casa en el Atlas. Sólo un hombre universal, con sentido histórico, austero, enérgico y taciturno podrá salvarnos.

mercredi, 19 novembre 2014

Le plan secret de Poutine pour détruire l'OTAN


Le plan secret de Poutine pour détruire l'OTAN

Auteur : Tyler Durden
Ex: http://zejournal.mobi

Le Stratège Poutine à la manette

Les 11 et 12 septembre derniers s’est tenue la réunion d’une organisation dont la plupart des américains n’ont jamais entendu parler. La couverture des médias grands public était à peu près inexistante.

La réunion s’est tenue à Dushanbe, la capitale du Tadjikistan, un pays que peu d’occidentaux sauraient situer correctement sur une carte. Mais vous pouvez parier votre dernier rouble que Vladimir Poutine sait exactement où se trouve ce pays. Car le groupe qui s’est réuni là-bas est le bébé du président russe. Il s’agit de l’organisation de coopération de Shanghai, constituée de six états membres : la Russie, la Chine, le Kazakhstan, le Kyrgyzstan, le Tadjikistan, et l’Ouzbekistan.

L’organisation de coopération de Shanghai (OCS), a été fondée en 2001 pour donner une réponse collective à l’extrémisme et assurer la sécurité des frontières. Mais son véritable but est plus large. Poutine la voit dans un contexte plus vaste comme un contrepoids à l’OTAN (une position que l’OCS ne nie du reste pas). Sa ligne de conduite officielle est de promouvoir le non-alignement, la non confrontation, et la non interférence avec les politiques des autres pays mais ses membres conduisent des exercices militaires conjoints.

Pourquoi devons-nous porter attention à cette réunion au milieu de nulle part ? Parce qu’évidemment, tout ce qu’entreprennent de manière conjointe la Chine et la Russie justifie notre attention. Et il y a beaucoup à dire à ce sujet.

Depuis la création de l’OCS, la Russie a avancé précautionneusement, afin que le groupe ne devienne pas un cheval de Troie pour l’expansion de la Chine dans ce qu’elle considère comme son espace stratégique, l’Asie Centrale. Dans le même temps, Poutine a noué de nouvelles alliances partout dans le monde aussi vite qu’il a pu. S’il veut contrecarrer l’hégémonie globale US, il aura besoin d’autant d’alliances que possible.

De nombreux observateurs ont prédit que la réunion de Dushanbe serait historique. Ils s’attendaient à ce que l’organisation s’ouvre à de nouveaux membres. Cependant, cette réunion a été focalisée sur la situation en Ukraine. Les membres de l’organisation ont soutenu les positions russes et apporté leur soutien à la poursuite des pourparlers dans le pays. Ils ont salué les accords de Minsk et l’initiative du président russe en faveur de la paix.

Cependant, l’idée d’inclure de nouveaux membres est passée à la trappe. De nombreux pays cherchent à rejoindre l’organisation depuis des années. Maintenant, avec la présidence tournante de l’organisation passée à Moscou, et la tenue du prochain sommet en juillet 2015 à Ufa en Russie, les conditions seront favorables à une expansion de l’organisation l’été prochain, a déclaré Poutine.

A cette fin, les participants au sommet de Dushanbe ont signé un document commun qui aborde les questions suivantes : « un mémorandum sur les obligations des états candidats pour obtenir le statut d’état membre de l’OCS », et «sur la procédure d’octroi du statut d’état membre de l’OCS. »

Ceci est extrêmement important aussi bien pour la Russie que pour les occidentaux car les nations désireuses de rejoindre l’OCS sont des acteurs géopolitiques majeurs : l’Inde et le Pakistan. Et un autre acteur majeur attend également de rejoindre l’organisation : l’Iran.

En expliquant le report de l’admission de ces pays, l’assistant du président Poutine, Yuri Ushakov, a fait une déclaration très franche. Il a dit aux médias russes que cette expansion était prématurée à ce moment là, à cause des difficultés potentielles liées à l’acrimonie entre la Chine et l’Inde, et l’Inde et le Pakistan, mais également aux sanctions occidentales contre l’Iran. Ces sources de conflits auraient pu affaiblir l’alliance, ce que la Russie veux éviter.

Amener à la même table des pays antagonistes requerra de délicates manoeuvres diplomatiques, mais il s’agit d’un exercice dans lequel Poutine excelle (qui d’autre a réussi à maintenir d’excellentes relations à la fois avec l’Iran et Israël ?).

Comme toujours, Poutine n’a pas une réflexion à court terme.



Les priorités de la présidence russe sont les suivantes : renforcer le rôle de l’OCS pour la sécurité régionale, porter des projets économiques multilatéraux majeurs, améliorer les liens culturels et humanitaires entre les nations membres, et dessiner une approche globale aux problèmes mondiaux. Il prépare également le développement stratégique de l’OCS pour la période 2015-2025, et pense que ces objectifs devraient être finalisés pour le prochain sommet.

Nous devrions prêter attention à ce qui se déroule au sein de l’OCS. L’Inde et le Pakistan vont rejoindre l’organisation, et l’Iran suivra peu après, ce sera un tournant majeur du jeu géopolitique.

Poutine est en train de prendre le leadership d’une alliance internationale qui comptera quatre des dix états les plus peuplés au monde, le population combinée des pays membres comptera près de 40 % de la population mondiale avec presque 3 milliards de personnes. Elle englobera les deux économies mondiales les plus dynamiques. Avec l’Iran, ses membres contrôleront près de la moitié des réserves de gaz naturel. Le développement des réseaux de gazoducs et de pipelines d’Asie vont doper les pays de la région sur le plan économique et vont les rapprocher plus étroitement.

Si Poutine suit cette voie, l’OCS ne deviendra pas seulement une rivale de l’OTAN, mais pourra façonner une nouvelle structure financière qui entrera directement en compétition avec le FMI et la Banque Mondiale. La nouvelle banque de développement des BRICS, lancée l’été dernier au Brésil, était une première étape dans cette direction. Et cela conduira a détrôner le dollar comme monnaie de réserve internationale avec des conséquences catastrophiques pour l’économie US.

Comme je l’ai dit dans The Colder War, je pense qu’il s’agit du but ultime de Poutine : mener un assaut contre le dollar qui ramène les états-unis au rang d’une nation ordinaire… et dans le même processus, élever la Russie le plus haut possible.

Ce qui s’est passé au Tadjikistan cette année et ce qui se passera à Ufa l’été prochain, voilà des événements réellement capitaux.

 - Source : Tyler Durden

mardi, 18 novembre 2014

Revolución popular yemení versus Arabia Saudí


Por Rasul Gudarziv

Los ciudadanos yemeníes que habían derrocado al presidente Ali Abdulá Saleh, cuando vieron que no se materializaban sus objetivos ni las demandas de su revolución; la democracia y la reestructuración del poder, salieron otra vez a las calles en masivas protestas antigubernamentales, y lograron llevar a cabo una segunda revolución. Los movimientos populares terminaron con la firma de un acuerdo entre los houtíes y el gobierno central para poner al país en el camino de la democracia.

En el siguiente artículo queremos analizar el motivo del fracaso de los movimientos populares que se registraron en los últimos años en la región de Oriente Medio y el Norte de África, además de estudiar las causas de la victoria de una segunda revolución en Yemen.

Desde 2011 somos testigos del surgimiento de movimientos populares en Oriente Medio. Algunos de estos, como el de Egipto, Túnez u otros, poco después de su victoria se desviaron de los ideales que perseguían, mediante la penetración de las fuerzas extranjeras y de elementos de regímenes anteriores en los nuevos gobiernos, y, en un corto plazo, se quedaron aislados en la escena política.

Las movilizaciones populares de Egipto, Túnez y Libia, debido a la falta de liderazgo e ideología, fueron desviadas de sus principales objetivos. Hoy en día, no hay ninguna señal de un cambio profundo y estructural en estos países, y antiguos elementos gubernamentales se han mantenido en la escena sociopolítica.

2 yemen.jpgLo mismo sucedió en Yemen donde pese al derrocamiento del dictador Ali Abdulá Saleh, quien gobernó el país durante 21 años, no hubo cambio significativo en la escena política. El nuevo gobierno revolucionario, con el apoyo de Arabia Saudí y de gobiernos occidentales, continuó el rumbo de la administración de Saleh, y siguió con la represión del pueblo yemení, especialmente de los chiíes. Esta situación provocó que la sociedad yemení se levantara de nuevo para establecer la democracia y enfrentarse a la influencia de las fuerzas foráneas.

El movimiento chií Ansarolá (Houthi), en Yemen, teniendo en cuenta el fracaso de los Hermanos Musulmanes en Egipto y bajo la dirección de Abdolmalek al-Houthi, se esfuerza por materializar las demandas revolucionarias del pueblo yemení. El liderazgo de Abdolmalek ha contribuido en gran medida a llenar las divergencias étnicas en la sociedad yemení, y ha unido a todas las fuerzas con un solo objetivo: establecer la democracia, logrando que el balance de poder se incline hacia la oposición al gobierno central.

Los yemeníes, tras el fracaso de los Hermanos Musulmanes, son conscientes de que la ausencia de un líder genera división entre las fuerzas políticas y bloquea la materialización de las estrategias y objetivos. Sin duda, antes del derrocamiento de Hosni Mubarak, si los Hermanos Musulmanes hubieran contado con un líder poderoso, no hubieran fracasado en tan corto plazo. Es por esto que el pueblo yemení se unió en una sola voz junto a Abdolmalek al-Houthi para exigir sus demandas políticas y económicas.

Dada la importancia que tiene Yemen para Arabia Saudí y EE.UU. por su situación estratégica, estar rodeado por el mar Arábigo, el golfo de Adén y el mar Rojo, era muy difícil prever que un movimiento como el houtí pudiera llevar adelante sus objetivos con un plan bien calculado; la situación se desarrolló de forma tal que el enviado de la ONU para Yemen, Jamal ben Omar, se presentó en Saná, su capital, para conseguir un acuerdo entre los houtíes y el gobierno, algo que pone de manifiesto la importancia que tiene la tarea del movimiento.

En el acuerdo firmado se hace referencia a la restauración de los subsidios a los combustibles, la asignación de un nuevo primer ministro durante los próximos tres días, la formación de un nuevo Gobierno en el plazo de un mes y la lucha contra la corrupción estatal, algo que se interpreta como una clara victoria para los houtíes, aunque aún hay un largo camino para recorrer.

Debemos ser conscientes de que el liderazgo religioso en Yemen ha despertado la preocupación de las potencias regionales y ultraregionales. Arabia Saudí se muestra inquieta por la revolución yemení, y la considera una seria amenaza para su seguridad nacional, ya que el régimen de Al Saud nunca ha mantenido ni una buena relación ni una relación normal con los houtíes, así que temen que esta tribu pueda llegar al poder. Además, la relevancia de los houtíes en Yemen significa para Riad el aumento de la influencia de la República Islámica de Irán en su patio trasero.

A esto hay que sumarle la gran población chií en el sur de Arabia Saudí, fronteriza con Yemen, algo que es preocupante para Riad por el temor de que resurjan movimientos chiíes en su territorio; por lo que con el apoyo de Washington, amén de expresar su oposición a las protestas en Yemen, ha brindado y seguirá brindando apoyo militar y logístico a las fuerzas gubernamentales.

Ante esa situación, se prevé que el pueblo yemení podría enfrentar tres planes pensados por Riad y Washington para frustrar esa segunda revolución. El primero podría residir en la activación del terrorismo y llevar a cabo operaciones contra los houtíes. Esto se puede entender de las declaraciones de los clérigos saudíes que ordenaron la lucha contra ese movimiento chií. Los 50 años de presencia e influencia de Riad en Yemen le dieron una buena oportunidad para penetrar las tribus y los partidos yemeníes y lograr aproximar sus políticas con las del país saudí. Yemen es tan importante para los saudíes que es fácil describir lo que le espera al pueblo yemení; sangrientas jornadas y una guerra civil mediante el enfrentamiento de las tribus contra los houtíes, e incluso la intervención militar de Riad.

El segundo plan podría ser algo semejante a lo que hicieron con Siria; formar grupos de “Amigos de Yemen” cuyos principales miembros serían el Reino Unido, Arabia Saudí y EE.UU. para crear discordias y estrategias que hagan fracasar el acuerdo firmado, cuestionando la voluntad de los houtíes.

El tercero, recuperar el poder de las personas subordinadas a Arabia Saudí en las próximas presidenciales del país. En ese contexto hay que monitorear los movimientos políticos que se están realizando, es decir, el viaje a Riad de Ahmed Ali Abdulá Saleh, hijo del expresidente yemení; el general Mohsen Al Ahmer y otros elementos del régimen anterior.

Los partidos yemeníes, encabezados por los houtíes, pudieron volver a derrocar un gobierno lacayo, para determinar el futuro de su país; no obstante, los yemeníes deben ser conscientes de que cualquier guerra civil o situación de inseguridad podrían resultar en su eliminación total de la escena política del país, bajo la acusación de que son terroristas. Además, los yemeníes deben saber que el éxito obtenido en su movimiento se ha debido solo a su actuación bajo un único liderazgo, por lo tanto, cualquier división o brecha podrían conllevar al fracaso de sus planes.

lundi, 17 novembre 2014

The Lessons of Libya


A War That Brought Total Societal Collapse

The Lessons of Libya

Ex: http://www.counterpunch.com

Three years ago, in late October 2011, the world witnessed the final defeat of the Libyan Jamahiriya – the name by which the Libyan state was known until overthrown in 2011, meaning literally the ‘state of the masses’ – in the face of a massive onslaught from N ATO, its regional allies and local collaborators.

It took seven months for the world’s most powerful military alliance – with a combined military spending of just under $1 trillion per year – to fully destroy the Jamahiriya (a state with a population the size of Wales) and it took a joint British-French-Qatari special forces operation to finally win control of the capital. In total, 10,000 strike sorties were rained down on Libya, tens of thousands killed and injured, and the country left a battleground for hundreds of warring factions, armed to the teeth with weapons either looted from state armouries or provided directly by NATO and its allies. Britain, France and the US had led a war which had effectively transformed a peaceful, prosperous African country into a textbook example of a ‘failed state’.

Yet the common image of Libya in the months and years leading up to the invasion was that of a state that had ‘come in from the cold’ and was now enjoying friendly relations with the West. Tony Blair’s famous embrace of Gaddafi in his tent in 2004 was said to have ushered in a new period of ‘rapprochement’, with Western companies rushing to do business in the oil-rich African state, and Gaddafi’s abandonment of a nuclear deterrent apparently indicative of the new spirit of trust and co-operation between Libya and the West.

Yet this image was largely a myth. Yes, sanctions were lifted and diplomatic relations restored; but this did not represent any newfound trust and friendship. Gaddafi himself never changed his opinion that the forces of old and new colonialism remained bitter enemies of African unity and independence, and for their part, the US, Britain and France continued to resent the assertiveness and independence of Libyan foreign policy under Gaddafi’s leadership. The African Oil Policy Initiative Group (AOPIG) – an elite US think tank comprising congressmen, military officers and energy industry lobbyists – warned in 2002 that the influence of “adversaries such as Libya” would only grow unless the US significantly increased its military presence on the continent. Yet, despite ‘rapprochement’, Gaddafi remained a staunch opponent of such a presence, as noted with anxiety in frequent diplomatic cables from the US Embassy. One, for example, from 2009, noted that “the presence of non-African military elements in Libya or elsewhere on the continent” was almost a “neuralgic issue” for Gaddafi. Another cable from 2008 quoted a pro-Western Libyan government official as saying that “there will be no real economic or political reform in Libya until al-Gaddafi passes from the political scene” which would “not happen while Gaddafi is alive”; hardly the image of a man bending to the will of the West. Gaddafi had clearly not been moved by the flattery towards Libya (or “appropriate deference” as another US Embassy cable put it) that was much in evidence during the period of ‘rapprochement’. Indeed, at the Arab League summit in March 2008, he warned the assembled heads of state that, following the execution of Saddam Hussein, a former “close friend” of the US, “in the future, it’s going to be your turn too…Even you, the friends of America – no, I will say we, we the friends of America – America may approve of our hanging one day”. So much for a new period of trust and co-operation. Whilst business deals were being signed, Gaddafi remained implacably opposed to the US and European military presence on the continent (as well as leading the fight to reduce their economic presence) and understood well that this might cost him his life. The US too understood this, and despite their outward flattery, behind the scenes were worried and resentful.

Given what we know now about what has taken place in Libya – both during the so-called ‘rapprochement’ between 2004 and 2011, and from 2011 onwards – it is appropriate to take stock of this experience in order to see what lessons can be learned about the West’s approach to its relations with other countries of the global South.

Lesson one: Beware rapprochement

As I have shown, the so-called rapprochement period was anything but. The US continued to remain hostile to the independent spirit of Libya – as evidenced most obviously by Gaddafi’s opposition to the presence of US and European military forces in Africa – and it now seems that they and the British used this period to prepare the ground for the war that eventually took place in 2011.

The US, for example, used their newfound access to Libyan officials to cultivate relations with those who would become their key local allies during the war. Leaked diplomatic cables show that pro-Western Libyan Justice Minister Mustafa Abdul-Jalil arranged covert meetings between US and Libyan government officials that bypassed the usual official channels and were divide-and-ruin-book-covertherefore ‘under the radar’ of the foreign ministry and central government. He was also able to speed up the prisoner release programme that led to the release of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group insurgents who ultimately acted as NATO’s shock troops during the 2011 war. The head of the LIFG – Al Qaeda’s franchise in Libya – eventually became head of Tripoli’s military council whilst Abdul-Jalil himself became head of the ‘Transitional National Council’ that was installed by NATO following the fall of the Jamahiriya.

Another key figure groomed by the US in the years preceding the invasion was Mahmoud Jibril, Head of the National Economic Development Board from 2007, who arranged six US training programmes for Libyan diplomats, many of whom subsequently resigned and sided with the US and Britain once the rebellion and invasion got underway.

Finally, the security and intelligence co-operation that was an element of the ‘rapprochement’ period was used to provide the CIA and MI6 with an unprecedented level of information about both Libyan security forces and opposition elements they could cultivate that would prove invaluable for the conduct of the war.

Lesson one therefore is – rapprochement, whilst appearing to be an improvement in relations, may actually be a ‘long game’ to lay the groundwork for naked aggression, by building up intelligence and sounding out possible collaborators, effectively building up a fifth column within the state itself. This does not mean it should not be done; it merely means it should be approached with extreme caution and scepticism on the part of states of the global South. It should be understood that, for the West, it is almost certainly a means of waging ‘war by other means’, to paraphrase Clausewitz. This is particularly pertinent to the case of Iran, a current recipient of the poisoned chalice that is ‘warmer relations’ with the West (although this ‘thaw’ may yet be scuppered by a Zionist Congress with no patience for the long game).

Lesson two: For the West, regime change has become a euphemism for total societal destruction

I try to avoid the term ‘regime change’, as it implies a change of one ‘regime’ (usually understood as relatively functional and stable state, albeit a potentially ruthless one) to another. In the recent history of so-called ‘regime changes’ by the West, this has never happened. In Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, ‘regimes’ have not been replaced by other ‘regimes’, but have rather been destroyed and replaced instead by ‘failed states’, where security is largely non-existent, and no single armed force is strong enough to constitute itself as a ‘state’ in the traditional sense of establishing a monopoly of legitimate violence. This in turn leads to further societal and sectarian divisions emerging, as no group feels protected by the state, and each look instead to a militia who will defend their specific locality, tribe or sect – and thus the problem perpetuates itself, with the insecurity generated by the presence of some powerful militias leading to the creation of others. The result, therefore, is the total breakdown of national society, with not only security, but all government functions becoming increasingly difficult to carry out.


In Libya, not only were various sectarian militia such as LIFG armed and empowered by the US, Britain and France during the war against the Jamahiriya, but their power was then boosted by the new NATO-backed government that followed. In May 2012, Law 38 effectively granted impunity to the militias, making them immune for prosecution not only for crimes committed during the war against the Jamahiriya (such as the well documented slaughter of immigrants and black skinned Libyans), but also for ongoing crimes deemed “essential to the revolution”. This law effectively gave a free pass to the militias to murder their real or imagined opponents, building on the boost to the authority that they had already gained two months earlier. In March 2012, many of the militias had been incorporated into a new police force (the Supreme Security Committee) and a new army (the Libya Shield) – not only legitimising them, but providing them with further material resources with which to continue their violence and their ability to impose their will on the country’s legal – but largely powerless – authorities. Since then, the new militia-run police force has led violent campaigns against the country’s Sufi minority, destroying several shrines in 2013. The same year, they also besieged several government ministries, in a (successful) attempt to force the government to pass a law criminalising supporters of the former government (a move which will jeopardise security yet further by barring hundreds of thousands of experienced officials from government work). The Libyan Shield, meanwhile, carried out a massacre of 47 peaceful protesters in Tripoli in November last year, and later kidnapped the Prime Minister Ali Zeidan. They are currently involved in a war to oust the newly elected government that has likely cost the lives of thousands since it started this June. This is not ‘regime change’ – what NATO has created is not a new regime, but conditions of permanent civil war.

Many in both Libya and Syria now regret having acted as NATO’s foot soldiers in sowing the seeds of destruction in their own countries. Anyone expecting future ‘regime change’ operations conducted by the West to result in stable democracies – or even stable sharia theocracies for that matter – need look no further than Libya for their answer. Western military power cannot change regimes – it can only destroy societies.

Lesson three – Once Western military powers get their foot in the door, they won’t leave voluntarily until the state has been destroyed

Although the war on Libya was begun under the authorisation of UN Security Council resolution (1973), it is important to note that this resolution only authorised the establishment of a no-fly zone and the prevention of Libyan state forces entering Benghazi. This was achieved within days. Everything that NATO did subsequently was beyond the terms of the resolution and therefore illegal; a point that was made vehemently by many who had supported (or at least not opposed) the resolution, including Russia, China, South Africa and even elements within the Arab League.

Regardless of the pretext, once the US and UK are militarily involved in a country on their hit list, they should not be expected to stick to that pretext. For them, UNSC 1973 allowed them to bomb Libya. The precise legal goals became immaterial – once they had been given the green light to bomb, they were not going to stop until the Jamahiriya was destroyed and Gaddafi dead, whatever the original legal reasoning that allowed them to go in.

A useful analogy here is that of a robber going to an old lady’s house posing as a gas man. Once he is inside, he is not going to stick to reading the gas meter – he is going to rob her house.

Obviously, this lesson is most pertinent in Syria, where the US, likely to be soon joined by the UK, are conducting airstrikes ostensibly ‘to destroy ISIS’. Given their avowed long term aim to topple the Syrian state, and their only recent (and arguably half hearted at best), conversion to seeing ISIS fighters as enemies rather than valiant freedom fighting allies, this is to be taken with a large pinch of salt.

Lesson four – State destruction cannot be achieved without ground forces

A little noted aspect of the Libyan war (which has, however, been covered in detail by Horace Campbell) is the fact that the capital, Tripoli, was taken largely by Qatari ground forces co-ordinated by French and British special forces (in direct contravention of UNSC 1973). Indeed, no part of Libya was held by the rebels alone for any significant length of time without massive NATO bombardment of Libyan state forces; after the first three weeks, once the Libyan army got on top of the insurgency, not a single battle was won by the rebels until NATO started bombing. Even then, rebels could generally only take towns if NATO forces had completely destroyed the resistance first – and would still often be chased out again by the Libyan army a few days later. This is despite the fact that many of the Misrata militias were under the direct command of British special forces.

Mideast Militias Run Amok Glance-2.jpg

This state of affairs meant the taking of the capital was always going to be deeply problematic. The solution was Operation Mermaid Dawn – an invasion of Tripoli in late August by Qatari ground forces, French intelligence and the British SAS, preceded by several days of intensified airstrikes. Whilst it is true that local collaborators joined in once the invasion was on the way, and indeed some rebel units had prior knowledge, the reality is that the fall of Tripoli was overwhelmingly a foreign planned and executed operation.

This is all highly relevant to the situation in Syria right now. For most of this year, momentum in the Syrian war had been on the side of the government, most obviously in its retaking of the former rebel stronghold of Homs in May. Whilst this momentum was to some extent reversed by ISIS following its gains in Iraq, nevertheless it remains clear that hopes of a rebel victory without a Western air campaign seem unlikely. What Libya shows, however, is that even WITH air support, rebel militias are unlikely to achieve victory without an accompanying ground occupation. In Syria’s case, this may be even more necessary, as switching airstrikes from ISIS to Syrian government forces will be far more difficult than in Libya given the sophisticated S-3000 anti-aircraft missiles provided by Russia last year. This may make ground occupation the more viable option. With Western media attempting to put pressure on Turkey to mount a ground occupation, there may be hopes that Turkish forces will play in Syria the role that Qatari forces played in Libya.

The Libya war opened the eyes of many – or should have. But the overriding lesson – if it needed reiterating – should be the realisation that the US, the UK, France and their allies will stop at nothing, including even the imposition of total societal collapse, in order to attempt to reverse their declining global economic position through military destruction. This is the reality behind all talk of protecting civilians, humanitarianism, and democracy promotion, and all Western military intervention should be seen in this light.

Dan Glazebrook is author of Divide and Ruin: The West’s Imperial Strategy in an Age of Crisis.

A shorter version of this article first appeared in Middle East Eye.

Siria y la ruta del gas

Siria y la ruta del gas


Por Alejandra Loucau

La segunda fase de la intervención norteamericana en Siria, ya ha comenzado hace varias semanas. Como he venido planteando, es el autodenominado Estado Islámico el que da la coartada perfecta a EEUU para atacar Siria nuevamente y derrocar a su presidente Bashar Al Assad.

Luego del infructuoso intento de la administración Obama en 2013, vuelve a surgir una nueva “amenaza a los valores occidentales” que hace “imperiosa la necesidad de intervención de los amos de la democracia”. Es así que el EI, lejos de representar una amenaza a los intereses de la humanidad y de EEUU, viene siguiendo al pie de la letra sus planes para Oriente Medio. Más bien, el Estado Islámico viene a allanarle el camino a las potencias occidentales para lograr que prevalezcan sus intereses.

Teniendo en cuenta la enorme disputa que se viene suscitando hace más de una década por el control de los recursos energéticos del mundo, como eje estratégico de EEUU y las potencias occidentales por un lado, y de Rusia y China por el otro, sumado a que el Oriente Medio de nuestro globo cuenta con grandes reservas tanto de gas como de petróleo, se pueden rescatar algunas hipótesis que nos pueden explicar las razones profundas que se esconden detrás de esta nueva guerra encubierta.

En primer lugar hay que mencionar que la cuenca del Mar Mediterráneo encierra una de las mayores reservas de gas del mundo y es precisamente en Siria donde se hallan las más importantes. Por otro lado el territorio sirio constituye una importante ruta de transporte de gas hacia Europa. He aquí dos importantísimos argumentos que hacen imprescindible el control político de Occidente sobre Siria, los cuales, al mismo tiempo, hacen urgentes para el gobierno de Obama, el derrocamiento de su líder Al Assad y su posterior reemplazo por un gobierno dócil y afín a sus intereses como país imperialista. Y es que el gobierno de Bashar, si bien en otros momentos ha sabido negociar su tajada gracias a su posición estratégica, ya no puede ser tolerado por potencias sedientas de recursos energéticos, necesarios para sus economías en decadencia y en constante competencia con Rusia y China.

En esta última década, la Cuenca Levantina del Mediterráneo, y en este caso Siria, se ha convertido en una pieza clave para el transporte de petróleo y mayormente de gas. Debemos considerar que el gas natural suministra actualmente cerca del 25% de la energía del mundo, y que según los pronósticos, hasta 2020 será el mejor reemplazo para el petróleo. En este marco, la cuasi absoluta dependencia de Europa respecto del gas proveniente de Rusia, ha hecho imperiosa para los occidentales la búsqueda de alternativas no sólo para la extracción sino también para el transporte de gas hacia el viejo continente.

Pensemos que el gas es un importante recurso necesario para el crecimiento de la industria europea, primordialmente de Alemania, Francia y del Reino Unido; además de sus utilidades domésticas.

Es por esto que la lucha de intereses por esta zona fue cobrando en los últimos años tintes cada vez más agresivos. Tratando de desentrañarlos podemos mencionar algunos hechos relevantes que tienen que ver con la creciente puja entre multinacionales y representantes políticos, por el negocio del gas. En esta nota abordaré la importancia de Siria como ruta del gas; en una próxima oportunidad trataré el otro argumento mencionado, los recursos gasíferos propios de Siria.

La ruta siria

El Gasoducto Islámico

En 2011 Siria firmó un acuerdo con Irán e Iraq, para la creación del denominado “Gasoducto Islámico” o “Friendship Pipeline”. Los planes de construcción contemplan que el mismo nazca en el yacimiento gasífero de South Pars, en Irán y atraviese Iraq, Siria y el Líbano, desembocando en el Mar Mediterráneo. La segunda fase de este proyecto se enmarca en la continuación de este gasoducto bajo el Mediterráneo hasta Grecia, para de ahí ser distribuido en Europa. Este nuevo canal tendrá la capacidad de transmitir 110 millones de metros cúbicos de gas al día, convirtiéndose en el más grande de Medio Oriente (además unirá los campos petrolíferos iraquíes de Akkas y Kirkuk). Se preveía que entre los años 2013 y 2014 se pusiera en marcha su construcción. Luego de la firma de este acuerdo, estalló la guerra civil en Siria, y al día de la fecha, debido a la actual situación del conflicto, lógicamente éste ha sido pospuesto.

El campo de gas South Pars es el más grande de mundo, con una extensión de unos 9.700 kilómetros cuadrados. Es compartido entre Irán y Qatar en el Golfo Pérsico. Según el director del proyecto, y de Pars Oil and Gas Company (POGC), que es una filial de la National Iranian Oil Company, el campo tiene 14 billones de metros cúbicos de reservas de gas. Esto hace que el mismo sea doce veces más grande que el campo de gas Shah Deniz (ubicado en Azerbaiyán), que se estima puede contener 1,2 billones de metros cúbicos, según British Petroleum (el líder del consorcio Shah Deniz).

Pero un dato fundamental de este potencial gasoducto es que su ruta esquivaría nada más y nada menos que a Turquía, fiel aliado de Washington[1].

Por otra parte, y según el periodista Joaquín R. Hernández “Rusia está ampliamente comprometida en los proyectos sirio-iraníes. Su influencia en ellos complementará, y no competirá, con su presencia en el mercado gasífero europeo. Los yacimientos rusos de gas son decisivos para Europa occidental y tienen una gran importancia política: (…) El gasoducto sirio iraní representaría un apoyo sustancial para Rusia en su competencia energética con Occidente”. Además lo más probable es que de construirse este gasoducto cuente con la colaboración de la base naval rusa de Tartus (que constituye el último remanente regional de la red de bases navales que Moscú tuvo durante la Guerra Fría); sumado a la necesidad de Rusia de proteger la misma con el apoyo de estados aliados de la región.

Cabe aclarar en este sentido, que el capital necesario para la construcción del Gasoducto Islámico es de más de 10 mil millones de dólares y que, ante la imposibilidad de las economías medioorientales, probablemente sea Rusia o China quien financie dicho proyecto.


El proyecto Nabucco

A mediados de los 90, los grandes estrategas mundiales, comenzaron a vislumbrar la incipiente importancia del gas como fuente de energía alternativa al entonces “potencialmente escaso” petróleo. Fue entonces cuando la Casa Blanca comenzó a instrumentar el proyecto Nabucco (respaldado por la Unión Europea), como competidor de los proyectos rusos (que ya habían empezado a marchar).

Nabucco (gasoducto que tiene como fin el transporte del gas natural hacia Europa) comenzaría en la zona de Asia Central, cerca del Mar Negro (Turkmenistán y Azerbaiyán), pasaría por Turquía (donde se halla la infraestructura para el almacenamiento), y recorrería Bulgaria, Rumania y Hungría, hasta llegar a Austria. Desde allí, se extendería hacia la República Checa, Croacia, Eslovenia e Italia.

Inicialmente, el conglomerado de capitales en torno a Nabucco, se componía de las siguientes empresas: la alemana REW, la húngara MOL, la turca Botas, la búlgara Energy Company Holding y la rumana Transgaz. Pero varios años después de su diseño preliminar, este gasoducto en la práctica no ha llegado ni al comienzo. En 2012 el consorcio Nabucco fue abandonado por la compañía húngara MOL. Y no hace mucho se retiró del grupo uno de sus socios y accionistas clave: el consorcio alemán RWE.

Originariamente este proyecto suponía el transporte de gas desde Turkmenistán hacia Europa. Pero Turkmenistán ya ha comenzado la construcción de dos gasoductos hacia Irán y China, y en 2013 sumó una tercera tubería en dirección a este último. Por eso Turkmenistán ya no tiene recursos libres de gas para la UE. Y según evaluaciones hechas por varios expertos, Azerbaiyán no dispone en general de volúmenes que pudieran llenar el gasoducto Nabucco. Además, antes de seguir esperando la concreción de Nabucco, el gobierno azerbaiyano prefirió comenzar con el proyecto que sí está actualmente en curso: el Gasoducto Transadriático, que pretende llevar su gas a partir de 2017-2018 hasta Italia vía Turquía, Albania y Grecia.

Asimismo, Nabucco preveía contar con el gas iraní, ya que Estados Unidos pretendía incorporar sus reservas al proyecto conectándolo al punto de almacenamiento de Erzurum, en Turquía. También estaba incluido en el plan el gas proveniente del Mediterráneo oriental, o sea de Siria, Líbano e Israel.

“Se suponía que Nabucco transportaría gas hacia Austria a través de 3 900 kilómetros de territorio turco y estaba concebido para proporcionar anualmente a los mercados europeos 31 000 millones de m³ de gas natural proveniente del Medio Oriente y de la cuenca del Caspio. El apuro de la coalición OTAN-Estados Unidos-Francia por eliminar los obstáculos que se oponían a sus intereses en materia de aprovisionamiento en gas en el Medio Oriente, esencialmente en Siria y Líbano, reside en la necesidad de garantizar la estabilidad y el consentimiento del entorno cuando se habla de las infraestructuras e inversiones que exige la industria del gas”[2].

South Stream y North Stream

Los proyectos energéticos rusos tuvieron mayor suerte. Por un lado North Stream, que conecta directamente a Rusia con Alemania a través del Mar Báltico, comenzó sus obras recientemente. El primer ramal empezó a construirse en abril de 2010, fue completado en junio de 2011 e inaugurado el 8 de noviembre de 2011 por la canciller alemana Angela Merkel y el presidente ruso Dmitri Medvédev. El segundo ramal empezó a construirse en mayo de 2011 y en 2012 comenzaba a operar.

Las accionistas de Nord Stream son “Gazprom” con una participación del 51%, la compañía alemana Wintershall y EON Ruhgas, así como el Gasunie holandés y francés GDF SUEZ.

Por otro lado tenemos al segundo proyecto gasífero ruso: South Stream. El mismo comienza en los campos gasíferos rusos y desemboca en el Mar Negro, pasando por Grecia y el sur de Italia uno de sus ramales, y por Hungría y Austria, el otro; llegando finalmente a territorio búlgaro.

El gasoducto es construido y operado por South Stream AG, una empresa conjunta de Gazprom y Eni (Italia). Sus obras están en marcha, de hecho en junio de este año, Gazprom y el consorcio energético austriaco OMV firmaron un acuerdo sobre la creación de South Stream Austria GmbH, para la construcción del tramo austriaco del gasoducto. Esto, a pesar de que otro Estado miembro del proyecto, Bulgaria, a inicios de junio ordenó paralizar las obras de construcción del South Stream en respuesta a una solicitud de la Comisión Europea, que la había acusado de violar las regulaciones europeas. Los primeros suministros de gas ruso a Austria a través del nuevo ducto están previstos para 2016[3].

Según el periodista y profesor Imad Fawzi Shueibi, “lo que quizás sea la principal amenaza para Nabucco es el intento ruso de hacerlo fracasar mediante la negociación de contratos más ventajosos que los suyos a favor de Gazprom para North Stream y South Stream, lo cual invalidaría los esfuerzos de Estados Unidos y de Europa, disminuiría la influencia de ambos y perturbaría la política energética de esos contendientes en Irán y/o en el Mediterráneo. Además, Gazprom podría convertirse en uno de los inversionistas u operadores más importantes de los nuevos yacimientos de gas en Siria y Líbano”.

En lo que se refiere a Turquía, la suspensión del proyecto Nabucco, en el que está incluido este país, hace que el mismo ambicione con vehemencia el participar en esta lucha por el gas que ahora se desarrolla y es por esto que se han prestado a jugar el juego de los países occidentales imperialistas que buscan impedir que los proyectos multinacionales dirigidos por Rusia –South y North Stream– logren concretarse sin tener una participación importante. Esta es el principal motivo de la sumisión del gobierno turco de Erdogan a los designios de Washington y de la OTAN, ya que necesita con urgencia que Nabucco se concrete para poder almacenar, comercializar y transportar hasta 40 mil millones de metros cúbicos de gas al año.


Gasoducto Qatar-Turquía-Siria

En el año 2009, el ex emir de Qatar Hamad bin Jalifa al Thani (que en 2013 abdicó en favor de su hijo Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani), se reunió con el Primer Ministro Turco Recep Erdogan con el fin de sentar las bases para un nuevo gasoducto que lleve el gas catarí a Turquía pasando por Siria. Este emirato del Golfo tiene las terceras mayores reservas de gas natural del mundo, y es el primer productor mundial de gas licuado (GNL).

El problema apareció con la negativa de Al Assad de participar en el proyecto; y de la posterior confirmación siria para participar del proyecto para construir el Gasoducto Islámico.

El nuevo corredor se presentaría como una de las alternativas de los países europeos al gas ruso, junto con uno de los ramales del también suspendido Nabucco.

Geoestrategias planteadas

“Quien tenga el control de Siria podrá controlar el Medio Oriente. Y a partir de Siria, puerta de Asia, tendrá en sus manos «la llave la Casa Rusia», como decía la emperatriz rusa Catalina la Grande, y también la de China, a través de la Ruta de la Seda, lo que le permitirá dominar el mundo ya que este siglo es el Siglo del Gas”[4].

Y es que, como podemos analizar, viendo el panorama energético mundial, y la pelea por controlar un recurso fundamental como lo es el gas, Siria parece ser una tierra muy apreciada por su ubicación geográfica, como puente entre las inmensas riquezas que se hallan en Oriente y las “metrópolis industrializadas” de Europa.

Otro tema lo constituyen las alianzas políticas que se apoyan en el control de estos recursos, en este caso las alianzas que ha sabido tejer Bashar Al Assad con países como Rusia y China. Pero en cuanto a cercanía geoestratégica, recordemos que Siria limita con Irán, y tanto uno como otro Estado, han aprovechado esta posición para negociar porciones de riqueza con el fin de alimentar sus arcas y las de su clase. Son en realidad, nacionalismos en decadencia que están tratando de resucitar las viejas alianzas, oscilando y sacando ventajas comparativas de la negociación con los también decadentes imperialistas norteamericanos y sus socios.

Lo cierto es que el acercamiento que en este nuevo siglo comenzaron a mantener Siria con Irán, Rusia y China (sin contar el caso de Libia, y otros), no simpatizó con los intereses de las potencias occidentales.

Y mientras la economía de las naciones esté basada en el comercio capitalista internacional, los centros del mundo serán las rutas que conectan el Gran Occidente con el Gran Oriente, tanto por tierra como por mar. En este complejo entramado se halla la importancia de Siria para las economías dominantes y las que pretenden dominar los mercados del globo.

La coartada terrorista y la “solución” militar

Todo este cuadro “tras bambalinas” nos permiten explicar por qué EEUU necesita semejante excusa para poder intervenir en Medio Oriente, predominantemente en Siria. Ésta, ayer fue representada por el ataque con gas sarín por parte de las milicias nacionales sirias; en un ayer más lejano, las armas químicas fueron la razón para ingresar en Iraq derrocando el régimen de Sadam; hoy se trata de la amenaza yihadista del Estado Islámico. Al resultar insuficiente el apoyo militar al opositor Ejército Libre Sirio en los últimos dos años, quedaba claro que era una cuestión de meses para que apareciera una nueva coartada para derrocar al gobierno de Bashar.

Pero para ser más ilustrativos, mostraré algunos datos[5] que dan cuenta de esta alianza encubierta entre algunos grupos yihadistas y el gobierno norteamericano, y de su estrategia conjunta para desestabilizar Siria:

En primer lugar, es un problema explicar (hasta para los mismos norteamericanos) cómo es que los grupos islámicos financiados hasta el año pasado por la Casa Blanca, se convirtieron en pocos meses en los peores enemigos de Occidente. Se supo a principios de 2013, y se hizo popular hace pocas semanas, la conexión entre el emisario de EEUU para Medio Oriente, John McCain, y los ahora cabecillas del EI en Libia, que los sitúa en el momento en el cual se estaba pergeñando la participación de estos últimos en el asesinato de Kadhafi.

Por otra parte, se reveló a principios de este año que el jefe de la inteligencia militar de Israel, general Aviv Kochavi, había lanzado una advertencia ante un aumento del número de combatientes antisirios y revelaba que los miembros de Al Qaeda (entre ellos el Emirato Islámico, que todavía no se había divorciado de Al Qaeda) estaban entrenándose (bajo control de la OTAN) en Turquía, más exactamente en 3 campamentos situados en Sanlıurfa, Osmaniye y Karaman [6].

Localización de la nueva ofensiva yihadista contra los


kurdos en Siria y el despliegue de la OTAN. / Manuel Martorell[7]

Según todos los reportes sobre los bombardeos realizados por drones estadounidenses en tierra siria, es una realidad el hecho de que el blanco de los mismos ha sido toda la región noreste del país, más concretamente 12 refinerías allí ubicadas. Tal como lo afirmó el Observatorio Sirio de los Derechos Humanos, en estos bombardeos han muerto solamente 14 yihadistas, “que probablemente ni siquiera eran miembros del Emirato Islámico”. Además, varias fuentes afirman que entre las zonas atacadas se encontraba Raqqa, y que los yihadistas se habían retirado de allí, dos días antes. Hay que agregar también (lo que en otra nota vamos a desarrollar más profundamente) que los ataques y asesinatos que está perpetrando el EI hacia la población kurda que habita la zona en cuestión, lejos están del trato de colaboración que se está dando en el norte de Irak entre ambos grupos. Se puede plantear entonces, como hipótesis, que en realidad los kurdos que están resistiendo en el norte de Siria (en la frontera con Turquía) contra los ataques foráneos, están representados por el PYG (Unidades de Protección Kurdas), cuyos miembros habían pertenecido a las fuerzas del PKK (Partido de los Trabajadores del Kurdistán), que ante la promesa de mayor autonomía del presidente sirio a cambio de apoyo militar, están luchando férreamente contra los yihadistas, tratando al mismo tiempo, de escapar de los bombardeos occidentales. En cambio, es el PDK (Partido Democrático del Kurdistán), regido por el clan Barzani, el que predomina políticamente en el Kurdistán iraquí. Es amplio el historial que posee el PDK referido a la política sumisa a los intereses norteamericanos; no sólo apoyan la gestión del gobierno turco de Erdogan (con quien el PKK está enemistado), sino que supieron ser un buen aliado local de EEUU durante la invasión a Iraq de 2003.

Asimismo, se puede afirmar que la zona siria que está siendo blanco de ataques aéreos y sangrientos combates militares en tierra, coincide con una de las rutas estipuladas para el transporte de gas, por el acuerdo para construir el Gasoducto Islámico. Todo esto tiene íntima relación con la destrucción de las refinerías de petróleo; las mismas están siendo destruidas para que el Estado Sirio no pueda trabajar el petróleo extraído, en caso de recuperar dichos campos o por lo menos, con la intención de debilitar (más aún) la economía siria, privándola del ingreso de las remesas que proveen dichas instalaciones.

La lucha por el gas del mundo nos ofrece actualmente este primer acercamiento, con los argumentos recién expuestos. Será cuestión de tiempo para que el panorama que analizamos se aclare. El escenario es complejo y muy cambiante. Mientras las alianzas políticas se hacen y deshacen según avanzan los acontecimientos, van surgiendo nuevas hipótesis que iremos desmenuzando para poder acercarnos a la realidad de los que ocurre en esta zona del planeta. Desde aquí es mi intención abrir el debate.


[1] Turquía desea convertirse en el puente principal del gas natural y el petróleo entre el Este y el Oeste, pero se le presentó el peligro del llamado Gasoducto islámico. Esta situación (entre otras) ha convertido al gobierno turco en partidario clave de la lucha contra el régimen de Assad.

[2] “La guerra en Siria: ¿una guerra por la energía?”, por Alexandre Latsa, RIA Novosti / Red Voltaire, 19 de septiembre de 2013.

[3] http://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/view/132000-putin-rusia-parte-conflicto-ucrania

[4] «Siria, centro de la guerra del gas en el Medio Oriente», por Imad Fawzi Shueibi, Red Voltaire, 13 de mayo de 2012.

[5] Ver más datos en “El Estado Islámico y el control de las reservas petroleras en Medio Oriente”, por Alejandra Loucau, Observatorio Petrolero Sur, 5 de octubre de 2014.

[6] “Israeli general says al Qaeda’s Syria fighters set up in Turkey”, por Dan Williams, Reuters, 29 de enero de 2014.

[7] “La OTAN permite al Estado Islámico un “nuevo Sinyar” contra los kurdos de Siria”, Cuarto Poder, 9 de septiembre de 2014.

La información más inteligente

dimanche, 16 novembre 2014

Boko Haram : le bras armé de l’Occident pour détruire le Nigéria

US-funding-boko-haram-nigeria-al-qaeda-al-shabab.pngBoko Haram : le bras armé de l’Occident pour détruire le Nigéria et chasser la Chine du Golfe de Guinée

Ex: http://www.toutsaufsarkozy.com


Les amis du Nigéria ne sont pas ceux qui, par une communication surfaite, proposent leur « aide » pour lutter contre la secte islamiste. Il s’agit plutôt d’embrasser l’ennemi nigérian pour mieux l’étouffer ! Premier pays producteur de pétrole en Afrique et sixième mondial avec 2,5 millions de barils par jour, le Nigéria a commis le « crime » de céder des puits de pétrole à la Chine. Une concurrence jugée insupportable pour les USA, la France et l’Angleterre qui pompent le pétrole nigérian sans inquiétudes depuis 50 ans. De leur côté, les pétromonarchies arabes s’inquiètent d’un Nigéria trop puissant qui pourra ne plus se soumettre au diktat de l’Arabie Saoudite et du Qatar sur le marché du pétrole et du gaz. A l’image de l’Iran (2ème) et du Venezuela (5ème producteur de pétrole mondial) qui gèrent leur pétrole en toute souveraineté. Boko Haram est le cheval de Troie qu’utilisent les puissances impérialistes pour contrer la Chine et détruire la première puissance économique africaine qu’est devenu le Nigéria en le divisant en deux états comme au Soudan.

Quelques questions pour briser le tabou

Première puissance économique africaine depuis le premier trimestre 2014, premier pays producteur de pétrole en Afrique, le Nigeria qui conserve par ailleurs sa confortable position de première puissance démographique (180 millions d’habitants) du continent retient de plus en plus l’attention des médias. Seulement, dans les chaînes de télévision ou les colonnes des journaux, cette triple puissance qu’est le Nigeria est désormais réduite à un nom devenu son synonyme : Boko Haram. Présenté par les« grands »médias « presstitués » comme un groupe de « fous de Dieu », Boko Haram n’aurait pas d’autres visées que de créer un Califat dans une partie du Nigeria, à défaut de soumettre tout le pays à la loi islamiste, la Charia. Aucun lien avec les puissances impérialo-capitalistes engagées dans une lutte à mort pour conserver l’hégémonie mondiale face à la Chine. Et grâce à la grande communication faite autour de l’ « enlèvement » le 14 avril 2014 de plus de 200 jeunes filles (le nombre varie en fonction des sources) dans la localité de Chibok, la secte islamiste a acquis une renommée planétaire. Ses actions sont relayées autant que celles des autorités nigérianes sont censurées. Comme pour prouver aux yeux du monde que le président nigérian, Jonathan Goodluck n’a paradoxalement aucune chance !

Mais est-ce une surprise si ces médias « oublient » systématiquement de vous dire à qui profitent en dernier ressort les crimes commis par la secte Boko Haram ? Pourquoi notre grande presse garde-t-elle un silence complice sur les origines des fonds et des armes lourdes qui permettent aux adeptes de Boko Haram de semer la mort au Nigeria, et bientôt au Cameroun ? Pourquoi les médias qui arrosent le monde ne diffusent-ils pas ce câble de Wikileaks qui citait nommément l’ambassadeur des Etats Unis d’Amérique à Abuja, Terence P. MacCulley comme le coordinateur des actions de déstabilisation du Nigeria ? Face à la redéfinition des équilibres géostratégiques imposée par la pénétration de la Chine en Afrique, Boko Haram comme la Séléka en République Centrafricaine est devenue une arme redoutable pour préserver la mainmise des multinationales occidentales sur les matières premières et accélérer la mise en place d’Africom, le Commandement militaire US pour Afrique.

BokoHaram : à qui profitent les crimes de la secte islamiste ?

Pour envahir l’Irak et tuer son président au nom du pétrole, les Etats Unis d’Amérique de Georges Bush ont trompé la planète entière en affirmant que Saddam Hussein, devenu l’ennemi à abattre détenait des armes de destruction massive. Colin Powell est allé plus loin en sortant des tubes à essai qu’il a présentés en mondovision comme les échantillons de ces armes à la disposition de Saddam Hussein. 10 ans après, tout le monde a constaté qu’il s’agissait d’un gros mensonge made in Washington.

En 2011, une vidéo sur le chef de guerre congolais Joseph Kony postée sur You Tube et largement commentée dans les médias a été regardée dit-on par plusieurs millions d’internautes. Stupéfaits par les crimes de Joseph Kony, les internautes du monde entier ont juré la perte de Kony. En retour, les USA ont proposé leur aide pour officiellement traquer les troupes de l’Armée de Résistance du Seigneur que commande l’ « invisible » Kony. Trois ans après, le résultat est le suivant : Joseph Kony est toujours en fuite. Mais au nom de sa traque, les USA ont installé des bases militaires en République Démocratique du Congo, en Ouganda, en République Centrafricaine, etc.

Autrement dit, à travers cette campagne, Washington a solidement installé les bases militaires dans cette partie de l’Afrique particulièrement riche en minerais précieux et très sollicités par la Chine qui en a grand besoin pour son industrialisation.


Le Nigeria fait son entrée dans la gueule du loup

Membre de l’Organisation des pays exportateurs de pétrole (Opep) depuis 1971, le Nigeria garde le record de putschs en Afrique. Le pays a connu plusieurs groupes irrédentistes parmi lesquels le Mouvement pour la Survie du peuple Ogoni (Mosop) que dirigeait l’écrivain Ken Saro-Wiwa (pendu en 1995), le Mouvement pour l’Emancipation du Delta du Niger (Mend). Le Mosop et le Mend avaient des revendications clairement formulées : gestion inclusive des ressources pétrolières. Les membres des deux organisations faisaient recours aux moyens légaux descendant dans la rue pour manifester mais n’hésitaient pas à prendre les armes pour s’attaquer au pouvoir central ou aux compagnies pétrolières, sources de leurs malheurs.

BokoHaram : un fantôme à plusieurs facettes

Crée à Maiduguri par Mohamed Yusuf en 2002, au lendemain des attentats du 11 septembre, Boko Haram évolue au gré des événements politiques nigérians et des orientations géostratégiques dessinées par les grandes puissances occidentales.

De 2002 à 2006, la secte s’inscrit dans la logique de recrutement-endoctrinement. Néanmoins, elle effectue quelques actions de violence comme pour prouver sa capacité d’action et se faire connaître. De 2006 à 2009, au fur et à mesure que le sudiste Olusugun Obasanjo s’obstinait à modifier la constitution (2006) pour briguer un troisième mandant à la tête du Nigeria, Boko Haram franchit un pallier dans la violence.

Les Etats de Bauchi, Wudil, Potiskum ,Maiduguri, Borno, Yobe, Kano deviennent le théâtre des violences incessantes. Celles-ci ont fait des morts aussi bien dans les rangs des forces de sécurité que dans la population civile et les adeptes de la secte. Son fondateur a d’ailleurs été exécuté en juillet 2009. Mais, comme cette hydre mythologique dont une tête coupée en faisait renaître 1000, Boko Haramn’est pas mort avec Mohamed Yusuf .

Quand Boko Haram s’invite dans la lutte pour le pouvoir entre le Nord et le Sud

Il est un élément qui permet de comprendre le versant nigéro-nigérian du phénomène Boko Haram. Entre 2006 et 2007, le président nigérian d’alors, Olusegun Obasanjo use de tous les stratagèmes pour écarter le candidat favori du Nord à la présidentielle.

Atiku Aboubacar qui a pourtant été son vice-président de 1999 à 2007 est tantôt accusé de corruption, tantôt exclu du parti au pouvoir, le Parti Démocratique Populaire (PDP). Déçu, il quitte le PDP et se présente sans succès à l’élection présidentielle de 2007 sous la bannière du Parti populaire de Tout le Nigeria (ANPP).

Finalement, c’est le malade Umaru Yar’Adoua qui succède à Obassanjo. Yar’Adoua est certes du Nord, mais il n’a pas le poids politique, encore moins le soutien populaire dont jouit le richissime Atiku Aboubakar que l’entourage d’Obassanjo trouve trop proche de Washington. Ce qui est sûr c’est que depuis cette brouille de plus et peut être de trop entre le Nord et le Sud, Boko Haram est devenu plus violent que jamais. S’attaquant aux écoles, églises chrétiennes et autres lieux publics. Avec ce nouveau redéploiement, l’on constate que la secte devenue le cheval de Troie de l’élite du Nord Nigeria dispose désormais d’armes lourdes. Ses troupes aujourd’hui estimées à 30 000 hommes, sont plus disciplinées, semblent plus entraînées. Bref elles sont devenues plus « professionnelles » ! Ceci fait immédiatement penser au daesh en Irak c’est-à-dire une arme de chantage manipulée par des intérêts occultes…


Finalement, le 5 mai 2010, à la mort du président nordiste OumarouYar’Adoua qui n’a pas fini son mandat, le pouvoir revient au Sud avec l’élection de Jonathan Goodluck, originaire de la région pétrolifère du Delta du Niger. Les musulmans du Nord se sentent une fois de plus floués. Ils estiment que la bande à Jonathan Goodluck et Obassanjo a violé l’accord tacite qui veut que non seulement le Nord et le Sud dirigent le pays à tour de rôle, mais aussi qu’il revient à chaque partie de choisir son candidat-président.

Une disposition que le parti au pouvoir aurait violée aussi bien en 2007 qu’en 2011. On comprend par là pourquoi à l’approche de l’élection présidentielle de 2015, Boko Haram multiplie les actes de terreur qui visent sur le plan interne à fragiliser le président sudiste Jonathan Goodluck.

Pour cette mission, les grands médias jouent un rôle déterminant. Ils font une communication sélective qui consiste à communiquer sur les actions de Boko Haram et à passer sous silence les actions des forces de sécurité nigérianes qui ont fait leurs preuves à plusieurs reprises. En 2009 par exemple, l’armée nationale a infligé une cinglante déculottée aux membres de la secte, tuant son fondateur Mohamed Yusuf et un millier de ses combattants. Dans une lettre datant du 9 août 2009, Sanni Umaru qui s’est présenté comme le successeur de Mohamed Yusuf a reconnu la perte de plus de 1 000 hommes par Boko Haram. Certes gangrené par la corruption, le gouvernement fédéral n’est pas (pour l’instant) l’éléphant mort que vous présente votre téléviseur !

Le Nigeria est confronté à la guerre de quatrième génération et dans celle-ci, la guerre de l’information est un pilier central. Les médiamensonges des journaux et télévisions « presstitués » deviennent des obus de mortier qu’on tire du matin au soir. Notre poste de télévision devient un fantassin de l’ennemi installé dans notre propre salon, tirant jour et nuit en direction de notre cerveau !

Avec les financements de l’élite du Nord et ceux des acteurs extérieurs, la secte islamiste s’est suréquipée et dispose désormais d’armes lourdes ainsi que de chars. Outre les soutiens financiers et logistiques, ces islamistes terroristes bénéficient d’importantes complicités dans l’administration et dans les forces de sécurité. Ce sans quoi il n’aurait jamais été possible d’enlever plus de 200 filles dans un établissement scolaire et disparaitre sans être appréhendé. Parmi les financiers de Boko Haram, le Qatar et l’Arabie Saoudite sont en tête de peloton bien sûr pour le compte de l’empire certes, mais avec l’avantage de déstabiliser un acteur majeur et futur rival sur le marché du pétrole et du gaz. En 2050, le Nigeria seul aura environ 400 millions d’habitants, soit la troisième puissance démographique du monde. Cela n’arrange pas les affaires de beaucoup de gens…

La dimension occidentalo-impérialiste : fragiliser le Nigeria et écarter la Chine

Les puissances sont jalouses de leur position et des privilèges y afférant. Elles s’emploient à freiner toute concurrence, aussi petite soit-elle. En tant que triple puissance (démographique, économique et pétrolière) africaine, le Nigeria s’est involontairement attiré des ennemis hors du continent. Pour ne pas arranger les choses, l’ancien président Olesugun Obasanjo a commis le « crime » de briser le monopole des entreprises occidentales dans l’exploitation des vastes gisements de pétrole du Nigeria en ouvrant les puits aux Chinois.

En effet, pendant plus d’un demi-siècle les compagnies pétrolières françaises, anglaises et étasuniennes ont régné en maîtres imperturbables dans la production pétrolière au Nigeria. Et puis, coup de théâtre ! En avril 2006, le président Obasanjo, qui n’a pas reçu l’appui des Occidentaux dans sa tentative de modifier la constitution pour se maintenir au pouvoir, se fâche et se tourne vers la Chine. Au grand dam de Shell, Texaco, Chevron…, les autorités nigérianes annoncent en grandes pompes avoir signé un contrat d’exploitation avec la compagnie pétrolière China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) pour plus de deux milliards de dollars avec une prévision de production de 225 000 barils jour. Dans la même logique, le président Obasanjo a négocié un prêt d’un milliard de dollars auprès du gouvernement chinois afin de financer la réhabilitation des voies ferrées du Nigeria et acheter du matériel roulant. La partie chinoise se donne deux ans pour produire son premier baril de pétrole au pays de Ken Sarowiwa et de Wole Soyinka.

Ce rapprochement Abuja-Pékin crée des insomnies dans les capitales occidentales. Perdre le contrôle du Nigeria qui produit 2,5 millions de barils par jour est un coup dur pour Paris, Londres et Washington. D’autant plus que le Nigeria et son voisin le Cameroun constituent une sorte de glacis stratégique incontournable pour le contrôle du Golfe de Guinée.

De leur côté, l’Arabie Saoudite et le Qatar s’inquiètent de voir le premier producteur africain de pétrole s’affranchir de leur tutelle. L’Iran, deuxième producteur de l’or noir au monde se moque des directives éditées par l’Arabie Saoudite et le Qatar. Le Venezuela, cinquième producteur mondial de pétrole s’est affranchi des directives des monarchies arabes et de l’impérialisme occidental depuis plus d’une décennie. Il gère son pétrole en toute souveraineté. Or, ad vitam aeternam, ces pétromonarchies entendent être le centre de régulation du marché du pétrole mondial. Ce qui est le seul lot de consolation que leur laisse l’impérialisme occidental.


Face aux velléités souverainistes du Nigeria, les réactions ne se font pas attendre. Chez l’Oncle Sam, on le sait, la meilleure défense c’est l’attaque ! L’administration US lance précipitamment son Commandement militaire pour l’Afrique en 2008, année où la China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) démarrait ses activités pétrolières dans le premier pays producteur de pétrole en Afrique. Dans la précipitation, les USA n’attendent pas l’obtention d’un accord de siège pour lancer l’Africom. Il faut faire quelque chose. Point besoin d’attendre qu’un pays africain accepte d’abriter Africom pour le lancer. Six ans après son lancement, ce Commandement militaire étasunien pour l’Afrique est toujours basé à… Stuttgart en Allemagne.

Certains peuvent toujours y voir une simple coïncidence. Mais, cela n’enlève rien sur le fait que le Commandement militaire étasunien pour l’Afrique ne vise pas à lutter contre le terrorisme comme l’indique le discours officiel. Africom est le bras militaire de la diplomatie US pour contrer l’émergence d’une puissance endogène et surtout écarter la Chine de Afrique. Pour éviter que l’Empire du milieu ne s’empare de leur place de première puissance économique mondiale, les USA, incapables de fermer les industries chinoises, empêchent que celles-ci puissent accéder aux matières premières qui leur sont indispensables.

La CIA à l’œuvre

S’appuyant sur les câbles de Wikileaks, l’organisation Greenwhite Coalition affirme que pendant plusieurs années, les USA ont déployé les gros moyens pour déstabiliser le géant d’Afrique. En fouillant dans sa mémoire, le pays de Georges Bush a constaté que les troupes de l’Ecomog (EconomicCommunity of West African States Monitoring Group), la force militaire de la CDEAO (Communauté de développement des Etats de l’Afrique de l’Ouest), majoritairement constituée de militaires nigérians avait joué un rôle important (institution de cessez-le-feu) dans les guerres civiles au Libéria et en Siéra-Léone dans les années passées.

Craignant que le Nigeria utilise l’Ecomog pour supplanter l’influence des grandes puissances dans la sous-région, le président Georges Bush, fonde l’Acri (Africa Crisis Response Initiative ) en 2004. Avec l’aide de la CIA, l’Acri recrute des jeunes islamistes qu’elle forme à la collecte du Renseignement, au maniement des armes, aux techniques de survie. Les jeunes formés sont mis à la disposition de la secte BokoHaram qui s’en sert pour semer la mort !

Greenwhite Coalition constate également que la CIA a installé des camps d’endoctrinement et de formation le long des frontières poreuses du Nigeria, du Cameroun, du Tchad et du Niger. Bien plus, un autre câble diplomatique US révèle que pour conduire la déstabilisation du Nigeria, l’ambassade US au Nigeria est devenue un véritable laboratoire. Pour mieux mener le sinistre projet, Washington n’a pas trouvé mieux que Terence P. MacCulley pour occuper le poste d’ambassadeur dans ce pays. Terence P. MacCulley n’est pas un diplomate comme les autres. En plus d’être le coordinateur de la politique étrangère d’Africom, il est l’un des architectes de l’Africa Crisis Response Initiative. Son expérience est mise à contribution pour fragiliser le pouvoir fédéral afin de justifier l’intervention des pays de l’OTAN.

Il n’aura échappé à personne que les attaques de la secte islamiste se font désormais avec une précision digne d’une armée professionnelle bien entrainée ! Elle dispose d’un effectif que la rançon issue du marchandage des otages ne peut payer. Car pour enrôler, nourrir, équiper et soigner des milliers de combattants comme c’est le cas de Boko Haram, il faut avoir des financements importants et réguliers. Or le business des otages n’obéit pas à cet impératif.

Quand Michelle Obama fait le marketing des drones US au Nigeria

Pour mieux comprendre l’implication des USA dans la déstabilisation du Nigeria, il faut revisiter les derniers évènements qui se rapportent à ce pays. Le dernier en date est incontestablement la campagne « Bring Back our girls », lancée personnellement par la première dame des Etats Unis d’Amérique. Restée en retrait pendant les six premières années de présidence de son mari, Michelle Obama s’est muée en mascotte du complexe militaro-industriel US. En lançant la campagne Bringbackourgirls sur facebook, elle a légitimement attiré l’attention du monde sur le sort des 200 filles enlevées par la secte islamiste.

Mais, ce qu’on ne dit pas c’est que Michelle Obama a trouvé un nouveau ciel pour les drones US et un nouveau terrain d’actions pour les Marines et autres forces spéciales étasuniennes. Au nom de la recherche des 200 lycéennes, le président étasunien a décidé l’envoi de 70 militaires au Tchad.


Obama en a profité pour renforcer les effectifs militaires US au Nigeria. Jusqu’en mai 2014, 50 soldats étasuniens étaient régulièrement affectés à l’ambassade des USA au Nigeria. 20 Marines y assuraient la formation des militaires locaux. La campagne lancée par Michelle Obama a permis d’accroitre ce nombre.

Rappelez-vous la campagne lancée pour, nous avait-on dit, traquer Joseph Kony. Elle a permis aux USA de quadriller le Congo, l’Ouganda, la RCA… Brink back our girls permet de quadriller l’Afrique de l’Ouest. Etablissant l’axe Mogadiscio-Ouagadougou, avec 12 pays sous la botte de Washington. A ce jour, 29 pays africains ont accordé le droit aux USA d’utiliser leurs aéroports. Et n’oubliez jamais que les forces spéciales sont toujours précédées des hommes de Renseignements qui collectent certes des données utiles pour les militaires, mais font de l’espionnage économique et industriel au service de l’Empire. On voit à qui profite les crimes de Boko Haram en dernier ressort. La guerre c’est le plan !

Boko Haram : un poker menteur très rentable

En français, BokoHaram veut dire : « l’école interdite ». Boko renvoie au livre Book et Haram veut dire interdit. Son contraire est Halal. Plusieurs « spécialistes » et « experts » de Boko Haram préfèrent la traduction suivante : « L’éducation occidentale est un péché ».

Cependant, il est étonnant de constater que Boko Haram ne s’attaque pas aux intérêts des Occidentaux qui sont pourtant ses ennemis objectifs si l’on en croit la traduction des « experts ». Au Nigeria, les grandes marques occidentales ne manquent pourtant pas. Les plus visibles dictent la loi dans le pétrole qui est la principale source en devises du pays.

Au lieu de s’attaquer à elles pour confirmer le caractère Haram de l’Occident, la secte préfère s’en prendre aux Nigérian(e)s dont le crime inexpiable serait d’être chrétien(e)s ou de fréquenter une école laïque. Aboubakar Shekau n’a-t-il pas revendiqué l’enlèvement des 200 filles dans une vidéo ? Quelle incohérence ! Boko Haram est donc ce que son nom n’indique pas. Autrement dit Boko Haram n’est pas ce que vous en savez.

Contrairement à Boko Haram, le Mouvement pour la Survie du Peuple Ogoni et le Mouvement pour l’Emancipation du Delta du Niger s’opposaient ouvertement aux intérêts de l’Occident. Les deux organisations s’en prenaient directement aux multinationales pétrolières et à leurs relais nigérians. En 1992, trois ans avant sa pendaison à Port Harcourt le 10 novembre 1995 par le régime de Sani Abacha, l’écrivain Saro-Wiwa (assassiné avec 8 autres militants du Mosop) indexait les compagnies pétrolières en ces termes : « L’exploration pétrolière a transformé le pays ogoni en immense terrain vague. Les terres, les rivières et les ruisseaux sont en permanence entièrement pollués ; l’atmosphère est empoisonnée, chargée de vapeurs d’hydrocarbures, de méthane, d’oxydes de carbone et de suies rejetés par les torchères qui, depuis trente-trois ans, brûlent des gaz vingt-quatre heures sur vingt-quatre tout près des zones d’habitation. Le territoire ogoni a été dévasté par des pluies acides et des épanchements ou des jaillissements d’hydrocarbures. Le réseau d’oléoducs à haute pression qui quadrille les terres cultivées et les villages ogoni constitue une dangereuse menace ». Poursuivi par les familles des victimes pour complicité dans l’élimination de Saro-Wiwa et ses compagnons, le pétrolier Shell a accepté de payer 15,5 millions de dollars en juin 2009.

La rançon de la mauvaise gestion

Si BokoHaram recrute avec tant de facilité au Nigeria, c’est aussi parce que les dirigeants successifs de ce pays se sont illustrés par une redistribution inéquitable des ressources pétrolières. Exemple : l’écart entre le taux de scolarisation au Sud et au Nord du pays est abyssal. Pareil pour la couverture sanitaire. Tenez ! Sur 100 000 femmes qui enfantent au Nigeria, 1 800 meurent au Nord contre 80 dans le Sud du même pays. Face à cette misère entretenue par les hommes politiques généralement empêtrés dans les affaires de corruption et de détournement de deniers publics, les populations des zones lésées sont réceptives aux manipulations.

Pour attirer le maximum de personnes qu’il a finalement converties au djihad, Mohamed Yusuf, le fondateur de Boko Haram insistait dans ses prêches sur ces inégalités. Il pointait le pouvoir fédéral comme étant la cause du chômage des jeunes. Et ces derniers étaient nombreux qui attendaient leur premier emploi après plusieurs années d’études universitaires. En usant de tous les subterfuges pour écarter le nordiste Atiku Aboubakar et placer le malade Omaru Yarad’oua, Olesugun Obasanjo a renforcé le clivage Nord-Sud et Boko Haram prospère au Nord parce qu’il a le soutien de l’élite nordiste. Les Nordistes sont prêts à tout pour qu’un Sudiste ne remporte pas l’élection de 2015.

L’issue de cette consultation électorale déterminera probablement le cours de l’histoire du Nigeria. Si un ressortissant du Sud gagne, les actes terroristes de Boko Haram vont vraisemblablement se multiplier. Un rapport circonstancié du National Intelligence Council des USA évoque d’ailleurs une probable partition du Nigeria en 2015. Par contre si un nordiste l’emporte, les données pourront changer. Les musulmans verront l’arrivée d’un des leurs à la tête de l’Etat fédéral comme la correction d’une injustice. Comme un instrument au service de l’élite nordiste du Nigeria, BokoHaram aura atteint l’une de ses missions historiques. Mais, puisqu’elle est aussi et surtout au service des puissances étrangères, Boko Haram pourra migrer vers un autre pays exactement comme l’ont fait les djihadistes takfiri abandonnant la Lybie conquise pour la Syrie de Bachar Al-Assad. En clair, ses combattants pourront être envoyés sur un nouveau front pour une mission similaire : contrer la Chine et obtenir des contrats léonins pour les multinationales occidentales.

Après le Nigeria, le Cameroun ?

Le Cameroun est la cible idéale pour les puissances impérialistes occidentales. Pourquoi le Cameroun de Paul Biya ? Comme le président centrafricain François Bozizé renversé par une coalition rebelle en mars 2013, le malheur de Paul Biya c’est d’avoir décidé de diversifier les partenaires économiques du Cameroun. Ainsi, ce pays considéré depuis près d’un siècle comme bastion imprenable de la France a largement ouvert ses portes à la Chine. En 10 ans, l’Empire du milieu a supplanté la France dans l’économie camerounaise. Gagnant progressivement tous les grands marchés : construction des barrages de Mekin et M’mvelle, construction de l’autoroute Douala-Yaoundé, construction du Complexe industrialo-portuaire de Kribi, etc.

Le Cameroun c’est aussi le verrou du golfe de Guinée et la gâchette de toute l’Afrique. On l’appelle « l’Afrique en miniature ». Déstabiliser ce pays c’est la garantie de mettre le feu à tout le Golfe de Guinée. Déjà, depuis plus de deux ans, les incursions de la secte nigériane ont presque totalement détruit le commerce de bétail dans le nord du Cameroun alors que la misère sociale est justement la raison essentielle pour laquelle la secte recrute si facilement ses djihadistes. La stratégie du chaos est donc bien en marche. Jusqu’ici, les seuls otages occidentaux attribués ou revendiqués par la secte nigériane Boko Haram ont été enlevés au…Cameroun.

Le 19 février 2013, une famille française constituée de Tanguy Moulin-Fournier et son épouse, leurs quatre fils et Cyril le frère de Tanguy sont enlevés à l’extrême-Nord du Cameroun. En visite en Grèce, François Hollande réagira tout de suite en indiquant que cette famille est entre les mains de Boko Haram. Boko Haram n’avait encore fait aucune revendication de ce rapt. Il a fallu attendre le 21 pour qu’Aboubakar Shekau revendique l’enlèvement. En novembre de la même année 2013, un autre Français, Georges Vandenbeusch, 42 ans est enlevé à Nguetchewé, localité du Nord-Cameroun. Le Conseil épiscopal du Cameroun n’a signé aucun communiqué rendant public cet enlèvement. L’instance est restée tout aussi muette après la libération de Vandenbeush le 31 décembre. Ce qui est inhabituel. Lorsqu’un prêtre catholique est en difficulté, le Conseil épiscopal prend officiellement position en condamnant l’acte. Ce qui n’a jamais été le cas pour Georges Vandenbeusch qui était pourtant présenté comme prêtre catholique. Le 5 avril 2014, les prêtres italiens Giampaolo Marta et Gianantonio Allegri, ainsi qu’une religieuse canadienne sont enlevés à Tchère, à environ 20 kilomètres de Maroua, capitale de la Région de l’Extrême-Nord Cameroun. L’enlèvement est attribué à la secte islamiste. On dirait que BokoHaram ne voit les Occidentaux qu’au Cameroun !

En fait, à travers ces enlèvements, la secte islamiste et ses financiers impérialistes veulent faire passer dans l’opinion internationale que le régime de Yaoundé est incapable d’assurer la sécurité de ses citoyens et des étrangers et ainsi préparer les esprits à une future occupation militaire du pays comme en Centrafrique.

Une nouvelle carte de l’Afrique se dessine. Les frontières issues de la colonisation n’arrangent plus ceux qui les ont tracées à l’époque. Des informations sérieuses parlent de la constitution d’un nouvel état regroupant le nord du Nigeria, du Cameroun, de la Centrafrique et le sud du Tchad et qui sera un émirat islamique comme celui qui se prépare en Irak.

Finalement, la guerre contre Mouammar Kadhafi en Libye n’est pas différente de celle qui a plongé le Mali dans le chaos. La différence entre le renversement de Laurent Gbagbo en Côte-D’ivoire et de celui de François Bozizé en Centrafrique c’est l’identité des présidents renversés. Au Nigeria, les actions de Boko Haram servent les mêmes intérêts que ceux de la Séléka en République Centrafrique. Par ces temps de faillite économique en occident, les pays de l’Otan, conduits par le nouveau couple anthropophage USA-France veulent endiguer la pénétration chinoise et reprendre les énormes ressources naturelles disponibles dans cette partie du monde.

Il est également question de déstructurer le continent africain qui sera tout de même la première puissance démographique mondiale en 2050 avec deux milliards d’habitants. Dans cette troisième guerre mondiale qui est la lutte pour l’hégémonie planétaire, tout Etat souverain est un danger pour l’Occident et tout Etat très grand doit être divisé en entités plus facilement manipulables comme au Soudan, et comme prévu pour l’Irak.

La guerre risque d’être longue et large. La campagne d’occultation des vraies causes aussi. Et la grande force de l’impérialisme est de toujours faire porter la responsabilité de ses guerres par d’autres. Ce qui complique évidemment la compréhension des causes profondes et des objectifs finaux des conflits contemporains. Face à cela, le choix devient simple pour les africains : soit combattre pour leur libération définitive et travailler pour devenir la puissance émergente du 21ème siècle, ou alors accepter une recolonisation directe qui cette fois est bien partie pour durer 1000 ans !

Vrijhandelsakkoord met VS vernietigt ruim half miljoen Europese banen


Vrijhandelsakkoord met VS vernietigt ruim half miljoen Europese banen

Socialistische welvaartsverplaatsing: Gemiddelde lonen in Noord Europa dalen met € 4.848 per jaar, in Zuid Europa met € 165,- - Nederland kan zich opmaken voor nieuwe ronde bezuinigingen op sociale zekerheid en zorg

Uit het eerste onafhankelijke onderzoek blijkt dat het bejubelde TTIP vrijhandelsakkoord met de VS de komende 10 jaar 583.000 Europese arbeidsplaatsen zal vernietigen, de export zal beschadigen en zowel de lonen als belastinginkomsten zal doen dalen. Bijkomend probleem is dat Brussel het zo geregeld heeft, dat de nationale parlementen helemaal niets te zeggen hebben over dit akkoord, en er dus ook geen wijzigingen in aan te brengen zijn.

De studies van de EU schetsen zonder uitzondering een rooskleurig beeld voor de welvaart en werkgelegenheid in Europa, zoals 1,3 miljoen nieuwe arbeidsplaatsen. In werkelijkheid blijkt het TTIP enkel gunstig voor de VS, want alleen daar zal de export en het aantal banen toenemen. De enigen in Europa die ervan zullen profiteren zijn de industriëlen en grootkapitalisten bij banken en multinationals.

Amerika profiteert, Noord Europeanen moeten bloeden

Deze voor de Europeanen ontluisterende conclusie is afkomstig van het Global Development & Environment Institute van de Amerikaanse Tufts-Universiteit. Dankzij het vrijhandelsakkoord zullen er bijna 600.000 banen verloren gaan in de EU, net zoveel als in de crisisjaren 2010 en 2011. Noord Europa kan rekenen op het verdwijnen van 223.000 arbeidsplaatsen en een teruggang van de export met 2,07%, waardoor het BNP met 0,5% krimpt.

De belastinginkomsten lopen terug, en de lonen in Noord Europa zullen gemiddeld € 4.848,- per jaar dalen. Voor Zuid Europa zijn de gevolgen minder ernstig. Daar verdwijnen 90.000 banen en daalt het gemiddelde inkomen met € 165,- per jaar. Dat komt deels omdat het in die landen al een stuk slechter gaat dan in Noord Europa, en deels omdat het beleid van Brussel gericht is op socialistische nivelering, waardoor er een permanente welvaartsverplaatsing van Noord naar Zuid optreedt.

Nieuwe bezuinigingen, ernstige sociale ontwrichting

Dat betekent dat met name Noord Europa, inclusief Nederland, zich kan opmaken voor een nieuwe ronde strenge bezuinigingen, die ernstige sociale ontwrichtingen zullen veroorzaken – en dat terwijl de zorg en sociale zekerheid nu al grotendeels wordt gestript door het zittende VVD-PvdA kabinet, dat tegelijkertijd zonder al te veel protest bijna € 700 miljoen extra naar Brussel overmaakt.

Het einddoel van deze nivellering en blijvende verarming van Noord Europa is duidelijk: nog meer Europese gelijkstelling en integratie, waardoor er stap voor stap een financiële en politieke (schulden)unie ontstaat, een Verenigde Staten van Europa zelfs.

Rijken nog rijker, lage inkomens de dupe

De weinige profiteurs van het vrijhandelsverdrag in Europa zijn –we zouden inmiddels kunnen zeggen ‘natuurlijk’- de grote financiële spelers op de beurzen, industriëlen en de (super)rijken. Maar ook de pensioenfondsen hebben er belang bij, want die hebben fors geïnvesteerd in aandelen, en zijn daarom afhankelijk van hoge koersen.

Wat tevens een rol speelt is de valuta-oorlog die op onze planeet is uitgebroken, waarmee de diverse handelsblokken hun export zo goedkoop mogelijk proberen te maken. Met name voor de lage inkomens in Europa zal dit vernietigende gevolgen hebben.

De reden waarom het Amerikaanse instituut tot totaal andere conclusies dan de EU komt is simpel: de officiële onderzoeken baseren zich enkel op cijfers tot en met 2010. Toen was de crisis in Europa nog lang zo erg niet als in de jaren daarna. Bovendien heeft Brussel de zeer eenzijdige rekenmethode van de Wereldbank gebruikt, terwijl de Amerikanen het VN-model gebruikten, dat veel omvattender en nauwkeuriger is omdat het ook de regionale handelsverschillen in ogenschouw neemt, en niet enkel kijkt naar de belangen van het grootkapitaal.



Succes voor elite, ramp voor gewone man

De Europese politieke elite verkoopt het TTIP als een groot succes, maar uiteindelijk zullen de gewone Europeanen zich straks gelukkig prijzen als ze überhaupt nog een –slecht betaalde- baan hebben. De eerste en tot nu toe enige onafhankelijke studie laat onverbiddellijk zien dat het door Brussel gesloten vrijhandelsverdrag een ramp voor de gewone man is.

De verantwoordelijke politici beseffen dat heel goed, en daarom worden petities tegen het TTIP onderdrukt, en worden de onderhandelingen over het verdrag streng geheim en buiten het zicht van het publiek gehouden. Mensen die het wagen openlijk kritiek te uiten op het vrijhandelsverdrag, worden belachelijk gemaakt.

Het eindcommentaar van de Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten spreekt boekdelen: ‘De koude berekening van de politieke elite in de EU en de nationale lidstaten: Zodra de mensen erachter komen wat wij hebben besloten, zijn wij al lang met pensioen. Daar zullen ook dan de belastingen nog voldoende voor zijn.’


(1) Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten

Zie ook o.a.:

24-10: Deense investeringsbank: In november nieuwe beurs- en schuldencrisis
21-10: Machtigste bank ter wereld geeft derde waarschuwing voor grote crash
16-10: Duitse bondskanselier Merkel waarschuwt voor nieuwe eurocrisis (/ Duitsers en Nederlanders moeten permanent welvaart inleveren om de euro overeind te houden)
03-10: Diepere crisis eurozone door Frankrijk en Italië; ECB en IMF vrezen totale crash (/ IMF eist afbraak sociale zekerheid Europa)
28-09: Vrijhandelsverdrag: EU schakelt macht nationale parlementen uit (/ ‘Sluizen herverdeling welvaart eurozone worden geopend’)
11-09: Grote investeringsbanken verwachten dramatische euro-crash

America’s Jihad


America’s Jihad

Download this article (PDF)

The Islamic State organization seems to have arisen overnight, well-armed, and swiftly moving through Iraq and Syria, seemingly unstoppable. One might wonder as to how plausible it is to believe the CIA, U.S. National Security Council, and Mossad supposedly hitherto knew little or nothing of the Islamic State jihadists. We are apparently expected to believe that they appeared from nowhere as if by magic.

It is apt to recall the present Jihad bogeyman arose from the Mujahideen, which was formed by the CIA as a guerrilla force against the Russians in Afghanistan. The “clash of civilizations,” as neocon historians refer to the “war on terrorism,” was a contrivance; not the result of an inexorable historical law. By the end of the First World War much goodwill existed between the Entente and the Arabs who had fought together against the Ottoman Empire, with the expectation that the Arab states would achieve independence, thanks to the heroic efforts of T. E. Lawrence and the Arabic fighters. Their guerrilla war against the Turks had been crucial to the war effort, although subsequently besmirched by Zionist propagandists.[1] Thanks to Zionist machinations, the Entente had spoken with a forked tongue to the Arabs while making a contrary promise to the Zionists to back a Jewish state in Palestine in return for Jewish influence supporting the Entente cause, by then in a predicament, in the USA. The result was the Balfour Declaration and the needless prolongation of the war[2] so that the Zionists and the messianists could get their nose poked into Palestine until such time as being able to dump themselves en masse after the Second World War.

It is also opportune at this point to recall those who introduced terrorism into Palestine. The Irgun, Stern and Palmach underground regarded the British as the “new Nazis,” and for that matter anyone who stood in the way of their messianic dreams. Hence, United Nations envoy Count Folke Bernadotte, who had negotiated for thousands of Jews to leave German occupied territory, was gunned down by the Sternists because his suggestions for the boundaries of Israel were regarded as an affront to Jewry.[3] Ultimately, the Zionist dream for Israel extends the boundaries from the rivers Nile to Euphrates (Genesis 15: 18) and any compromise of captured territory would mean the surrendering of the deeds of promise from God Himself,[4] unless there is a longer-term motive involved. There cannot be peace in the Middle East until that dream is forgotten, which is not going to happen, any more than the aim of rebuilding the Temple of Solomon upon the ruins of the Al Aqsa Mosque as the prerequisite for the coming of the Jewish Messiah;[5] the declaration of Jerusalem as the capitol of the world, and the elimination of “idolatrous” religions, to be replaced by the Seven Noahide Laws, already promulgated by U.S. Congress.[6] As the Israeli scholar Dr. Israel Shahak documented, such notions are alive and kicking in Israel.[7] Yet we are constantly told of “Muslim fanaticism.” We are also told of the hatred Islam possesses for Christianity, despite the recognition of Jesus as a great prophet, and his mother. Meanwhile, Talmudic Judaism teaches that Jesus was the son of a whore and a Roman soldier, Pandira, and is in hell boiling in semen. The hatred of Talmudic Jews for Christianity is frequently manifested by the Orthodox custom of spitting on monks and priests, and in many other ways, again documented by Shahak.[8]

In short, the origins of the present Middle East terrorism stem from Franco-British duplicity and Zionist machinations during the First World War, and rampant religious lunacy from Judaism rather than Islam. As the political and judicial theorist Dr. Carl Schmitt pointed out, an outer enemy is often the prerequisite for the formation or maintenance of unity among disparate elements. Hence, Zionism requires “anti-Semitism” to exist. Israel requires the myth of belligerent Arab neighbors ever ready to run them into the Dead Sea. The USA requires a new global bogeyman after the demise of the USSR, to maintain its role as the world’s “big brother,” albeit one of a particularly vulgar and bullying type. While Putin’s Russia has somewhat served the role once occupied by the USSR, it is difficult to imbed the notion into the world’s consciousness that Putinism, like Sovietism, supposedly aims at world conquest, and only the USA can stop this. An added factor is required. Jihadism serves these purposes for both the USA and Israel. Where would the USA have been since the implosion of the Soviet bloc, had it not been for Jihadism? Largely obliged to mind its own business for the first time since before Woodrow Wilson.

Mujahideen a U.S. Creation

The ground for Jihadism was sown by the U.S. arming of the Mujahideen against the USSR in Afghanistan. The CIA describes its role in founding Jihadism:

After the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, President Carter directed CIA to assist the Afghan mujahidin. CIA came to see that the indigenous Afghan opposition to the Soviets was less an organized movement than widespread opposition by villages and tribes. Through Pakistan, CIA provided the mujahidin with money, weapons, medical supplies, and communications equipment. Initially the goal was to drain Soviet resources by keeping their forces bogged down. In 1985, CIA shifted from a plan of attrition to one that would help the rebels win. One of the pivotal moments came in September 1986, when the mujahidin used CIA-provided Stinger missiles to shoot down three Soviet Mi-24D helicopter gunships. As part of this escalation of financial and materiel support, President Reagan issued new guidance that put CIA into more direct contact with rebel commanders, beginning an era of CIA interaction with tribal and local leaders that continues through the post-9/11 era. [9]

The CIA then supported the Northern Alliance against the Taliban government. The CIA also claims that it supported the Northern Alliance against Al Qaeda and bin Laden when they moved into Afghanistan from the Sudan. However, an NBC report states of CIA support for bin Laden:

As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow’s invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar – the MAK – which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.

What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan’s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow’s occupation.

The CIA, concerned about the factionalism of Afghanistan … found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans were easier to “read” than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the “reliable” partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow.[10]

These Afghan veterans became the nucleus for Jihadists further afield.[11]


Serbia Targeted

When the U.S. globalists wanted to dismember Yugoslavia and globalize the wealth of Kosovo, again we find the Mujahideen. The USA claims to be fighting Islamic terrorism worldwide. Milosevic’s Serbia was on the frontline fighting Islamist terrorism. Rather than U.S. support for the Serbs, the support went to Islamist terrorists and gangsters. Serbs had been the target of Islamists for decades. They aimed to carve out a Greater Albania by annexing Kosovo. The U.S./NATO interest was that of privatizing the globalizing the vast mineral wealth and other resources of the region run by the State.

In 1998 the Kosovo Liberation Army was described by U.S. special envoy to Bosnia, Robert Gelbard, as “terrorists.” The U.S. State Department had previously prepared a report detailing the methods of the KLA to intimidate Kosovan-Albanian ethnics into supporting them. Prior to Milosevic’s intervention to restore order, U.S. official sources were reporting that Albanian ethnics were fleeing their villages in their entirety to escape the KLA. Also well-known by American and European police agencies were the drug-trafficking connections the KLA had with organized crime in Europe and Turkey.[12]

The KLA aim was for a Greater Albania including parts of Serbia, Greece, Macedonia, and Montenegro. Chris Hedges, when New York Times Balkans Bureau Chief (1995-1998), wrote in Foreign Affairs of a map of the Greater Albania found at a KLA compound. Hedges reported: “Between 1966 and 1989 an estimated 130,000 Serbs left the province because of frequent harassment and discrimination by the Kosovar Albanian majority.” Hedges mentioned the funding that the KLA was receiving from Islamic states and the presence of Mujahideen in the KLA staging area in northern Albania. In 1981, the Associated Press reported that 4000 Serbs fled Kosovo due to anti-Serb riots, and the desecration of Orthodox churches and graves. [13]

When Serb forces attacked Srebrenica, it was to end the armed attacks mounted from the Islamist base on nearby villages. A news report of the time cites “intelligence sources” as stating that it was “harassment which precipitated the Serb attack on the 1,500 Muslim defenders inside the enclave.”[14] General Philippe Morillon, commander of the U.N. troops in Bosnia (1992-1993), testified before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia that Muslim forces based in Srebrenica had “engaged in attacks during Orthodox holidays and destroyed villages, massacring all the inhabitants. This created a degree of hatred that was quite extraordinary in the region.” Between May and December 1992, Muslim forces repeatedly attacked Serb villages around Srebrenica, killing and torturing civilians; some were mutilated and burned alive. Muslim forces in Srebrenica murdered over 1,300 Serbs and had “ethnically cleansed” a vast area.[15]

The London Spectator reported that during 1992-1995 the Pentagon helped Islamists from Central Asia to reach Bosnia and join the Bosnian Muslims, stating:

As part of the Dutch government’s inquiry into the Srebrenica massacre of July 1995, Professor Cees Wiebes of Amsterdam University compiled a report entitled “Intelligence and the War in Bosnia”, published in April 2002. In it he details the secret alliance between the Pentagon and radical Islamic groups from the Middle East, and their efforts to assist Bosnia’s Muslims. By 1993, there was a vast amount of weapons-smuggling through Croatia to the Muslims, organised by ‘clandestine agencies’ of the USA, Turkey and Iran, in association with a range of Islamic groups that included Afghan Mujahideen and the pro-Iranian Hezbollah. Arms bought by Iran and Turkey with the financial backing of Saudi Arabia were airlifted from the Middle East to Bosnia – airlifts with which, Wiebes points out, the USA was “very closely involved.”[16]

One of the stated war aims of NATO was that the Yugoslav Federation would become a “free market” economy. The fight for a “free market” economy was not an aim that seems to have been widely publicized by the spokesmen for the U.S. State Department and British Foreign Office at the time. The prize was the Trepca mining complex, which had operated 24 hours a day, having the richest lead, lignite and zinc deposits in Europe, and one of the richest world-wide. Once the moral pontifications of the Rambouillet diktat were dispensed with, chapter four makes the aim clear enough: Article I (1): “The economy of Kosovo shall function in accordance with free market principles.”[17] A Privatization agency of Kosovo was established, but the economy, including Trepca, remains in a shambles.

Russia, Libya, Syria…

Islamists have likewise proven useful within the Russian Federation. The primary pro-Chechnya lobby in the USA was the Freedom House-founded American Committee for Peace in Chechnya. This included some of the most notable neocons and Zionists: Richard Perle; Elliott Abrams; former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Kenneth Adelman; Midge Decter of the Heritage Foundation; Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy; Bruce Jackson of the U.S. Committee on NATO; Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, and former CIA director R. James Woolsey.[18] It is strange that of these enthusiasts for the rights of Muslims in Russia, all but Abrams and Ledeen were members of the arch-Zionist Project for a New American Century, founded in 1997. A sub-branch was the Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000 headed by Perle, which prepared a blueprint for the reorganization of the Middle East, that calls in particular for “regime change” in Syria and Iran, This seems to be the plan that is be is being followed.[19]


While the ACPC changed its name to American Committee for Peace in the Caucasus, it seems to have become largely defunct since 2013. That is the year of the Chechan bombing in Boston. Wayne Madsen, writing for the Strategic Culture Foundation, commented:

After revelations that an entity called the Caucasus Fund was used by the CIA-linked Jamestown Foundation of Washington, DC to sponsor seminars on the North Caucasus in Tbilisi from January to July 2012, Georgian authorities moved to shut down the fund. The reason given by Georgia was that the organization had “fulfilled its stated mission”. Caucasus Fund and Jamestown Foundation events were attended by accused Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev, a citizen of Kyrgyzstan born to parents from Dagestan. Jamestown had previously held a seminar in Tbilisi on “Hidden Nations” in the Caucasus, which, among other issues, promoted a “Greater Circassia” in the Caucasus. [20]

Madsen remarks of the general strategy:

U.S. “humanitarian” and “civil society” assistance to radical Islamist groups has, for the past three decades, filtered into the coffers of terrorist groups celebrated as “freedom fighters” in Washington. This was the case with U.S. support for the Afghan Mujaheddin through such groups as the Committee for a Free Afghanistan during the Islamist insurgency against the People’s Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in the 1980s and the Bosnia Defense Fund in the 1990s. In the case of Afghanistan, U.S. and Saudi money ended up in the hands of insurgents who would later form “Al Qaeda” and in Bosnia U.S. funds were used by Al Qaeda elements fighting against Yugoslavia and the Bosnian Serb Republic and, later, Al Qaeda elements supporting the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in its war against Serbia.[21]

Terrorists supported by the USA to oust Qaddafi were then sent to Syria to continue the American Jihad against stable states. The CIA had been funding a Libyan rebel army since 1988, Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army. Haftar had been living for twenty years in Virginia, prior to returning to Libya with CIA and Saudi backing. Patrick Cockburn commented in The Independent:

Even shadier is the background of Abdul Hakeen al-Hassadi, a Libyan who fought against the US in Afghanistan, was arrested in Pakistan, imprisoned probably at Bagram, Afghanistan, and then mysteriously released. The US Deputy Secretary of State, James Steinberg, told Congressmen he would speak of Mr Hassadi’s career only in a closed session.[22]

Mossad Destablization

Israel has sought to keep the entire region in a state of destabilization. This serves several factors. A constant state of conflict portrays Israel as the only stable entity in a volatile region. Destabilization ensures that there can be no united front against Israeli’s aspirations, which are never-ending. The notion of Jews being surrounded by mad Arabs keeps the Israelis in a state of preparedness and unity. Israel went to the extent of backing the Red Brigades in Italy during the 1970s as part of a destabilization strategy, indicating the extent of the strategy. According to Magistrate Ferdinando Imposimato, who led the investigations into the 1978 kidnapping and murder of former Prime Minister Aldo Moro, “‘at least until 1978 Israeli secret services had infiltrated Italian subversive groups. He said that based on confessions of jailed guerrillas who turned police informers there had been an Israeli plan to destabilize Italy. The plan aimed at reducing Italy to a country convulsed by civil war so that the United States would be forced to count more on Israeli for the security of the Mediterranean,’ the judge said.” [23]

The extent of this destabilization strategy has included Mossad backing of Islamists at an early stage. According to a UPI news report on a 2002 Hamas bombing of a Jersualem city bus,

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon immediately vowed to fight “Palestinian terror” and summoned his cabinet to decide on a military response to the organization that Sharon had once described as “the deadliest terrorist group that we have ever had to face.” Active in Gaza and the West Bank, Hamas wants to liberate all of Palestine and establish a radical Islamic state in place of Israel. It has gained notoriety with its assassinations, car bombs and other acts of terrorism. But Sharon left something out.

Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years. Israel “aided Hamas directly – the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization),” said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic [and International] Studies [CSIS]. Israel’s support for Hamas “was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative,” said a former senior CIA official. … According to U.S. administration officials, funds for the movement came from the oil-producing states and directly and indirectly from Israel. The PLO was secular and leftist and promoted Palestinian nationalism. Hamas wanted to set up a transnational state under the rule of Islam, much like Khomeini’s Iran.[24]

Even when the support for Hamas seemed to be backfiring there were those who continued to see a dialectical advantage:

But even then, some in Israel saw some benefits to be had in trying to continue to give Hamas support: “The thinking on the part of some of the right-wing Israeli establishment was that Hamas and the others, if they gained control, would refuse to have any part of the peace process and would torpedo any agreements put in place,” said a U.S. government official who asked not to be named. “Israel would still be the only democracy in the region for the United States to deal with,” he said. All of which disgusts some former U.S. intelligence officials.[25]

The strategy was confirmed by Mossad defector Victor Ostrovsky, who was told by a prominent Mossad officer that a decision was made to “destabilize Jordan to the point of civil anarchy.” The officer explained to Ostrovsky that this would be done by circulating counterfeit money and “arming religious fundamentalist elements, similar to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood,” assassinating leading figures who are symbols of stability, causing riots in the university to prompt government repression. The plan was also to destabilize Egypt in the same manner, with Mossad running guns to “Egyptian fundamentalists” through Afghanistan.[26]

Ostrovsky further relates that “Mossad had to come up with a new threat to the region, a threat of such magnitude that it would justify whatever action the Mossad might see fit to take.” The attitude of many in Mossad and elsewhere in Israeli ruling circles is that in order to maintain “fortress Israel” the “constant threat of war” needs to be maintained.[27]

Supporting the radical elements of Muslim fundamentalism sat well with the Mossad’s general plan for the region. An Arab world run by fundamentalists would not be a party to any negotiations in the West, thus leaving Israel once again as the only democratic, rational country in the region.  And if the Mossad could arrange for the Hamas to take over the Palestinian streets from the PLO, then the picture would be complete.[28).

This destabilization dialectic is the same as that being enacted on a global scale by the USA to maintain its global ambitions. Since the Soviet bogeyman no longer exists as justification for U.S. global ambitions, the bogeyman of the “global war on Islamic terrorism” was quickly created as a substitute. While Putin has been demonized to at least keep the semblance of a Russian bogeyman intact, it cannot convincingly be said that Putin aims at “world conquest.” However, “Islamism” is a new threat to world peace, with a world Jihad and the aim of imposing Sharia law over the world. This new global threat must be met under U.S. leadership, which generally means U.S. domination, politically, economically and even morally and culturally, or what has been described as the “new world order.”

The Study Group for a New Israeli Strategy stated that Israel’s aims must be to

Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, “comprehensive peace” to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power. Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat’s exclusive grip on Palestinian society. [29]

Both aims have been fulfilled. As we have seen the backing of Jiahists involves the use of Jordan and Turkey, and the primary target is Syria, now that Saddam has been eliminated from Iraq. While the blueprint was addressed to Israel, one can see the role being played out by the USA in its fulfilment:

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. [30]

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (a.k.a The Caliphate)

Suddenly ISIL (or ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) snaps onto the scene to pose the biggest threat to world peace, whose path of terror also happens to be a march through the states that have been marked for destruction by the Zio-neocons; Syria particularly. Like Hafta in Libya, and later Syria, the head of the Islamic State organization, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has links with the USA. He was a “civilian internee” at an U.S. internment center in Umm Qasr, Iraq. He was “unconditionally released” in 2009.

What can be said is that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s declaration of himself as Caliph of all Muslims world-wide has spread further factionalism among Muslims. Despite the universal repudiation among even radical Muslims, U.S. foreign policy strategists are building up ISIL as the most potent Islamic force. Assem Barqawi, the spokesperson for the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front – an erstwhile ally of ISIL in the Syrian war – spurned al-Baghdadi’s claim to a universal Caliphate, countering: “In short, al-Baghdadi and ISIL have no support whatsoever among Muslims. They are loathed even by their fellow ultra-Salafis, Wahhabis and Takfiris.” On the other hand terrorism expert William McCants of the Brookings Institution, said to the New York Times: “ISIS is now officially the biggest and baddest global jihadi group on the planet… Nothing says ‘hard-core’ like being cast out by Al Qaeda.” Dr. Kevin Barrett, an Arabist scholar, regards it likely that al-Baghdadi is a mind-control asset from his time at Umm Qasr camp:

The secrecy surrounding al-Baghdadi’s five years in US custody strongly suggests that the self-proclaimed “caliph of Islam” is actually a Muslim version of Jim Jones. His “Islamic State” is a Muslim Jonestown. It is designed to mass-suicide Islam by turning Muslims against each other.[31]

William Engdahl, a foreign policy specialist, opines:

Key members of ISIS it now emerges were trained by US CIA and Special Forces command at a secret camp in Jordan in 2012, according to informed Jordanian officials. The US, Turkish and Jordanian intelligence were running a training base for the Syrian rebels in the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country’s northern desert region, conveniently near the borders to both Syria and Iraq. Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the two Gulf monarchies most involved in funding the war against Syria’s Assad, financed the Jordan ISIS training. Advertised publicly as training of “non-extremist” Muslim jihadists to wage war against the Syrian Bashar Assad regime, the secret US training camps in Jordan and elsewhere have trained perhaps several thousand Muslim fighters in techniques of irregular warfare, sabotage and general terror. The claims by Washington that they took special care not to train ‘Salafist’ or jihadist extremists, is a joke. How do you test if a recruit is not a jihadist? Is there a special jihad DNA that the CIA doctors have discovered?[32]

In 2012, Aaron Klein reported that Egyptian officials had talked of training being given to terrorist forces to be deployed to Syria by the USA, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The training camp was at the Jordanian town of Safawi.[33]



Among the tangled intricacies of the Middle East imbroglio a course was established to bring chaos to the region, formulated by think tanks where American and Jewish messianists converge. Their recommendations appear as the ones being enacted, but these strategists themselves are the heirs to aims of long duration and a politicized religious fanaticism that is obscured by a worldwide barrage of propaganda about a new Muslim threat.


  1. T. E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom (2013), http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/seven-pillars-of-wisdom-t-e-lawrence/1103272301?ean=9781908476562
  2. Samuel Landman, Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine (London: New Zionist Press, 1936), 2-3. Landman was Honorary Secretary of the Joint Zionist Council of the United Kingdom, 1912; Joint Editor of The Zionist 1913-1914; Solicitor and Secretary for the Zionist Organisation 1917-1922; and adviser to the New Zionist Organisation, ca. 1930s.
  3. Bernadotte called on Israel to relinquish the Negev and Jerusalem in return for western Galilee. Since the Zionist messianists think they are entitled by no less than God to a vast region, this was nothing sort of blasphemy.
  4. http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815
  5. See the plans at: https://www.templeinstitute.org/
  6. Promulgation of “U. S. Education Day” honoring Rebbe Schneerson, the Lubavitch Messiah, and the Seven Noahide Laws, Proclamation 5463, April 19, 1986; Public Law 102—14 (H.J. Res. 104) March 20, 1991; Day of International Tribute, June 28, promulgated 2002.
  7. Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion (London: Pluto Press, 1994).
  8. Shahak, Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel (Pluto Press, 1999).
  9. “Afghanistan,” Central Intelligence Agency, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/additional-publications/devotion-to-duty/afghanistan.html
  10. Michael Moran, “Bin Laden Comes Home to Roost,” NBCNews.com, August 24, 1998, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3340101/#.VD9w2TY5QqR
  11. Michael Moran, ibid.
  12. See: Frank Viviano, “Drugs Paying for Conflict in Europe,” San Francisco Chronicle, June 10, 1994.
  13. 13.“Minorities Leaving Yugoslav Province Dominated by Albanians,” Associated Press, October 17, 1981.
  14. Michael Evans, “Muslim soldiers ‘failed to defend town from Serbs,’” Times London, July 14, 1995.
  15. Jan Willem Honig and Norbert Both, Srebrenica: Record of a War Crime, (Penguin Books, 1997), p. 79.
  16. Brendan O’Neill, “How We Trained al-Qa’eda,” Spectator, London, September 13, 2003.
  17. Rambouillet Agreement: Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo.
  18. “American Committee for Peace in Chechnya,” Right Web, http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/American_Committee_for_Peace_in_Chechnya
  19. Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, 1996.
  20. Wayne Madsen, “Washington’s ‘Civil Society’: CIA Financing of Chechen and Caucasus Regional Terrorists,” Global Research, May 6, 2013, http://www.globalresearch.ca/washingtons-civil-society-and-cia-financing-of-chechen-and-other-caucasus-regional-terrorists/5333359
  21. Wayne Madsen, ibid.
  22. Patrick Cockburn, “The Shady Men Backed by the West to Replace Gaddafi,” The Independent, April 3, 2011, http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/patrick-cockburn-the-shady-men-backed-bythe-west-to-displace-gaddafi-2260826.html
  23. “Arrest Wrecked Brigades’ Plan for Massacre,” The Evening Post, Wellington, New Zealand, January 18, 1982, p. 1.
  24. Richard Sale, “Hamas History Tide to Israel,” UPI, June 18, 2002; Information Clearing House, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10456.htm
  25. Richard Sale, ibid.
  26. Victor Ostrovsky, The Other Side of Deception (New York: Harper, 1995), p. 182.
  27. Victor Ostrovsky, ibid., p. 251.
  28. Victor Ostrovsky, ibid., p. 252.
  29. Study Group for a New Israeli Strategy, A Clean Break, op. cit.
  30. Study Group, ibid.
  31. Kevin Barrett, “Who is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi?”, PressTV, http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/07/14/371210/who-is-abu-bakr-albaghdadi/
  32. “ISIS in Iraq: A CIA-NATO Dirty war Op?”, June 26, 2014, http://www.infowars.com/isis-in-iraq-a-cia-nato-dirty-war-op/
  33. Aaron Klein, “Mideast War in March?”, February 24, 2012, WND, http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/mideast-war-in-march/


About the Author

Dr. K R Bolton
K R Bolton holds doctorates and certifications in theology, psychology and social work studies and a Ph.D.h.c. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Social and Political Research (Athens), and of the Institute for Higher Studies on Geopolitics and Auxiliary Sciences (Lisbon), and has been widely published on a variety of subjects in the scholarly and general media. Some of his books include: Revolution from Above; The Banking Swindle; Stalin: The Enduring Legacy; The Geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific: Emerging Conflicts, New Alliances; introductions to new editions of Oscar Wilde's Soul of Man Under Socialism, Belloc's Europe and the Faith, and T E Lawrence's Seven Pillars of Wisdom; and an upcoming book on Peronism (2013). 


Viktor Orban Threatened by Maidan-Style Protest Movement


Viktor Orban Threatened by Maidan-Style Protest Movement


Vladislav GULEVICH

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


Budapest has been shaken by several days of mass street demonstration against plans by Viktor Orban’s government to introduce a tax on the internet. According to the media, 100,000 Hungarians came out onto the streets of Hungary’s capital to tell the prime minister «no». 

In and of itself, the internet tax is a weak excuse for the organisation of 100,000-strong demonstrations. And, of course, demands to abolish the tax turned into demands for the resignation of Hungary’s ‘dictatorial’ and ‘corrupt’ government. Attacks were also launched on government buildings: as one, internet users pelted them with stones, notebooks and mobile phones. 

Other signs of a ‘Hungarian Maidan’ were also evident: demonstrators defiantly jumped around chanting «He who does not jump pays the tax» (the Ukrainian version of this standard spectacle is «He who does not jump is a Moskal»). Local human rights defenders declared that introducing a tax on the internet is an assassination attempt on freedom of speech unacceptable for a democracy. 

Among the demonstrators was the U.S. charge d’affaires in Hungary, Andre Goodfriend, who previously reported that the US authorities had banned six Hungarian nationals close to the Hungarian prime minister from entering the country. 

It appears that Washington was protesting against the corrupt practices of these Hungarian nationals and expressed its displeasure to Viktor Orban in Brussels. On her Twitter page, the European Commissioner for Competition, Neelie Kroes, backed the street demonstrations and called for those who still had not done so to join them

Western media write that Orban is under the influence of Putin. Orban himself has had to state more than once that he is not a pro-Russian but a pro-Hungarian politician, but he continues to be accused of yielding to pressure from Moscow. And no wonder: he has introduced restrictions on the work of foreign companies in the country, has too much power concentrated in his hands, and has approved Hungary’s neoliberal Constitution. 

Orban is guilty before European democracy in a number of ways. As the father of five children, he resolutely opposes attempts to register the cohabitation of same-sex couples as ‘marriage’. He was also opposed to economic sanctions against Russia, calling them nonsensical, and saying they would do more harm to EU countries than to Russia. In addition, he is calling for compensation from Brussels for the losses incurred by Hungarian manufacturers as a result of curtailed cooperation with their Russian partners.

The head of the Hungarian government is not able to withstand all pressure, however. It was not long before Orban had to declare that Hungary stood with Germany in its assessment of events in Ukraine, and that the introduction of sanctions was a justified move. 

It is easy to conclude that the change in the Hungarian prime minister’s initial position was a consequence of pressure from Berlin. 

Thus, representatives of Deutsche Telekom’s subsidiary Magyar Telekom, Hungary’s largest internet company, have expressed their outrage at Orban’s plans to introduce a tax on the internet. Berlin is also putting pressure on Orban in other ways. Following German Minister of State for Europe Michael Roth’s visit to Budapest during the street demonstrations, the Hungarian prime minister declared that the government had listened to the people and the tax would not be introduced. 

Yet the battle formations of a Maidan-style protest movement in Hungary remain ready to go. The leader of the protests, liberal Balazs Nemes, has reported that the protesters are in touch with each other and are ready to go back out onto the streets the instant that the authorities decide to launch an offensive on their civil rights. Balazs Nemes has referred to Viktor Orban’s leadership style as «the most appalling tyranny». 

The Hungarian prime minister’s independence, including with regard to Russia, has long irritated both Brussels and Washington.

Viktor Orban’s statements regarding his intention of finding allies in Europe capable of opposing the introduction of new sanctions against Russia together have not gone unnoticed. 


Western capitals have been particularly outraged by the fact that on 4 November 2014, the Hungarian parliament passed a law allowing the construction of the South Stream pipeline to take place in Hungary, despite the position of the European Commission. Thanks to this law, Hungary now has a legal basis for refusing to comply with the requirements of the EU’s Third Energy Package. 

Protests in Budapest against «the most appalling tyranny» are a warning to Viktor Orban, and a reminder of the fate of another Viktor – Viktor Yanukovych. 

The street protests organised in the Hungarian capital should also be regarded as a warning to eastern European ‘Russophiles’ like Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico or Czech President Miloš Zeman, since their attitude towards anti-Russian sanctions and events in Ukraine is much like that of Orban. 

Político alemán: La OTAN destruyó el sueño de una casa común europea

Ex: http://www.elespiadigital.com

Una vez que la OTAN se posicionó entre Rusia y Europa, el sueño de una "casa común europea" quedó condenado a desaparecer, asegura el político alemán del CDU Willy Wimmer.

En una entrevista concedida a 'Die Freie Welt', Wimmer sostiene que la OTAN lo que quiere es subyugar a Rusia y apoderarse de sus recursos.

El político, perteneciente al partido CDU (Unión Demócrata Cristiana, por sus siglas en alemán) afirma que actualmente la humanidad vive una era de cambio. Según él, el mundo está cambiando constantemente, y lo más importante es que esto transcurra en un clima de confianza y entendimiento mutuo, y no como lo hacen los americanos, allanando el camino a una "guerra política mundial", subrayó.

Wimmer cree que la "superpotencia" estadounidense socavó el derecho internacional a partir de la guerra en Yugoslavia. Esta guerra "rompió la columna vertebral de la OSCE". Ahora la OTAN está constantemente mintiendo acerca de los acontecimientos en Ucrania, mientras la OSCE afirma que no hay tropas rusas en su territorio. Según Wimmer, esto son sólo "restos suicidas de coraje" por parte de la Alianza.

Los estadounidenses también están tratando de redibujar el mapa de Oriente Medio y Lejano. "Dondequiera que mire, en todas partes hay conflictos y guerras. Y donde aún no hay disparos, por si acaso, está lista la mecha", advierte indignado el político alemán.

"Al final de la Guerra Fría esperábamos poder construir con Rusia una 'casa común europea, y que Estados Unidos y Canadá se convirtieran en nuestros socios", relata Wimmer.

En su opinión, Occidente debió ayudar a Rusia a recuperarse del impacto económico tras la caída de la Unión Soviética, posibilidad que fue desechada tan pronto como la OTAN se posicionó en la frontera entre Europa y Rusia.

Durante más de una década a Rusia no se le dio la palabra, pero "hoy en día todo es diferente", dice Wimmer.

La OTAN está tratando de aislar a Rusia, dice el político alemán. Según su opinión, el mensaje que la OTAN lanza a Moscú es este: "Denos su riqueza y obedezcan, o los sacamos de Europa".

Sobre Rusia también se ejerce presión económica mediante la manipulación de los precios del petróleo, añade Wimmer, que recuerda que procesos similares ocurrieron antes del colapso de la Unión Soviética. Como Occidente no fue capaz de hacerse con el control de los recursos minerales de Rusia a través de empresas como Yukos, intenta lograr este objetivo obligando al país a la "rendición total".  

"El dólar es la herramienta ideal de control", prosigue Wimmer, recordando que ese es también "el talón de Aquiles" de EE.UU.

Según él, Saddam Hussein y Muammar Gaddafi pagaron con sus vidas por haber puesto en riesgo la hegemonía del dólar en el sistema financiero mundial. Sin embargo, los países BRICS que planean llevar a cabo el comercio en su propia moneda "no son ni Libia ni Irak", sino un enemigo más serio, recuerda el político.

samedi, 15 novembre 2014

Il 27 novembre Forum Euro-Russo alla Camera

Le grandi infrastrutture eurasiatiche: il 27 novembre Forum Euro-Russo alla Camera

Le grandi infrastrutture eurasiatiche: il 27 novembre Forum Euro-Russo alla Camera


La situazione finanziaria degli ultimi anni ha mostrato la necessità di ripartire dall’economia reale per superare la crisi. In un contesto geopolitico globale in cui emergono nuovi poli e si accumulano tensioni internazionali, le infrastrutture continentali costituiscono un momento essenziale per la ripresa, in grado di influire sia sui processi di modernizzazione tecnologica sia sulla stabilità in politica estera. La Russia e l’Europa partecipano della continuità dello spazio continentale euro-asiatico, ricco di risorse naturali e di potenzialità di sviluppo: nonostante le difficoltà congiunturali dovute all’attuale regime di sanzioni, la costruzione di reti di collegamento e di corridoi di trasporto rappresenta un orizzonte di fondamentale importanza per entrambi gli attori coinvolti. Mai come nel caso delle infrastrutture continentali, lo sviluppo tecnologico, il rilancio dell’occupazione e gli investimenti pubblico-privato possono infatti rappresentare un volano di ripresa tanto per il commercio internazionale quanto per la costruzione di rapporti pacifici tra i Paesi dell’Unione Europea e la Federazione Russa.


Giovedì 27 novembre 2014 alle ore 9.00, presso la Sala delle Colonne di Palazzo Marini, Camera dei Deputati, in Via Poli 19 a Roma, si terrà il convegno Le grandi infrastrutture eurasiatiche: nuova industrializzazione e geopolitica della pace, organizzato da Istituto di Alti Studi in Geopolitica e Scienze Ausiliarie (IsAG) e Associazione “Conoscere Eurasia” con la collaborazione di Accademia Diplomatica del Ministero degli Affari Esteri della Federazione Russa e “Russia Beyond the Headlines”.


Per la locandina col programma completo cliccare qui.

The Brussels Embargo on Russia Will Hurt Europe More


The Brussels Embargo on Russia Will Hurt Europe More

Sanctions are all the rage nowadays in Europe’s Russia policy. Wrecked by the economic crisis, Europe’s priorities have been to implement low-budget solutions to counter Moscow’s threats. Instead of multi-billion euro pledges to increase defense spending and play chicken with the Russians, the Union has so far relied mostly on economic sanctions to influence the Kremlin’s foreign agenda. But will these tactics actually work, or will they backfire? So far, a cursory glance over the economic data and forecasts offered by leading international institutions reveals a stark reality: although sanctions are starting to take their toll on the Russian economy, Moscow isn’t budging one inch from its plotted course, while the shaky European economy is poised to bear the brunt for these policies.

While sanctions are unlikely to take much of a toll on Europe this year, if the situation continues unchanged, in 2015 EU states could start to feel the burn. The Chief Executive of Italian Bank UniCredit, Federico Ghizzoni, recently stated that although the sanctions were causing problems for the Russian economy, his impression was that “they are even bigger for Europe”. The Italian banks operations were so far doing well in Russia, but in the case of an economic slowdown in the country, the bank would most certainly be negatively and severely impacted.

The IMF has also expressed its concerns over the rising impact of Western sanctions on the Russian economy, stating that the economic decline of the country would affect Europe directly and indirectly. For starters, many Western banks have large operations in Russia, accounting for more than a third of yearly profits, with French, Italian, Austrian and Hungarian banks having subsidiaries in the country. Other advanced economies such as the Netherlands, Ireland and Luxembourg have over 5% of their total foreign direct investment in Russia.

Baltic states, too, are on their toes. The sanctions are already threatening to take a toll on their growth, with Estonian, Lithuanian, and Latvian exports highly dependent on their Russian neighbor, with 11%, 20% and 16% in this sector, respectively, accounted for by the Russian market. In particular, Vjaceslavs Dombrovskis, the Latvian Economy Minister has warned that sustained EU sanctions are likely to hurt ports and railways and cripple the country’s economy, as 12% of GDP is tied to cargo services and dependent on movement of goods to Russia.

Even Germany, Europe’s biggest economy, is a cause for concern. A leaked EU report, from May 2014, underlined that aggressive sanctions on Russia’s energy and banking sectors would likely have a large impact on the country, and could cut growth in the economy by almost 1%, pushing Europe’s giant into an economic downturn with severe implications for the rest of the Eurozone.

Meanwhile, in Russia

“The World Order: New Rules or No Rules”, was the theme of this year’s Valdai Club conference, an annual forum held for foreign journalists and academics to mingle with their Russian counterparts and various other government officials. The highlight of the eventThe main event was a speech given by Russian President Vladimir Putin, widely picked up by international media as yet another example of Russian saber rattling. He claimed that the West, and in particular the US, have behaved in a unilateral manner, violating international rules through military action on a global scale, citing as examples operations in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq. This narrative has been constantly aired and reinforced throughout the year, as Moscow pushes to discredit the West at home.

In spite of several rounds of sanctions enforced by the US and EU, intended to deal a blow to the Russian economy and Putin’s close circle with the hope of changing the President’s course, little transformation in his position can be found. For their part, Moscow officials continue to contend that Western sanctions are counterproductive, a view that so far has proven fairly accurate.

Even US experts present at the Sochi-held forum voiced their concern over the overall usefulness of the financial restrictions placed on Moscow, which they claimed had been “drawn up hastily by a small group, with unclear aims and questionable results”. Clifford Gaddy, a Russia economy analyst from the Brookings Institute, even went as far as to say that while Russia’s state economic structure will allow it to survive, sanctions will most likely “hit the most modern, western-integrated parts of the economy, and their owners”.

Indeed, not only have sanctions targeted the core of Russia’s economy, its energy and banking sectors, but they have also aimed to single out Putin’s main political allies and their businesses, in the hope that the disgruntled wealthy will turn their back on the Russian strongman. However, the results of these efforts have certainly been debatable. Arkady Rotenberg, a Russian businessman placed under the sanctions regime, has recently filed a suit with the European Court of Justice against the EU Council.

Rotenberg’s lawyers contend that the EU has failed to provide concrete evidence for imposing the asset ban and travel restrictions on Rotenberg. As Matthew Turner pointed out in an EU Observer article last month, “European secrecy in imposing sanctions makes it impossible to determine if the persons accused are indeed guilty of the crimes they are charged with”. Due to the Council’s vague reasoning, which it has failed to clarify, Rotenberg’s lawyers argue that the sanctions have caused disproportionate and serious damage to his business activities. At the same time, Rotenberg has publically stated that with regards to his personal life, the sanctions do not have the “dramatic impact” they had intended by the West. Rotenberg, hoping for a “moral victory”, along with state owned Rosneft and Sberbank, are now determined to bring the battle to the EU court, rather than placing pressure on Putin to change his ways, dealing a blow to Brussels’ logic of weakening the President from within.

As reports of Russia’s ailing economy and falling ruble start to become louder, this does not change the reality that a weak Russian economy will have far ranging consequences for the EU. As things stand now, the two highly polarized blocs seem to be on a collision course that could only result in a pyrrhic victory and a marked worsening in the standards of living of both East and West. Unlike the stalwart Russian state, Europe is suffering from profound internal convulsions hyped by a pervasive sense of Brussels’ mission creep. Why should European farmers suffer, goes an oft repeated argument, because of Europe’s lofty foreign policy ideals? Meanwhile, Putin, who has made clear that he would rather be “a global pariah than Mikhail Gorbachev” and bow to the West, has seen his approval rating soar month after month, as Russians seem so far unfazed by declining economic stats and global oil prices. The outcome of this cold confrontation will undoubtedly shape the future of continental relations for years to come.

The Endgame of the US ‘Islamic State’ Strategy


The US ‘Trojan horse’

The Endgame of the US ‘Islamic State’ Strategy

Ex: http://www.counterpunch.com

Dismantling what the former US President George W. Bush once described as the Syria – Iran component of the “axis of evil,” or interrupting in Iraq the geographical contiguity of what King Abdullah II of Jordan once described as the “Shiite crescent,” was and remains the strategic goal of the US – Israeli allies in the Middle East unless they succeed first in “changing the regime” in either Damascus or Tehran.

The US, Israel and their regional allies have been on the record that the final target of their “regime change” campaign in the Middle East was to dismantle the Syria – Iran alliance.

With the obvious failure of Plan A to dismantle the self- proclaimed anti-Israel and anti – US Syrian – Iranian “Resistance Axis” by a forcible “regime change” in Damascus, a US – led regional alliance has turned recently to its Plan B to interrupt in Iraq the geographical contiguity of that axis.

This is the endgame of President Barack Obama’s strategy, which he declared on last September 10 as ostensibly against the Islamic State (IS).

This would at least halt for the foreseeable future all the signed and projected trilateral or bilateral Iranian, Iraqi and Syrian pipeline networks to carry oil and gas from Iran and Iraq to the Syrian coast at the Mediterranean.

Israeli Col. (res.) Shaul Shay, a research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies and a former Deputy Head of the Israel National Security Council anticipated in writing on last January 21 what he called the “Salafi Crescent” that is dangerously emerging to challenge the “Shia Crescent.”

“The growing involvement of Sunni Salafi jihadis in Iraq (since 2003), among the rebels in Syria (since 2011), and in Lebanon has created a ‘Salafi Crescent’ … from Diyala [in eastern Iraq] to Beirut,” he wrote.

“A positive outcome” of this Salafi Crescent “will be the decline in Iranian influence in the region,” Shay concluded.

Conspiracy theories aside, the eventual outcome is a sectarian Sunni military and political wedge driven into the Iraqi geographical connection of the Iran-Syria alliance in a triangle bordering Turkey in the north, Iran in the east, Jordan in the west and Saudi Arabia in the south and extending from north eastern Syria to the Iraqi province of Diyala which borders Iran.

Iraqi Kurdistan is already effectively an independent state and cut off from the central government in Baghdad, but separating Iran and Syria as well and supported by the same US – led anti – IS coalition.

Amid the misinformation and disinformation, the fact is that the IS threat is being used as a smokescreen to confuse and blur this reality.

The IS was conceived and delivered in an American womb. The US – drafted and enforced current constitution produced the sectarian government that is still trying to rule in Iraq. Sectarian cleansing and exclusion of Sunnis could not but inevitably create its antithesis.

The IS was the illegitimate fetus born and nurtured inside the uterus of the US – engineered political process based on a constitution legalizing a federal system based in turn on sectarian and ethnic sharing of power and wealth.

This horrible illegitimate creature is the “legacy” of the US war on Iraq, which was “conceived” in the “sin” of the US invasion of the country in 2003, in the words of the president of the Arab American Institute, James J. Zogbi, writing in the Jordan Times on last June 16.

US Senator John McCain, quoted by The Atlantic on last June 23, thanked “God,” the “Saudis and Prince Bandar” and “our Qatari friends” for creating the “monster.”

The pro-Iran government of former Prime Minister Noori al-Maliki was squeezed by the IS military advances to “request” the US help, which Washington preconditioned on the removal of al-Maliki to which Iran succumbed. The IS gave Obama’s IS strategy its first success.

However, al-Maliki’s replacement by Haider al-Abadi in August has changed nothing so far in the sectarian component of the Iraqi government and army. The US support of Iraq under his premiership boils down only to supporting continued sectarianism in the country, which is the incubator of the survival of its IS antithesis.

Moreover, the destruction of the Iraqi state infrastructure, especially the dismantling of Iraq’s national army and security agencies and the Iraqi Baath party that held them intact, following the US invasion, has created a power vacuum which neither the US occupation forces nor the sectarian Shiite militias could fill. The IS was not powerful per se. They just stepped in on a no-man land.

Similarly, some four years of a US – led “regime change” effort, which was initially spearheaded by the Muslim Brotherhood and which is still financed, armed and logistically facilitated by the US regional allies in Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia as well as by allied western intelligence services, has created another power vacuum in Syria, especially on border areas and in particular in the northern and eastern areas bordering Turkey and Iraq.

US Senator Rand Paul in an interview with CNN on last June 22 was more direct, accusing the Obama administration of “arming” and creating an IS “safe haven” in Syria, which “created a vacuum” filled by the IS.

“We have been fighting alongside al Qaeda, fighting alongside ISIS. ISIS is now emboldened and in two countries. But here’s the anomaly. We’re with ISIS in Syria. We’re on the same side of the war. So, those who want to get involved to stop ISIS in Iraq are allied with ISIS in Syria. That is the real contradiction to this whole policy,” he said.

The former 16 – year member of the US Congress and two – time US presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, writing in the http://www.huffingtonpost.com on last September 24, summed it up: The IS “was born of Western intervention in Iraq and covert action in Syria.”

The US ‘Trojan horse’

The IS could have considered playing the role of a US “Frankenstein,” but in fact it is serving as the US “Trojan horse” into Syria and Iraq. Fighting the IS was the US tactic, not the US strategy.

On record, Iranian deputy foreign minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said that “the best way of fighting ISIS and terrorism in the region is to help and strengthen the Iraqi and Syrian governments, which have been engaged in a serious struggle” against the IS. But this would not serve the endgame of Obama’s strategy, which targets both governments instead.

Beneficiaries of the IS “Trojan horse” leave no doubts about the credibility of the Syrian, Iranian and Russian doubts about the real endgame of the US – led declared war on the IS.

The United States was able finally to bring about its long awaited and promoted “front of moderates” against Iran and Syria into an active and “air-striking” alliance, ostensibly against the IS.

In Iraq, the IS served the US strategy in wrestling back the so called “political process” from the Iranian influence by proxy of the former premier al – Maliki. Depriving al – Maliki of a third term had proved that there is no unified Iran – backed “Shia house” in Iraq. The US has its own influence inside that “house.”

Installing a US Iraqi satellite was the strategic goal of the US – led invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. Instead, according to Doug Bandow, writing in Forbes on last October 14, “Bush’s legacy was a corrupt, authoritarian, and sectarian state, friendly with Iran and Syria, Washington’s prime adversaries in the Middle East. Even worse was the emergence of the Islamic State.”

This counterproductive outcome of the US invasion, which saw Iran wielding the reigns of power in Baghdad and edging Iraq closer to Syria and Iran during the eight years of al-Maliki’s premiership, turned the red lights on in the White House and the capitals of its regional allies.

Al-Maliki, whom Bush had designated as “our guy” in Baghdad when his administration facilitated his premiership in 2006, turned against his mentors.

He edged Iraq closer to the Syrian and Iranian poles of the “axis of evil.” Consequently he opposed western or Israeli military attack on Iran, at least from or via the Iraqi territory. In Syria, he opposed a regime change in Damascus, rejected direct military “foreign intervention” and indirect proxy intervention and insisted that a “political solution” is the only way forward in Iraq’s western Arab neighbor.

Worse still was his opening Iraq up to rival Chinese and Russian hydrocarbon investments, turning Iraq a part of an Iran-Iraq-Syria oil and gas pipeline network and buying weapons from the Russian Federation.

Al- Maliki had to go. He was backed by Iran to assume his second term as prime minister in spite of the US, which backed the winner of the 2010 elections for the post, Ayad Allawi. The US had its revenge in the 2014 elections. Al-Maliki won the elections, but was denied a third term thanks to US pressure.

The IS was the US instrument to exert that pressure. US Secretary of State John Kerry during his visit to Baghdad on last June 23 warned that Iraq was facing “an existential threat.”

It was a US brinkmanship diplomacy to force al-Maliki to choose between two bad options: Either to accept a de facto secession of western and northern Iraq on the lines of Iraqi Kurdistan or accept the US conditional military support. Al-Maliki rejected both options, but he had paid the price already.

The turning point came with the fall of Iraq’s second largest city of Mosul to the IS on last June 10. Iraqi Kurdistan inclusive, the northern and western Iraq, including most of the crossing points into Syria and Jordan in the west, were clinched out of the control of Baghdad, i.e. some two thirds of the area of Iraq. Al-Maliki was left to fight this sectarian Sunni insurgency by his sectarian Iran-backed Shiite government. This was a non-starter and was only to exacerbate the already deteriorating situation.

Al- Maliki and Iran were made to understand that no US support was forthcoming to reign in the IS until he quits and a less pro-Iran and a more “inclusive” government is formed in Iraq.

The creation of the IS as the sectarian Sunni alternative against Iran’s ruling allies in Baghdad and Damascus was and is still the US tactic towards its strategic endgame. Until the time the US strategy succeeds in wrestling Baghdad from Iran influence back into its fold as a separating wedge between Iran and Syria, the IS will continue to serve US strategy and so far Obama’s strategy is working.

“America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance,” Garikai Chengu, a research scholar at Harvard University, wrote in http://www.counterpunch.org/ on last September 19.

As a doctrine, since the collapse of the Ottoman caliphate early in the twentieth century, western powers did their best to keep Arabs separated from their strategic depth in their immediate Islamic proximity. The Syria – Iran alliance continues to challenge this doctrine.

Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Birzeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories (nassernicola@ymail.com).

vendredi, 14 novembre 2014

The Disintegration of the Saudi Empire and the new Iranian axis


Catherine Shakdam:

Ex: http://journal-neo.org

The Disintegration of the Saudi Empire and the new Iranian axis

If many have mocked Ali Reza Zakani’s comments on Saudi Arabia’s imminent fall and what he described as the “disintegration of Al Saud tribe” last September, branding his boasting of Iran’s political successes in the region as overblown and groundless, others would argue that the prominent Iranian political analyst actually hit the nail right on the head.

Looking back at recent developments in the Middle East over the past month alone – the rise of the Houthis in Yemen, Bahrain revolution, the sentencing to death of Sheikh Nimr Al Nimr, ISIS advances in Iraq and Syria, and it has become blaringly apparent that political, social and religious fractures have appeared across the Middle East, all pointing and adding to the erosion of Al Saud empire.

While Saudi Arabia has dominated the Arab and to an extent the Islamic world ever since the mighty fall of the Ottomans, aided and abated by both the British Empire and the United States on account of its royals’ willingness to remain pliable to western will, Al Saud’s political exclusionism as well as religious ostracism have created a situation today whereby the kingdom has become its worse own enemy.

Al Saud’s Petrodollars

Propelled into hegemonic prominence on the basis of its immense wealth alone, Saudi Arabia’s petrodollars are all which have sustained the kingdom’s intrinsic institutional, political and religious architecture. While it is Saudi Arabia’s billions of dollars which have allowed Al Saud to direct and control nations, governments and policies from afar, leaning and pulling, carving and crushing politicians and ideas as it went along implementing its vision for the Middle East; the kingdom has become enslaved to its ability to finance its alliances.

As it happens, Saudi Arabia could soon face a dramatic economic U-turn. As noted by Nick Butler in the Globalist, Saudi Arabia appears to have lost control of the Oil market, at a juncture when prices have experienced an unparalleled drop due to stock piling. “The Saudis may no longer be in a position to reverse the price fall,” wrote Butler, adding that negative political and economic outlooks within the OPEC would make any global output restriction policy impossible to implement, thus putting Saudi Arabia under a great deal of pressure.

“It’s hard to think of any OPEC state, except perhaps Kuwait, in a position to accept a sustained cut in production and revenue. The Saudis are on their own. “

Victims of its own political and economic miscalculations, Al Saud could have actually started the very fire which soon could threaten to lay waste its house and crumble Gulf monarchies to the ground.

Should Saudi Arabia prove unable to financially sustain its proxy states and finance its proxy wars in the region – Al Saud has opened up multiple fronts without being able to resolve any conflicts so far: Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain – it is likely it will find itself cornered by the very powers which rose from the frictions it gave out and the vacuums it inadvertently helped created.

Unmistakably Turkey and Iran have both seen their prominence gain traction since 2011, their powers boosted by Saudi Arabia’s political stumbling.


Running out of time

As nations call for political emancipation while others have entered into a bitter fight against Islamic radicalism, the Middle East as we know it is undergoing a massive restructuration and power re-mapping.

As Zakani so eloquently put it, “Three Arab capitals have today ended up in the hands of Iran and belong to the Islamic Iranian revolution … and Sana’a has become the fourth Arab capital that is on its way to joining the Iranian revolution.”

While the Houthis of Yemen – faction organized under the leadership of Abdel-Malek Al Houthi – would argue that they are not under anyone’s control, but rather fiercely independent, the Zaidi faction – oldest branch of Shia Islam – is undeniably leaning on Tehran for support and guidance, just as the Hezbollah of Lebanon or more recently Baghdad have done.

But unlike Saudi Arabia which has ruled as would a monarch over its political vassals, it is Iran’s non-interference policy, its keenness to advise and not direct, to support while not dictate which has made the Islamic Republic so appealing and its ideological umbrella so inclusive.

Just as Saudi Arabia has ruled through fear, playing the hammer and the sword against all those it views as its subject-nations, Iran has in perfect polarity presented itself the alternative.

Now that so many have joined together to denounce Saudi Arabia’s hegemony and tyrannical rule, it appears Al Saud ‘s edifice has begun to show signs of erosion, its foundation strained by increasing political, economic, social and religious pressures.

All that made Saudi Arabia so formidable is slowly unravelling – Its standing as a religious guide has been tarnished by allegations it helped master-minded the evil which is ISIS, its economy stands on the verge of collapse, its society is imploding under the strain of sectarianism and social injustice and its position as the regional super-power has been challenged by Iran and Turkey.

Iran Grand Jihad

Following his tirade on Saudi Arabia’s pending dissolution unto nothingness, Zakani spoke before parliament of what he referred to as Iran’s phase of “Grand Jihad”, pointing to Iran’s intent to project and export its Islamic revolutionary model onto the greater region, in order to bring about what it understands as political, social and religious emancipation within the parameters of the Muslim faith.

Jihad here is not to be understood as a synonym for war, but rather an ideological campaign. Interestingly, religious scholars have often argue that the real Jihad, as the Scriptures intended has nothing to do with open war but rather “soft conversion”.

Zakani pointed out that this phase of Grand Jihad “requires a special policy and a cautious approach because it may lead to many repercussions,” underscoring the very lacking and lagging Saudi Arabia fell victim to in its race for control and blind belief money would ultimately speak louder.

A keen strategist, Zakani actually advised that Iran “supports movements that function within the Iranian revolution’s framework in order to end oppression and assist the oppressed in the Middle East.” In other words Iran will act a leader of nations not a despot or a dictator of policies.

Unlike Saudi Arabia, Iran wants to become the axis of change, the promoter of political transition.

Before the Islamic Revolution – 1979 – the Middle East was divided up in between two polarities within the American axis: Saudi Arabia absolute theocracy and secular republican Turkey. Came into the equation a manifestation of political Shia Islam framed under a republican system.

Three decades on and Turkey has but become a shadow of its former secular self and Saudi Arabia is facing dissent in the face. As for Iran, it has, despite foreign animosity and economic sanctions, seen its pull on the region expands exponentially, its impetus fed by the ever-increasing vacuum left by those powers who thought themselves too grand to ever fall.

“There are now two poles, the first is under the leadership of the United States and its Arab allies and the second is under the leadership of Iran and the states that joined the Iranian revolution’s project,” stressed Zakani.

Regardless of one might feel toward Iran or whatever prejudices one chooses to hold on to vis a vis the Islamic Republic, the Middle East of today is more Persian that it ever was.

Catherine Shakdam is the Associate Director of the Beirut Center for Middle Eastern Studies and a political analyst specializing in radical movements, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
First appeared:

Reduccionismo de la identidad y análisis geopolítico

por Tiberio Graziani*

Ex: http://paginatransversal.wordpress.com

El estudio acerca de la relación que existe entre religión y análisis geopolítica suscitó un renovado interés entre los estudiosos y los analistas a partir de la revolución capitaneada por Khomeini y también por el envolvimiento del movimiento de los mujāhidīn en la coeva guerra sovietico-afgana. En efecto estos dos episodios, además de constituir un acontecimiento geopolítico importante y que en cierto sentido adelantó la incipiente desestructuración del sistema bipolar, reintrodujeron en las dinámicas internacionales el elemento religioso, como factor útil e imprescindible para la comprensión de la escena global. Según el autor el fundamentalismo religioso constituye una reinterpretación reduccionista de la misma religión, la cual tiende a constituir un elemento decisivo para la elaboración de las neoideologías de la identidad y para la definición de su proyección geopolítica.

Luego de las crisis de las ideologías dieciochescas y de las del siglo XX irrefrenablemente resurgidas aproximadamente durante los últimos treinta años del siglo pasado, contemporánea y vinculada con el colapso del viejo orden bipolar, con el transcurrir del tiempo la religión ha asumido un peso cada vez más dominador y estructural por lo que respecta la construcción de las que podríamos definir de forma aproximada “neoideologías de la identidad”. Esto es verificable en algunas áreas particulares del planeta como, por ejemplo, el Cercano y Medio Oriente. En este cuadrante geopolítico la religión asumió, también a raíz del atentado de las Torres gemelas del 2001, un rol prominente en los enrevesados y complejos asuntos internacionales.

Por lo que atañe el ámbito de la teoría y el análisis geopolítico, sin pasar por alto el aporte metodológico de Samuel Huntington1, se debe evidentemente al francés François Thual2 el hecho de haber vuelto a proponer una reflexión más específica del factor religioso en tanto que elemento imprescindible para una comprensión completa de algunos de entre los más complejos escenarios regionales; por lo que concierne, sin embargo, la práxis geopolítica es metodológicamente necesario hacer referencia a los dos siguientes acontecimientos, contemporáneos, pero diametralmente opuestos: el proceso revolucionario encaminado por Khomeini que se concluyó con la instauración de la República Islámica de Irán y la experiencia de los mujāhidīn en la guerra soviético-afgana.

En Irán el factor religioso remite a un sentido muy particular, además de expresar en su totalidad la capacidad de atracción que ejerce, sea con respecto a la población, sea con respecto a amplios estratos de la clase dirigente del país. Éste ha sabido imponerse a nivel estatal, constituyendo en un delicado equilibrio ideológico-confesional, una parte relevante, si bien no fundamental de la visión inspiradora del sistema de gobierno todavía imperante. En el caso de Irán la reelaboración de la religión islámica ocurrida en el curso de un intenso proceso histórico que se puede hacer remontar por lo menos desde los albores de la revolución khomeinista (1963) hasta nuestros días, se manifestó a través de una síntesis, por otra parte continuamente reactualizada bajo el impulso del vértice de la República islámica, entre el poder temporal y la autoridad espiritual, al punto de impregnar, con suceso, la gestión práctica de una sociedad moderna y sumamente compleja.

Pero Irán hasta ahora representa una excepción. Otros movimientos políticos inspirados por el Islam como, por ejemplo. El movimiento taliban, de alguna forma heredero de los mujāhidīn anteriormente citados, así como el de los Hermanos musulmanes, que se “pusieron a la prueba en la gestión del poder”, fracasaron miserablemente. Las causas del fracaso de estos movimientos son, por supuesto, múltiples y variadas, exógenas y endógenas. Observamos que la incapacidad de captar las transformaciones que se están sucediendo, la de realizar válidas y duraderas alianzas, la de proponer alternativas realistas y practicables a la de los modelos occidentales, así como la de sustituir las viejas oligarquías presentes en aquellos países cuya penetración y arraigo los condujo a la conquista del poder, derivan, en sustancia, de la capacidad de interpretación esquemática y restrictiva del grande legado histórico y cultural que caracteriza a la religión islámica. El reduccionismo de la identidad que caracteriza a estos movimientos, más acentuado en el caso extremo de los talibanes y más variado en el de los Hermanos musulmanes, no solo invalidan sus acciones políticas, sino que crea una grande hipoteca en la actividad gubernamental en el medio y largo plazo. En particular el reduccionismo de identidad aplicado al Islam, es decir, el llamado islamismo político, no se combina bien con la gestión de la complejidad requerida para poder gobernar una nación en la coyuntura actual en donde los factores de interdependencia internacional en los sectores económico, político y militar pesan considerablemente en la elección de los gobernantes, influenciando la dinámica geopolítica.


(1) Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations?, en Foreign Affairs, vol. 72, no. 3, Summer 1993, pp. 22-49; Lo scontro di civiltà e il nuovo ordine mondiale, Milano 1997.
(2) François Thual, Géopolitique du chiisme, 1995; Le douaire de Byzance. Territoires et identités de l’orthodoxie, Paris, 1998; Le désir de territoire. Morphogenèses territoriales et identités, Paris, 1999; Géopolitique du Bouddhisme, Genève, 2002; Géopolitique des religions. Le Dieu fragmenté, Paris, 2004. Véase también, para un difrente y alternativo punto de vista, la obra de Graham E. Fuller e Ian O. Lesser, Geopolitica dell’Islam. I paesi musulmani, il fondamentalismo, l’Occidente, Roma, 1996.
(3)Ruhollah Khomeini, Il governo islamico o l’autorità spirituale del giureconsulto, prefacio de Franco Cardini, Rimini, 2007; Pejman Abdolmohammadi, La Repubblica Islamica dell’Iran: Il pensiero politico dell’Ayatollah Khomeini, Genova, 2009.

(Traducción al castellano de Vincenzo Paglione)

* Presidente del IsAG, Director de Geopolitica

Fuente: El Espía Digital

La geopolitica delle religioni

La geopolitica delle religioni



Claudio Mutti, La geopolitica delle religioni

Dossario – La geopolitica delle religioni

Marco Costa, La tradizione confuciana nella Cina socialista

Parama Karuna Devi, Narendra Modi e il Risorgimento induista

Ermanno Visintainer, Religioni in Asia centrale

Carmela Crescenti, Geopolitica del sufismo

Ali Reza Jalali, Geopolitica dell’Islam sciita

Giuseppe Cappelluti, L’Islam russo: il Tatarstan

Vittoria Squillacioti, Le confraternite sufiche in Senegal

Ivelina Dimitrova, Il pilastro ortodosso dello Stato russo

Leonid Savin, Chiesa ortodossa russa, Stato e società

Stefano Vernole, L’influenza dell’Ortodossia sulla geopolitica serba

Andrea Turi, Docete omnes gentes. La geopolitica del Vaticano

Mahdi D. Nazemroaya, La persecuzione dei cristiani in Siria e in Iraq

Aldo Braccio, Protestantesimo e Occidente

Alessandra Colla, Deus vult. Sette protestanti e imperialismo statunitense

Kevin Barrett, L’Islam come controcultura americana

Gian Pio Mattogno, I fondamenti teologici dell’imperialismo sionista

Ábel Stamler, Una setta sionista in Ungheria


Intervista a Guglielmo Duccoli (a cura di Aldo Braccio)


Aleksandr Dugin e Alain de Benoist, Eurasia, Vladimir Putin e la grande politica

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


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

Claudio Mutti, La geopolitica delle religioni

di Marco Costa

Nella storia della Cina moderna, nata dalla lotta rivoluzionaria culminata con la fondazione della Repubblica Popolare Cinese del 1949, confucianesimo e socialismo hanno vissuto, un rapporto tanto controverso quanto originale. Se in epoca maoista – ed in particolare nella fase della Rivoluzione Culturale alla metà degli anni Sessanta – le due filosofie parevano porsi su orizzonti culturali ed ideologici antitetici, con l’affermarsi della linea riformatrice in seno al PCC si è assistito ad un recupero parziale e corretto di alcuni elementi del confucianesimo. Basti pensare a concetti quali “sobrietà”, “armonia”, “unità”, ai quali la quinta generazione di dirigenti del PCC sembra affidarsi per governare la complessità sociale di una Cina sempre più proiettata verso un ruolo da protagonista sullo scenario globale.


géopolitique,revue,politique internationale,géopolitique des religions,religions


di Parama Karuna Devi

La salita al potere di Narendra Modi, oggi a capo del governo indiano come Primo Ministro, è il risultato di un’evoluzione culturale e politica della maggioranza indù della popolazione che è iniziata negli anni Ottanta. Dopo aver ottenuto l’indipendenza dal regime coloniale britannico, l’India ha iniziato un lungo percorso di recupero e integrazione della propria identità nazionale, ma solo in tempi relativamente recenti si è arrivati alla consapevolezza della necessità di una radicale decolonizzazione della mentalità popolare. Il Risorgimento induista ha dovuto e dovrà ancora superare grandi difficoltà interne ed esterne, nonché momenti di violenza e di tensione, anche a causa della mancanza di informazione adeguata e addirittura della propaganda ostile degli schieramenti politici convenzionali e del negazionismo storico e religioso delle istituzioni accademiche. Ma se l’esperimento riuscisse, come sembra probabile, sarebbe una svolta epocale, non solo per l’India ma anche per il resto del mondo.

di Ermanno Visintainer

Parlando di religione in Asia centrale è importante evitare il fraintendimento che, quasi automaticamente, scaturisce dall’apparente sinonimia di Islam e islamismo. Il primo termine si riferisce alle modalità in cui questa religione si è manifestata nella storia, il secondo alla sua reificazione in feticcio da parte delle moderne categorie di pensiero. Col passaggio di consegne dalle antiche credenze dei Turchi preislamici alla sintesi rappresentata dal sufismo di Ahmed Yassawi, l’Islam ha assunto una sua forma specifica e caratteristica della regione centroasiatica. L’odierno Kazakhstan, con le iniziative fautrici del dialogo interreligioso e interculturale volute dal presidente Nursultan Nazarbayev, intende essere un modello per l’intera regione.

di Ali Reza Jalali

Dopo alcuni secoli di oblio politico, preceduti però dallo splendore dell’epoca safavide e non solo, l’Islam sciita è tornato alla ribalta, prima grazie alla rivoluzione iraniana del 1979, poi per via di una rete di alleanze regionali con movimenti e paesi guidati dalla componente sciita. La diffusa presenza sciita è quindi la principale risorsa cui può ricorrere, per esercitare la propria influenza, una nazione come quella iraniana, volenterosa di riprendere il suo storico ruolo imperiale. Il principale concorrente geopolitico dell’Iran nel mondo musulmano è il governo neoottomano di Ankara, determinato anch’esso a svolgere di nuovo, come in passato, un ruolo centrale nella regione che fu culla della religione islamica.

di Giuseppe Cappelluti

“Gratta un Russo e troverai un Tataro”, dice un proverbio russo. Sovente descritto come un luogo di convivenza pacifica tra Cristiani e Musulmani, il Tatarstan sembra smentire i paradigmi sullo “scontro di civiltà” e sull’indigeribilità dei Musulmani. Va però detto che il clima di tolleranza che caratterizza il Tatarstan odierno è il frutto di secoli di convivenza e talora di contrasti fra Russi e Tatari.

di Vittoria Squillacioti

Gli ordini sufici Tijaniyya e Muridiyya hanno svolto in Senegal un ruolo molto importante, non solo nell’ambito propriamente religioso, ma anche come mediatrici nei rapporti con il potere politico, prima con quello coloniale e poi con quello instaurato dopo l’indipendenza (1960). I discepoli di queste confraternite dedicano la loro vita alla comunità religiosa prendendo come punto di riferimento spirituale il capo religioso, chiamato serign, shaykh o marabut. I discepoli credono che solo attraverso il rispetto delle regole della confraternita impartite dal Serign sarà possibile ottenere il perdono di Dio e di conseguenza il Paradiso. L’influenza della Muridiyya, in particolare, è vasta e si estende ad ogni campo della vita di chi ne fa parte e in alcuni casi la parola del Marabut arriva ad essere legge indiscutibile.

di Ivelina Dimitrova

La plurisecolare storia russa, che trae origine dalla trasformazione dei principati russi nel grande impero zarista, evidenzia l’importanza dell’Ortodossia come pilastro dell’identità nazionale e culturale. Pur tuttavia, da sole la crescita economica russa e la dirigenza politica russa non sono sufficienti per riaffermare una comune identità per le popolazioni slave ed ex comuniste, un tempo riconducibili all’ideologia sovietica ed oggi attratte dalle sirene del capitalismo occidentale e dalla globalizzazione atlantica. Il recupero della centralità dell’Ortodossia assume quindi fondamentale importanza per la rinascita russa, oggetto di continui attacchi identitari e socioculturali fin dal disfacimento dell’Unione Sovietica.

di Leonid Savin

In Russia la salvaguardia dei fondamenti delle religioni tradizionali e il sostegno governativo alle istituzioni ecclesiastiche hanno una stretta relazione con la stabilità politica e sociale. Studiosi di dottrina dello Stato, teologi ed esperti di relazioni internazionali negli ultimi tempi dibattono sul tema del rapporto fra le autorità dello Stato russo e la Chiesa Ortodossa Russa. Il presente articolo prende in esame l’interazione tra le istituzioni della Chiesa Ortodossa, il governo dello Stato e la società russa.

di Stefano Vernole

Che l’Ortodossia rimanga oggi un fattore geopolitico di primaria importanza lo si constata facilmente nell’ambito geopolitico della Serbia. Nella stessa ultima Costituzione di quella nazione, promulgata il 15 giugno 2008, si afferma che il Kosovo e Metohija è parte integrante della Serbia e non se ne riconosce l’indipendenza. Le ragioni di questa “ostinazione” si spiegano con la storia secolare di quel popolo, per il quale le radici cristiano-ortodosse e i relativi riferimenti simbolici rimangono un fattore identitario ineludibile.

di Andrea Turi

Il ritorno del fattore religioso sulla scena internazionale ha portato al ripensamento delle relazioni tra Stati sulla base dell’inserimento dell’azione – morale e politica – esercitata dalle istituzioni religiose quale variabile primaria. Per il Cattolicesimo, l’elezione di Papa Francesco ha rinnovato l’interesse per gli affari vaticani e spinto a interrogarsi sul ruolo (geo)politico della Chiesa di Roma, che in questo scritto (breve e senza presunzione di essere esaustivo) viene trattato in una prospettiva storica: partendo dalle origini sino ad arrivare ai recenti sviluppi, analizziamo i ripetuti spostamenti spaziali, geografici e politici che hanno caratterizzato l’evoluzione della Chiesa Cattolica.

di Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Le linee di confine di quelle che vengono percepite e presentate come aree di diverse civiltà sono spesso artificiali. La persecuzione dei cristiani della Siria e dell’Iraq è finalizzata ad eliminare la funzione dell’Asia sudoccidentale quale ponte fra diverse civiltà e a tracciare una invalicabile linea di frontiera tra il mondo islamico e quello cristiano, nel quadro della strategia statunitense dello “scontro delle civiltà”.

di Aldo Braccio

La rappresentazione dell’Occidente imposta dall’egemonia statunitense e supinamente accettata dall’Europa prevede generalmente l’adozione di una mentalità laica e secolarizzata, alla cui formazione hanno però contribuito l’etica protestante e particolarmente la dottrina delle chiese riformate di impronta calvinista e puritana. Si tratta di una contraddizione solo apparente, perché tali disposizioni di carattere religioso hanno determinato l’adozione di comportamenti e di stili di vita contraddistinti dall’affermazione del primato dell’economia e dalla ricerca del successo mondano, nonché da quella “autonomizzazione dell’individuo” che è alla base dell’individualismo moderno. Indipendentemente dal giudizio che si voglia dare complessivamente sulla Riforma luterana e singolarmente sulle diverse declinazioni del protestantesimo, l’importanza degli apporti considerati ci sembra costituisca un tratto caratteristico di quella entità geopolitica strumentale e ambigua denominata Occidente.


géopolitique,revue,politique internationale,géopolitique des religions,religions


di Alessandra Colla

La particolare aggressività dell’imperialismo statunitense è sempre stata una caratteristica della “Nazione sotto Dio”, a partire da quando i primi emigranti inglesi sbarcarono sulla costa atlantica dell’America settentrionale per impiantarvi quelle che sarebbero poi divenute le Tredici Colonie. Motivato da solidi agganci nella tradizione veterotestamentaria, riportata in auge dalle sette protestanti e in particolare dal Puritanesimo, l’espansionismo americano ha assunto ben presto caratteri messianici che nel corso del tempo l’hanno reso, più che una minaccia, un pericolo concreto per il mondo libero.

di Kevin Barrett

Mentre la maggior parte dei musulmani americani è costituita di immigrati di prima, seconda o terza generazione, in America c’è una comunità islamica vecchia di secoli, quella afroamericana, che si ritiene rappresenti un terzo o anche una metà della popolazione musulmana d’America. Di solito questa comunità viene trascurata da chi si occupa dell’Islam americano: o per motivi d’ordine razziale o per la volontà di presentare l’Islam come un fenomeno straniero e non americano. Eppure nell’Islam statunitense i musulmani afroamericani costituiscono il gruppo di gran lunga più numeroso.

di Gian Pio Mattogno

Il Sionismo non è solo “nazionalismo ebraico”. Ridurre l’ideologia sionista ad una mera questione di politica territoriale è un errore politico, storico e storiografico. Anche se il Sionismo è un fenomeno moderno, le sue radici più autentiche vanno rinvenute nella Bibbia ebraica, nel Talmud e nella letteratura rabbinica. L’imperialismo sionista è una conseguenza dei principi fondamentali della religione giudaica e delle aspirazioni messianico-imperialistiche di Israele. Il suo obbiettivo specifico immediato è la pulizia etnica della Palestina (imperialismo regionale), ma esso mira soprattutto a spianare la strada all’avvento del “Messia” e all’impero universale di Israele.

di Ábel Stamler

A partire dagli anni Duemila, la setta neoprotestante “Chiesa della Fede” (Hit Gyülekezete) esercita sulla vita politica ungherese una tale influenza che, senza una conoscenza dei suoi orientamenti fondamentali, la politica interna ed estera dell’Ungheria sarebbe alquanto incomprensibile. La setta, dichiaratamente sionista, esercita sui governi ungheresi una pressione univoca a favore di una sempre più stretta dipendenza da Israele e dagli Stati Uniti. La Chiesa della Fede, che agisce dal 1979, in seguito all’approvazione della nuova legge sulle comunità religiose (2011), si è venuta a trovare sullo stesso piano della Chiesa Cattolica Ungherese, della Chiesa Riformata d’Ungheria e della Chiesa Evangelica d’Ungheria, delle quali è indiscutibile l’importanza storica nel Paese danubiano. Ciò è dovuto ad un parlamento in cui è largamente maggioritario il Fidesz, un partito conosciuto come conservatore e di destra.

a cura di Aldo Braccio

Esperto in materie storiche, Guglielmo Duccoli ha legato il suo nome alla direzione editoriale di riviste quali “Civiltà” e “L’Illustrazione Italiana”, di cui ha anche curato la ricerca e la digitalizzazione della collezione storica completa. Attualmente collabora al “Progetto Sinapsi” del Ministero dei beni e delle attività culturali e del turismo per la gestione e la valorizzazione del patrimonio culturale digitale delle biblioteche e degli archivi italiani.

RECENSIONE di Eurasia, Vladimir Putin e la grande politica, di Aleksandr Dugin e Alain de Benoist
a cura di Giacomo Gabellini

Eurasia, Vladimir Putin e la grande politica è un saggio di grande spessore sia sotto il profilo filosofico-culturale che sotto quello geopolitico-strategico, perché spiega in maniera piuttosto esauriente i presupposti, i contenuti e le finalità che l’eurasiatismo si propone di ottenere, smontando un pezzo alla volta le teorie statunitensi riguardo alla cosiddetta “fine della storia”, che secondo i suoi promotori avrebbe inesorabilmente fatto scivolare il pianeta verso un ordine mondiale democratico e liberale.

Sommet des Amériques: Cuba plébiscitée, les Etats-Unis isolés


Sommet des Amériques: Cuba plébiscitée, les Etats-Unis isolés

Auteur : Salim Lamrani
Ex: http://zejournal.mobi

Malgré les multiples pressions des Etats-Unis, l’Amérique latine refuse d’organiser le prochain Sommet des Amériques sans la présence de Cuba.

Pour la première fois de son histoire, le prochain Sommet des Amériques qui aura lieu en mai 2015 au Panama pourra compter sur la présence de Cuba, ostracisée depuis le triomphe de la Révolution de 1959 par les Etats-Unis avec son expulsion de l’Organisation des Etats américains (OEA) en 1962. La Havane n’avait pas pu participer aux précédentes éditions de 1994, 1998, 2001, 2005, 2009 et 2012. Cette septième rencontre, qui réunit les 34 pays membres de l’OEA tous les trois ou quatre ans, fait suite au Sommet de Carthagène (Colombie), d’avril 2012, où des débats virulents avaient opposé les Etats-Unis (soutenus par le Canada) et l’Amérique latine qui n’acceptait pas l’absence de Cuba. Les nations du continent avaient unanimement convenu qu’aucune autre réunion ne pourrait avoir lieu sans la présence du gouvernement de La Havane, isolant ainsi Washington.

Durant des décennies, Cuba s’est retrouvée isolée suite aux pressions de la Maison Blanche. Ainsi, en 1962, toutes les nations, du Canada à l’Argentine, avaient rompu leurs relations avec La Havane, à l’exception notable du Mexique. Aujourd’hui, tous les pays du continent disposent de relations diplomatiques et commerciales normales avec Cuba, à l’exception des Etats-Unis.

Washington a multiplié les pressions sur le Panama afin que Cuba ne soit pas invitée en avril 2015. En plus des intenses tractations diplomatiques directes, les Etats-Unis ont émis plusieurs déclarations publiques s’opposant à la participation de La Havane au prochain Sommet des Amériques. Le Département d’Etat, par le biais du secrétaire d’Etat pour les Affaires de l’hémisphère occidental, Roberta Jacobson, a réitéré son opposition à la présence de l’île.

Juan Carlos Varela, Président du Panama, n’a pas cédé aux pressions étasuniennes et a réaffirmé sa volonté d’accueillir Cuba. « L’Amérique est un seul continent et inclut Cuba. Il faut respecter cela. La ministre des Affaires étrangères, Isabel de Saint-Malo, l’a notifié au secrétaire d’Etat John Kerry lors de sa visite à Washington […]. Tous les pays doivent être présents. […] La participation de Cuba est importante car elle pourrait apporter beaucoup au débat sur les situations politiques. Par exemple, les négociations pour la paix en Colombie se déroulent à La Havane ».

Le Panama a même symboliquement dépêché Isabel de Saint Malo, Vice-présidente de la République et également ministre des Affaires étrangères, à Cuba pour faire part de l’invitation au Président Raúl Castro.

« La famille américaine serait incomplète sans Cuba. En tant qu’hôte, le Panama a fait part de son souhait de compter avec la présence de tous les pays. Puisque le Sommet est celui des Amériques et que Cuba est un pays des Amériques, pour la participation soit totale, la présence de Cuba est nécessaire. Si vous invitez votre famille à déjeuner et que vous mettez de côté un membre, la famille n’est pas complète. », a déclaré Isabel de Saint Malo. De son côté, Martín Torrijos, Président du Panama de 2004 à 2009, a salué le « triomphe collectif » de l’Amérique latine qui a su résister aux pressions en provenance du Nord.

Même Miguel Insulza, secrétaire général de la très docile Organisation des Etats américains, a fait part de son souhait de voir Cuba au Sommet : « Il n’y a aucun motif légal » qui empêche la participation de La Havane. Insulza a rappelé qu’il était temps pour les Etats-Unis « d’essayer autre chose » après plus d’un demi-siècle de politique hostile vis-à-vis de l’île de la Caraïbe, et d’opter pour le « dialogue ».



Lors du dernier Sommet de 2012, plusieurs pays tels que l’Argentine, le Venezuela, la Bolivie et le Nicaragua, avaient conditionné leur participation à l’édition de 2015 à la présence de Cuba. En mai 2014, les membres de l’Union des nations sud-américaines (UNASUR), qui regroupe 12 nations, a rendu publique une déclaration exprimant « sa volonté que la République sœur de Cuba soit présente au prochain Sommet des Amériques de façon inconditionnelle et sur un plan d’égalité ».

De la même manière, Haïti et le Nicaragua ont partagé ce point de vue. Selon Managua, « un Sommet des Amériques sans Cuba n’est pas un sommet des Amériques ».

L’Equateur avait déjà boycotté le Sommet de Carthagène de 2012. Son Président Rafael Correa en avait expliqué les raisons : « Un Sommet des Amériques sans Cuba est inadmissible, tout comme était inadmissible une Organisation des Etats américains sans Cuba ». En 2009, l’OEA avait décidé d’abroger la résolution relative à l’exclusion de l’île. « L’Amérique latine ne peut tolérer cela. J’ai décidé que tant que je serai Président de la République d’Equateur, je n’assisterai plus à aucun Sommet des Amériques », sans la présence de Cuba, a-t-il ajouté.

La solidarité exprimée par l’Amérique latine vis-à-vis de Cuba est emblématique de la nouvelle ère que traverse le continent depuis une quinzaine d’années, marquée par une volonté d’émancipation, d’indépendance et d’intégration et le refus de l’hégémonie étasunienne. Elle illustre également l’isolement total dans lequel se trouve Washington et le rejet que suscite sa politique désuète et cruelle de sanctions économiques contre La Havane, lesquelles affectent les catégories les plus vulnérables de la société, à commencer par les femmes, les enfants et les personnes âgées.

- Source : Salim Lamrani