Ok

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

dimanche, 03 août 2014

The World Is Doomed By Western Insouciance

danser-et-s-amuser-dans-l-insouciance-la.jpg

The World Is Doomed By Western Insouciance

Don’t expect to live much longer

European governments and the Western media have put the world at risk by enabling Washington’s propaganda and aggression against Russia.

Washington has succeeded in using transparent lies to demonize Russia as a dangerous aggressive country led by a new Hitler or a new Stalin, just as Washington succeeded in demonizing Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Qaddafi in Libya, Assad in Syria, Chavez in Venezuela, and, of course, Iran.

The real demons–Clinton, Bush, Obama–are “the exceptional and indispensable people” above the reach of demonization. Their horrific real crimes go unnoticed, while fictitious crimes are attributed to the unexceptional and dispensable people and countries.

The reason that Washington demonizes a leader and a country is to permit the creation of circumstances that Washington can use to act with force against a leader and a country.

Washington’s incessant lies alleging “Russian aggression” have created Russian aggression out of thin air. John Kerry and the State Department’s Marie Harf issue new lies daily, but never any supporting evidence. With the stage set, the US Senate, the NATO commander and the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff are busy at work energizing the wheels of war.

Senate bill 2277 provides for beefing up forces on Russia’s borders and for elevating Ukraine’s status to “ally of the US” so that US troops can assist the war against “terrorists” in Ukraine.http://un.ua/eng/article/522930.html See also: http://www.globalresearch.ca/collapse-of-ukraine-government-prime-minister-yatsenyuk-resigns-amidst-pressures-exerted-by-the-imf/5393168

NATO commander Breedlove is preparing his plans for stockpiling war material on Russia’s borders so that US/NATO troops can more quickly strike Russia. http://rt.com/news/175292-nato-poland-supply-base/

Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, is at work preparing American opinion for the upcoming war.

On July 24 Dempsey told the Aspen Security Forum, a high level group where US opinion is formed, that Putin’s aggression in Ukraine is comparable to Stalin’s invasion of Poland in 1939 and that the Russian threat was not limited to Ukraine or Eastern Europe but was global.http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/07/25/gen-dempsey-were-pulling-out-our-cold-war-military-plans-over-ukraine

The intellects in the Aspen Forum did not break out laughing when Dempsey told them that Russia’s (alleged but unproven) involvement in Ukraine was the first time since 1939 that a country made a conscious decision to use its military force inside another sovereign nation to achieve its objectives. No one asked Dempsey what Washington has been doing during the last three presidential regimes: Clinton in Serbia, Bush and Obama in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen, Obama in Libya and Syria.

Here are Dempsey’s words: “You’ve got a Russian government that has made a conscious decision to use its military force inside another sovereign nation to achieve its objectives. It’s the first time since 1939 or so that that’s been the case. They clearly are on a path to assert themselves differently not just in Eastern Europe, but Europe in the main, and towards the United States.”

Washington’s view that the world is its oyster is so ingrained that neither Dempsey nor his upper echelon audience at the Aspen Forum noticed the absurdity of his statement. Washington and the brainwashed US population take if for granted that the “exceptional, indispensable nation” is not limited in its actions by the sovereignty of other countries.

Washington takes for granted that US law prevails in other countries over the countries’ own laws–just ask France or Switzerland, that Washington can tell foreign financial institutions and corporations with whom they can do business and with whom they cannot–just ask every country and company prevented from doing business with Iran, that Washington can invade any country whose leader Washington can demonize and overthrow–just ask Iraq, Honduras, Libya, Serbia, and so forth, and that Washington can conduct military operations against peoples in foreign countries, such as Pakistan and Yemen, with which Washington is not at war.

All of this is possible, because Washington has claimed the title from Israel of being “God’s Chosen People.” Of course, Israel’s loss of the title has not stopped Israel from acting the same way.

Washington now has in motion the wheels of war. Once the wheels of war begin to turn, momentum carries them forward. The foolish, indeed utterly stupid, governments and media in Europe seem unaware of Washington’s orchestration of their future or lack thereof, or they are indifferent to it. They are dooming themselves and all of humanity by their insouciance. Heaven help if the British PM or French president or German chancellor were not invited to the White House or the Polish nonentity did not get his Washington stipend.

Readers who cannot tolerate problems without solutions always request solutions. OK, here is the solution:

The only possibility of avoiding war is that Putin take his case to the UN. If Washington can send Colin Powell to the UN unarmed with any truth to make Washington’s case for war against Iraq, Putin should be able to take his case to the UN against Washington’s war against Russia.

The case that the emperor has no clothes is an easy one to make.

Unlike Washington, Putin is willing to share the evidence that Russia has about who is doing what in Ukraine. It is a simple matter to establish that Washington organized a coup that overthrew an elected government, supports violence against those who object to the coup, and has turned a deaf ear to Russia’s repeated pleas for Kiev and the separatists to negotiate their differences.

Putin should make it clear to the world that Washington continues with provocative military steps against Russia, with force buildups on Russia’s borders and calls for more buildups, with S.2277 which reads like a US preparation for war, with provocative actions and accusations by top US generals and government officials against Russia, and with efforts to isolate Russia and to inflict economic and political injury on Russia.

Putin should make it clear to the world that there is a limit to the provocations that Russia can accept and that Russia believes that Russia is in danger of preemptive nuclear attack by Washington. Putin can describe Washington’s withdrawal from the ABM treaty, the construction of ABM bases on Russia’s borders, and the announced change in Washington’s war doctrine that elevates US nuclear forces from a retaliatory role to a preemptive first strike role. These actions are clearly directed at Russia (and China–wake up China! You are next!).

Putin must state clearly that the likely consequence of the world continuing to enable Washington’s lies and aggression will be not merely another disastrous war but the termination of life.

The governments of the world, especially Washington’s vassals in Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan, need to be told that it is their responsibility to stop their enabling of Washington’s aggression or to accept their responsibility for World War III.

At least we could all have the enjoyment of watching the arrogant Samantha Powers and the craven British lapdog rise and walk out of the UN proceedings. There is no doubt whatsoever that Washington is unable to answer the charges.

Here again is the Wolfowitz Doctrine that controls US foreign policy and that condemns Planet Earth to death:

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

A hostile power is defined as any country that is not a Washington vassal.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine commits the United States, its peoples, Washington’s gullible EU allies and those peoples to war with Russia and China. Unless Russia and China surrender, the world will be destroyed.

The destruction of the world is what the idiot EU governments and the presstitute Western media are fostering by their enablement of Washington’s lies and aggression.

 

 

vendredi, 01 août 2014

Emerging Twists in Saudi-Iran Relations and the US Geo-Politics

 

Iran-KSA-convergence.jpg

Author: Salman Rafi Sheikh

Emerging Twists in Saudi-Iran Relations and the US Geo-Politics

 

Nowhere do geo-political upheavals take place so surprisingly as in the Middle East, and nowhere do ‘enemies’ become ‘friends’ overnight and vice versa. No wonder, the Middle East is the most volatile region in the world not only in terms of the deeply immersed conflicts but also in terms of the rapidity with which relations between states undergo changes. We can have a glimpse of the peculiar nature of the Middle Eastern geo-political landscape through the prism of Saudi-Iran relations, which have undergone some serious twists over the last few months. Developments at regional and global level have pushed both states towards amending their otherwise fractured relations.

A look at some of the recent contacts made at diplomatic level show the ‘seriousness’ on part of both states to amend their relations. For example, following a meeting between the Saudi ambassador to Tehran and former Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in April, publicized largely due to controversy regarding reciprocal kisses on the forehead, reports surfaced in May that Rafsanjani was actually spearheading an effort to improve relations. Such efforts, so say the reports, have been given the nod of approval from Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and involve a plan to discuss less complicated issues first. The meeting was followed by Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud bin Faisal’s May 13 statement in which he stated that his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif, could visit Riyadh “anytime he sees fit.”

The increased warmth being observed between the two states is, however, not the result of any dramatic convergence of interests, but the result of the US’ new grand strategy for the Middle East. In other words, twist in the Saudi-Iran relations is an effect of the US’ geo-political maneuverings rather than an independent policy decision taken by any of the two states. According to a June 2, 2014 report of Arab News, a high official in the Obama administration is encouraging, as a part of the US’ official policy, both Iran and Saudia to mend their relations. It has also been expressed that the US is actually using overt and covert pressure on both states. As such, for Iran the US is playing the ‘nuclear card’; and for Saudia, the US is playing the ‘Iran card’. That the US is deeply involved in bringing this twist can be gauged from the fact that last month, the US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel visited Saudi in a quest to establish a détente between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Hagel got his cue from earlier remarks made by Iran’s President Rouhani, suggesting that Iran does intend to improve its ties with Saudi Arabia.

In this behalf, it is important to take into account that the US has been at the helm of introducing significant changes in Saudi Arabi’s establishment and some of the most anti-Iranian elements have either been removed or are going to be removed in a bid to pave the way for rapprochement. According to some reports, as also according to Iranian official Press TV, Saudi King Abdullah removed Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi intelligence chief, primarily because of his opposition to improving relations with Iran on behalf of Obama administration. The fact of his opposition becomes apparent when we take into account that he had also been Saudi ambassador to the US and was known to have had close ties with former US President George W. Bush, and that he was also an advocate of the US’ invasion of Iraq in 2003. However, Obama administration’s geo-political maneuvering, that now includes reversing G.W. Bush’s policy towards the Middle East, had put the former intelligence chief in an awkward position vis-à-vis the US and his own State. Following the same tide, it is now being expected that the person now going to be removed is the current Saudi foreign minister. The reason for his removal is again his hawkish stance towards Iran. In an interview to New York Times in 2009, he is stated to have said that Iran must never be allowed to develop a nuclear program of any sort whatsoever.

The fact that Saudi Arabia has been compelled to reverse its position in accordance with geo-political scenario dramatically changing as a result of US-Iran deal, howsoever fragile it might be, is indicative of the relative positions of both Iran and Saudia under the current circumstances. Clearly, Iranian diplomacy has outmaneuvered the Saudis in their bid to establish Sunni hegemony in the Middle East. As a matter of fact, the Saudi rulers were fuming at the success of Iranian diplomacy in reaching successfully out of sanction quagmire, which has in turn greatly normalized Iran’s international relations and enhance the country’s regional prowess.

An additional factor that seems to have played a pivotal role in forcing both the US and Saudia to change policy towards Iran is their failure in changing regime in Syria. Syria, that was supposed to provide ‘the road to Iran’ for the US and Saudia, has turned out to be a game changer in the Middle East leading to significant breakthroughs. In this behalf, Saudi Arabia is most likely to see that failure to improve relations with Iran would be closing a door at a time when it prefers to keep all of them open. While it cannot be ruled out that both sides recognize that the regional situation, particularly in Syria, is becoming untenable, at this point Iran holds the higher position. With ongoing talks regarding a permanent agreement between Tehran and the P5+1 in the background, along with increasing visits by Western business delegations to the country, Saudi Arabia sees Iran’s re-emergence as a regional and economic power as the most likely rather than a mere potential possibility. As such, to keep its options open, the Saudis have come to this realization that they might have even to co-operate with Iran in future as far as settlement of crisis in Syria is concerned.

But the important question that needs to be emphatically answered here is: why is the US bringing the two erstwhile ‘enemy’ states together? Is it a part of the US’ policy of redesigning the entire landscape of the Middle East and making its own hegemony more deeply entrenched? In other words, this strategy of the US seems to be perfect when linked with the “Asia Pivot.” If major targets of the “Asia Pivot” are China and Russia, control over entire Middle East is of immense significance for the US—hence, Saudia-Iran rapprochement. This control would enable the US manipulate the world’s largest energy producer, and thereby, global economy. The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, may not have realized it when he put all the eggs in the Israeli-Palestinian peace basket that no bilateral relationship in the Middle East is more consequential and important for the region’s future and the US interests than the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

But the US cannot achieve this objective easily given the peculiar nature of Saudi-Iran relations and the general political landscape of the Middle East. The US seems to have oversimplified the situation for its own convenience. Intricacies of Saudi-Iran relations are not built solely around the Syrian issue, however. These two regional powers are on opposite sides on virtually every single issue. Primarily, both are vying for power and influence in the Persian Gulf. In Syria, Iran supports the Assad regime and Hezbollah while the Saudis support the Sunni rebels in Syria and the anti-Hezbollah forces in Lebanon. In the Palestinian territories, the Saudis support Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah, and the Two-State solution, while the Iranians back Hamas and reject the Two-State solution. And in Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is an Iranian ally, while the Saudis support the Sunni rebels/fighters. They are also in competition within the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). In addition to these conflicting interests, there are the ethnic (Arab versus Persian) and sectarian (Sunni Saudi Arabia versus Shiite Iran) differences, which are likely to leave deep imprints on or rather defy any attempt at rapprochement.

It is for this reason that it would be extremely naïve and an oversimplification of the ground realities if we contemplate a complete normalization of relations between both states, especially when reports of Saudi-Israel anti-Iran alliance have also come to limelight. The fact that both Saudia and Iran have been and are working to sabotage each others’ ambitions is a sufficient evidence of the historically deep seated animosity between them. Although it is difficult to categorically conclude that rapprochement cannot take place at all; however, difficulties impeding it are too formidable to be overcome by mere exchange of ministers. The US’ role must also not be simplified as a mere mediator. She has her own interests to pursue; and, the more the Middle East remains divided, the more the US and its allies stand to achieve both politically and economically. Politically an internally hostile Middle East would allow the West to play off countries like Saudia and Iran against one another; and economically, this hostility would allow them to buy cheap oil as well as sell them costly weapons. Additionally, a divided Middle East means more room for the US to place more troops in the region and exert more influence on the regional states in order to manipulate their foreign as well as domestic policies and priorities. Divide and rule is the classic stratagem that has still not escaped the Western political and military sense.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

jeudi, 31 juillet 2014

La seconda guerra fredda

 

2014-06-29-1.jpg

 

Rivista di studi Geopolitici

 

2° trimestre 2014

 

La seconda guerra fredda

 

 

IMPORRE LA CULTURA EUROPEA AGLI EUROPEI
di Ivan Buttignon


Venezia Giulia, 1945-1954. Il fantomatico Territorio Libero di Trieste è diviso tra Zona A, occupata dai britannici e dagli statunitensi, e la Zona B, dagli jugoslavi. Specificamente nella prima, l’impronta alleata s’imprime in tutto il suo senso politico ma soprattutto culturale: Trieste deve diventare democratica, occidentale, europea; con le buone o con le cattive. La Venezia Giulia, o meglio quella piccola quota del territorio giuliano rimasta nell’area occidentale, rifiuta di venire standardizzato dalla logica anglo-americana e di diventarne serva. Il saggio insiste sulle trame sia politiche che, a maggior ragione, culturali che incombono sulla Zona A in termini di contrapposizione tra un governo alleato che specula sulle difficoltà di riorganizzazione politica, economica e sociale, implementando ricette formalmente democratiche ma che de facto creano maggiori e più profonde disuguaglianze, e il cosiddetto fronte filoitaliano, stremato per la sempre più carente rappresentanza italiana sia nella Zona B, dove la situazione assume i tratti della persecuzione antitaliana, sia nella Zona A.

CRISI ECONOMICA EUROPEA E NUOVI MOVIMENTI SOCIALI
di Cristiano Procentese


La crisi finanziaria globale di questi ultimi anni è stata l’elemento scatenante di una serie di crisi economiche, sociali e politiche. Gli Stati europei insistono nell’adottare politiche improntate al libero mercato e, contemporaneamente, a smantellare gli investimenti nello stato sociale. Aumentano le disuguaglianze e la povertà e, come se non bastasse, le banche hanno ridotto i prestiti alle famiglie e alle imprese. Le popolazioni locali, costrette a sopportare sacrifici odiosi e iniqui, si sentono sempre più estranee alla politica tradizionale. Fortunatamente, sta emergendo nei cittadini europei un’esigenza di passare dalla centralità dei mercati alla priorità dei propri diritti. Nuove forme di associazionismo si vanno affermando, tuttavia tali nuovi gruppi, pur con tutto il loro attivismo, oltre ad essere privi di un mandato democratico, appaiono assai eterogenei per ambito di interesse e ancora lontani dall’idea di democrazia partecipativa.

LE DIFFICILI RELAZIONI USA-PAKISTAN
di Silvia Bettiol


Le relazioni tra il Pakistan e gli Stati Uniti sono iniziate durante la guerra fredda, quando i due Paesi si sono alleati per sconfiggere i sovietici in Afghanistan. Dopo l’11 settembre del 2001 tuttavia i due Stati non possono più essere considerati alleati. Gli interessi nazionali pakistani e quelli statunitensi si scontrano continuamente, rendendo difficili le relazioni tra Washington e Islamabad che, nonostante le divergenze, sono oggi costretti a collaborare per cercare di gestire ciò che hanno involontariamente creato con le loro decisioni durante gli anni Ottanta.

RECENSIONE di: Giulietto Chiesa, Invece della catastrofe (a cura di Renato Pallavidini)

 

Grand Moyen-Orient: une accélération du redécoupage prévu

Grand Moyen-Orient : une accélération du redécoupage prévu. Par François Montgisard

Grand Moyen-Orient: une accélération du redécoupage prévu

par François Montgisard

Ex: http://fr.novopress.info

Le Moyen-Orient, chacun le sent bien, est la zone géographique d’où la prochaine guerre mondiale pourrait éclater.

L’actualité dans cette région nous a montré une avancée étonnamment rapide des forces armées de l’ « Emirat islamique de l’Irak et du Levant » (EIIL en français). L’événement rappelle un peu la rapidité soudaine et « inexpliquée » de l’avance des troupes croato-musulmanes en Bosnie, dans les années 1990 face aux Serbes, jusqu’à des lignes que l’on a su peu après avoir été négociées pour laisser la moitié du pays à chaque belligérant.


L’on sait les Américains très attentifs au Sud-Ouest asiatique, région comprenant Israël et le golfe Persique. Afin d’y maintenir et d’y développer leur influence, ils y ont envisagé, ce n’est pas nouveau, la vieille idée romaine du « divide ut regnes » (diviser pour régner). De nouvelles frontières ont été planifiées par les services de Washington pour fractionner ce grand Moyen-Orient. Dans cette optique, deux cartes ont été portées à la connaissance du public. Ces deux cartes partent de la même logique : faire éclater les Etats musulmans les plus puissants de la région en des unités plus petites, utilisant pour cela les clivages religieux, ethniques, tribaux, etc. :

– La première a été publiée en juin 2006 dans la revue The Armed Forces Journal, sous la signature du lieutenant-colonel « à la retraite » Ralph Peters. Elle montre la zone comprise entre la Méditerranée et le Pakistan.

Grand Moyen-Orient : une accélération du redécoupage prévu. Par François Montgisard

– La deuxième (image en Une) a été publiée dans le New York Times du 28 septembre 2013 par la géopoliticienne Robin Wright, travaillant pour le « United States Institute of Peace », organisme dont l’intitulé à lui seul fleure bon la manipulation des foules. La zone à fractionner s’étend ici de la Libye au golfe Persique.

Les deux cartes se recoupent, comme par hasard, sur la partie la plus stratégiquement sensible de la région : celle comprenant le « Croissant fertile » et la péninsule Arabique. La logique, on l’a vu, est la même : diviser les Etats musulmans (et eux seuls) en utilisant les fractures les plus… utilisables. Tout porte à croire que les différences entre les deux scénarios sont des actualisations, des corrections, tenant compte des faits dont les véritables auteurs ont pris conscience au fur et à mesure de la mise en place de cette stratégie.

Tout avait « bien » commencé par l’occupation de l’Irak en mars 2003 (on se doute bien que la carte publiée en 2006 avait été conçue bien avant cette date). La haine entre sunnites et chiites, consciencieusement entretenue par le gouvernement chiite majoritaire accaparant largement plus que sa part au profit de sa communauté, a achevé la cassure de l’Irak ; cassure en trois, sunnites et chiites étant trop occupés à s’entretuer pour ne pas laisser les Kurdes devenir indépendants de fait.

Par contre, le plan buta ensuite sur la résistance inattendue du régime syrien. Il a donc fallu lui concéder (voir la deuxième carte), en plus du réduit alaouite prévu, toute la tranche occidentale du pays, dont Damas ; peu importe. En Syrie comme en Irak, gouvernementaux et antigouvernementaux laissent aujourd’hui les Kurdes se gouverner comme ils le souhaitent.

Cependant, et l’on rejoint ici l’actualité, il est apparu possible et souhaitable pour les services américains d’unir les sunnites des deux Etats arabes fractionnés en un seul bloc, le « Sunnistan », tant pour renforcer ces deux groupes rebelles à leur gouvernement central que pour transcender les frontières et donc mieux les effacer. Nous en sommes donc à la phase où les services américains (et israéliens) favorisent la constitution au plus vite de ce « Sunnistan » regroupant les Arabes sunnites du nord de la zone. Ils aident donc par tous les moyens l’armée de l’émirat islamique (la flamme du religieux est aujourd’hui plus dynamisante que celle de l’ethnie) de l’Irak et du Levant.

Les prochaines étapes sont très probablement inscrites dans les cartes publiées, et plus exactement dans la deuxième, celle de Robin Wright. Pour les Kurdes, il conviendra d’unir les Etats de fait du nord de la Syrie et du nord de l’Irak en une nation unique, mais discrètement, progressivement, de crainte de provoquer une réaction de la Turquie voisine, ultra-sensible sur la question. « On » cherchera aussi à re-diviser en deux le Yémen, que l’on avait un peu oublié, selon la partition historique créée par l’occupation britannique du Sud.

L’Arabie Saoudite, quant à elle, a été prévue éclatée en cinq blocs, tant dans la première que dans la deuxième carte. Mais plus les mêmes. A l’origine (carte de 2006), le royaume des Saoud était délesté :

-  du nord-ouest donné à la Jordanie (après acceptation du roi Abdallah II de recueillir des Palestiniens de Cisjordanie ?) ;

-  plus grave : de la province côtière du Hassa, ô combien importante, puisqu’elle recèle la quasi-totalité des ressources pétrolières connues du royaume, afin de constituer un Etat arabe chiite avec le sud de l’Irak et le sud-ouest de l’Iran arabophone ;

-  plus dramatique encore sous l’aspect du prestige, d’un « Vatican islamique », contenant notamment les deux villes saintes pour l’islam de La Mecque et de Médine, et confié à une présidence tournante des différents groupes musulmans : dont les chiites détestés (arabes ou pire encore iraniens), les Indonésiens mangeurs de porc, les faux Arabes du Maghreb, ou encore les Noirs descendants d’esclaves ;

-  pour faire bonne mesure, d’une portion du sud-ouest pour agrandir le Yémen

Pour ce royaume, il semble que les donneurs d’ordres aient compris que les Saoudiens, même lorsqu’ils sont opposés à la caste princière qui régit le royaume, se sentiraient humiliés d’être agrégés à des Etats voisins qu’ils regardent de haut : la Jordanie que les Saoud ont repoussée, l’Irak brisé par la guerre, le Yémen arriéré économiquement. La nouvelle carte maintient l’objectif de la partition de l’Arabie Saoudite en cinq entités, mais, cette fois, il transparaît clairement que la logique tribale a été privilégiée. Il est même prévu de priver Ryad de son dernier débouché sur la mer.

Reste à réaliser ce plan. Aux dernières nouvelles, le clan familial des princes saoudiens, puissant, très soudé (condition essentielle de survie dans la région) et bien conscient de ce qu’on lui prépare, n’a pas du tout l’intention de se laisser faire…

François Montgisard
Docteur en droit

Auteur de Ces Français qui gouvernèrent le monde

NDLR :

Pour la première carte, lire aussi un article de Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Israël en Libye : Préparer l’Afrique au « choc des civilisations »
http://www.silviacattori.net/spip.php?article2266

Cet article, qui date de 2011, donne surtout un certain éclairage sur la guerre menée par l’OTAN contre la Libye et sur les intentions réelles des Etats-Unis dans la perspective d’une dominance entière.

Pour la deuxième carte, se reporter à un article publié le 25/10/2013 par Jeune Afrique qui préfigure ce que serait le nouveau Moyen-Orient fragmenté sous le coup de dynamiques multiples, le tout sous l’œil dominateur des USA.
http://www.jeuneafrique.com/Article/JA2753p060.xml0/ 

Se reporter aux deux articles avec les liens ci-dessus pour avoir une meilleure lisibilité des deux cartes.

Source : Polémia.

mercredi, 30 juillet 2014

Der türkische Ministerpräsident Erdoğan betreibt Annäherung an Russland

Der türkische Ministerpräsident Erdoğan betreibt Annäherung an Russland

F. William Engdahl

Der türkische Ministerpräsident Recep Tayyip Erdoğan ist ein echter politischer Überlebenskünstler. Er hat den jahrelangen Versuchen Washingtons widerstanden, ihn abzusetzen, weil er sich weigerte, die Türkei nicht zum Aufmarschplatz für einen Krieg zu machen, der zum Sturz von Baschar al-Assad im benachbarten Syrien führen sollte. Nun schaut sich Erdoğan, der Realpolitik wahrscheinlich noch intensiver studiert hat als den Koran, im Ausland nach neuen strategischen Verbündeten um.

 

Genau zu dem Zeitpunkt, wo die NATO, die Obama-Regierung und andere alles daran setzen, Russlands Präsidenten Putin wegen der Entwicklungen in der Ukraine zu verteufeln, bewegt sich Erdoğan deutlich näher an … raten Sie mal, welche führende Persönlichkeit in der Weltpolitik? Richtig, an Wladimir Putin und Russland. Die Implikationen einer grundlegenden geopolitischen Neurausrichtung der Türkei könnten weltweit Konsequenzen haben, die weit über Größe oder politisches Gewicht des Landes hinausgehen.

Die ersten Schritte in Richtung einer engeren Wirtschaftsallianz zwischen der Türkei und Russland wurden im vergangenen April unternommen, kurz nach dem illegalen, von den USA inszenierten Putsch in der Ukraine und nachdem das Parlament der Krim für einen Anschluss an Russland plädierte, was eine Flut antirussischer Propaganda aus dem Westen ausgelöst hatte. Am 21. April lud der türkische Energieminister Taner Yildiz den stellvertretenden Chef der Gazprom, Alexander Medwedew, nach Ankara ein, um Einzelheiten über größere Lieferungen von russischem Erdgas über die Blue-Stream-Pipeline in die Türkei zu klären.

Mehr: http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/europa/f-william-engdahl/der-tuerkische-ministerpraesident-erdo-an-betreibt-annaeherung-an-russland.html

mardi, 29 juillet 2014

Duitsland ruilt VS-NAVO in voor BRICS landen

Financieel analist: Duitsland ruilt VS-NAVO in voor BRICS landen

Duitsers willen Russen helpen om dollar te laten vallen

VS wil EU betrekken in oorlog tegen Rusland

De Amerikanen vinden de goede banden tussen Merkel en Putin maar niets, en proberen via Oekraïne een breuk tussen Berlijn en Moskou te forceren.

Volgens financieel analist en statisticus Jim Willie bereidt Duitsland in alle stilte een radicale politieke koerswijziging voor. Berlijn zou het Westerse, door Amerika beheerste NAVO-blok willen verlaten, en zich aansluiten bij de BRICS landen: Brazilië, Rusland, India, China en Zuid Afrika. Dit zou de ware reden geweest zijn dat de Amerikaanse NSA de Duitse leiders, inclusief bondskanselier Angela Merkel, bespioneerde.

De Verenigde Staten zijn erg benauwd dat Europa toenadering zoekt tot Rusland. Een nieuwe combinatie tussen de superieure Duitse technologische en industriële kennis en de Russische rijkdom aan grondstoffen en militaire macht zou in een klap het sterkste machtsblok ter wereld kunnen worden en Amerika naar de kroon steken.

‘Duitsers willen Russen helpen dollar te laten vallen’

Volgens Willie zoeken de Duitsers naar manieren om Rusland te helpen de dollar als internationale reservemunt te laten vallen. Eerder deze maand besloten de BRICS om met $ 100 miljard een alternatief voor het door het Westen beheerste IMF op te zetten. Rusland wordt de voorzitter van deze nieuwe financiële instelling, die Shanghai als thuisbasis krijgt.

President Vladimir Putin was duidelijk over de reden: ‘Het nieuwe systeem helpt voorkomen dat landen die het niet eens zijn met sommige buitenlandse besluiten die de VS en zijn bondgenoten maken, lastig worden gevallen.’ Met andere woorden: Rusland en China zijn volop bezig met het opzetten van een politiek, economisch en financieel systeem dat buiten het Westen om moet gaan functioneren.

‘Rusland heeft NWO verraden’

De op globalisering en het uitwissen van grenzen en soevereiniteit gerichte Westerse gevestigde orde beschouwt Rusland dan ook in toenemende mate als een ‘afvallige’ en onvoorspelbare staat, die een spaak in het wiel steekt van de in de maak zijnde ‘Nieuwe Wereld Orde’. Oud VS-ambassadeur voor Irak Christopher Hill zei in april zelfs dat Rusland deze NWO, waar het 25 jaar lang onderdeel van is geweest, heeft ‘verraden’.

De BRICS zijn ook bezig met het opzetten van een eigen internetsysteem waarvan de verbindingen niet langer via Amerika lopen. Hierdoor wordt het voor de NSA veel moeilijker om het buitenlandse internet te bespioneren.

Neerhalen Boeing ‘geschenk uit de hemel’

De fascistische staatsgreep in Oekraïne en de daarop volgende chaos werd door het Westen en met name de VS gefinancierd, voorbereid en gesteund om Rusland te verzwakken, de vorming van de Euraziatische Unie te voorkomen, en vooral om de weggeëbde vijandigheid tegen Rusland in Europa nieuw leven in te blazen. Het neerschieten van de Maleisische Boeing 777, met hoofdzakelijke Europese passagiers aan boord, was wrang gezegd een ‘geschenk uit de hemel’ voor de Amerikanen, en werd niet alleen dankbaar aangegrepen voor dit doel, maar was volgens boze tongen zelfs een vooropgezette false-flag aanslag.

Tevens hoopt Washington de EU zover te krijgen hardere sancties tegen Rusland in te stellen. Dat probeert de regering Obama al maanden, maar Europa wilde daar tot frustratie van de Amerikanen niet aan meewerken, omdat dit grote gevolgen zou kunnen hebben voor de toch al in forse problemen verkerende Europese economie. Na de crash van vlucht MH-17 lijkt Europa inderdaad ‘om’, en zal de EU aanstaande donderdag nieuwe sancties tegen Rusland instellen (2).

VS zet Europa voor het blok: doe mee met onze oorlog’

‘Dit heeft enorme gevolgen,’ aldus Willie. ‘Feitelijk zegt de VS tegen Europa dat het twee keuzes heeft: doe met ons mee met de oorlog tegen Rusland, met de sancties tegen Rusland, en met de constante oorlogen en conflicten, de isolatie en vernietiging van jullie economie, het loslaten van jullie energievoorziening (uit Rusland) en het annuleren van (energie)contracten. Steun deze oorlog en sancties, want wij willen graag jullie hulp om het dollarregime overeind te houden.’

‘Wij zetten Duitsland onder druk. Maak je geen zorgen over Frankrijk en Engeland, maar over Duitsland. Duitsland heeft 3000 bedrijven die zaken doen (met de Russen). Zij gaan absoluut niet meedoen met sancties.’ (1)

Xander

(1) Infowars
(2) Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten

Zie ook o.a.:

20-07: BRICS-landen vormen politieke alliantie, willen nieuw financieel systeem
06-07: Amerika drijft Duitsland en Frankrijk in armen van Rusland (/ BRICS-landen zetten serieuze stappen naar antidollar alliantie)
19-06: Kremlin wil wereldwijde anti-dollar alliantie om agressie VS te stoppen (/ ‘Gigantische verliezen voor Europa als EU kant van Amerika blijft kiezen’)
15-06: Grote man achter Putin beschouwt VS als rijk van de Antichrist
08-06: Bijna alle klanten Gazprom ruilen dollar in voor euro
15-05: Rusland dumpt 20% staatsobligaties VS; België koopt juist $ 200 miljard
14-05: Gazprom: Europa moet Russisch gas in roebels gaan betalen
07-04: Adviseur Putin waarschuwt EU voor € 1 biljoen verlies en wereldoorlog
29-03: Obama drijft mensheid naar laatste wereldoorlog

 

Ist Rußland Deutschlands wichtigster natürlicher Partner?

export_Russlands_n-700x498.jpg

Putin in der Diskussion: Ist Rußland Deutschlands wichtigster natürlicher Partner?

Olaf Haselhorst
   

Die politischen Beziehungen Europas zu den USA scheinen sich immer stärker abzukühlen. Schuld daran ist nicht nur die Massenausspähung europäischer Bürger durch den US-Geheimdienst NSA. So hatte der russische Präsident Wladimir Putin im Hinblick auf einen französisch-russischen Waffendeal den USA vorgeworfen, Bank-Strafen dazu zu nutzen, Frankreich für seine Rüstungsgeschäfte mit Rußland zu bestrafen. Am 30. Juni belegten die US-Behörden die französische Bank BNP Paribas mit einer Strafe von neun Milliarden Dollar. Hintergrund waren Geschäfte mit den Führungen Kubas, des Iran und des Sudan. „Was den französischen Banken angetan wurde, kann in Europa nichts als Empörung hervorrufen“, sagte Putin in einer Rede vom 1. Juli. „Wir sehen den Druck, den unsere amerikanischen Partner auf Frankreich ausüben, um das Land dazu zu zwingen, keine ‚Mistrals‘ [Hubschrauberträger] an Rußland zu liefern. Wir wissen, daß sie sogar angedeutet haben, die Strafen gegen die Banken stillschweigend aufzuheben, wenn Frankreich die ‚Mistrals‘ nicht liefert. Was ist das, wenn nicht Erpressung?“, fragte Putin. Immer mehr europäische Politiker und Geschäftsleute würden erkennen, daß die USA Europa nur für ihre eigenen Interessen benutzen wollen, daß Europa zur „Geisel kurzsichtiger ideologisierter Ansätze“ anderer wird.

In Frankreich werden zwei Hubschrauberträger für Rußland produziert. Beim G7-Gipfel Anfang Juni hatten die USA das Projekt kritisiert. Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel hatte hingegen keine Einwände gegen den Export von französischen Kriegsschiffen nach Rußland.

„Europa ist Rußlands natürlicher und wichtigster Handels- und Wirtschaftspartner“, so Putin. Frankreich und Deutschland hätten sich auf die Seite Rußlands gestellt, als sie die Aufhebung der Waffenruhe mit den Unabhängigkeitskämpfern durch die Ukraine verurteilten. Hinsichtlich …einer Telefonkonferenz mit den Regierungen Deutschlands, Frankreichs und der Ukraine sagte Putin: „Leider hat sich [der ukrainische] Präsident Poroschenko dazu entschieden, die Militäraktion fortzusetzen. Und wir – mit ‚wir‘ meine ich meine Kollegen in Europa und mich selbst – wir haben es nicht erreicht, ihn davon zu überzeugen, daß man einen sicheren, stabilen und unverletzlichen Frieden nicht mit Krieg erreichen kann.“ In der Tat rät der deutsche Außenminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier dem ukrainischen Präsidenten zu Gesprächen mit den Separatisten.

In der Ukraine-Krise gibt es krasse Meinungsverschiedenheiten zwischen den USA auf der einen Seite und mehreren EU-Staaten auf der anderen Seite, darunter Deutschland, Österreich und Frankreich.

Frankreichs Botschafter in Moskau, Jean-Maurice Ripert, sagte am 1. Juli der russischen Nachrichtenagentur Interfax, daß er die Entscheidung der Ukraine bedaure, die Waffenruhe zu beenden. Frankreich und Deutschland übten nun Druck auf Poroschenko aus, damit dieser seine Meinung ändere. Zudem denke derzeit „niemand in Brüssel“ über eine dritte Phase von Sanktionen gegen Rußland nach.

Olaf Haselhorst ist Chefredakteur der gesamtdeutschen Wochenzeitung “Der Schlesier”

¿Alemania en los BRICS?

¿Alemania en los BRICS?

Ex: http://www.elespiadigital.com

Según el analista financiero norteamericano Jim Willie, la controversia sobre el espionaje de la NSA norteamericana a Alemania podría ser el temor a un plan secreto de los germanos para descolgarse del dólar y unirse en el futuro a los BRICS.

En una entrevista con el Watchdog Greg Hunter, Willie, especialista en Estadística, afirmó que la verdadera razón detrás de la reciente escándalo de vigilancia de la NSA focalización Alemania se centró en el temor de los Estados Unidos a que la potencia financiera de Europa esté tratando de escapar de un inevitable colapso del dólar.

"Creo que están buscando obtener información sobre las acciones de Rusia contra el dólar. Buscan los detalles de un plan secreto de Alemania para alejarse del dólar y unirse a los BRICS (Brasil, Rusia, India, China y Sudáfrica). Esto es exactamente lo que creo que van a hacer ", dijo Willie.

A principios de este mes, las naciones del BRICS (Brasil, Rusia, India, China y Sudáfrica), anunciaron la creación de un nuevo Banco Internacional con 200 mil millones de dólares de fondos, un banco alternativo al FMI y al dominio del dólar. Este banco alternativo al FMI tendría su sede en Shanghai y estaría presidido por Moscú.

Putin puso en marcha el nuevo sistema diciendo que fue diseñado para "ayudar a prevenir el acoso a los países que no están de acuerdo con algunas decisiones de política exterior hechas por los Estados Unidos y sus aliados", una clara señal de que Rusia y otros países del BRICS se están trasladando a crear un nuevo sistema económico que es contradictorio con el FMI y el Banco Mundial.

La visión que tiene la oligarquía occidental hacia Rusia se puede resumir en las observaciones formuladas por el ex embajador de EE.UU. en Irak, Christopher R. Hillque sugieren que Moscú es cada vez más visto como un Estado canalla. Ya en abril, Hill dijo que la respuesta de Rusia a la crisis de Ucrania fue una traición de Moscú al "nuevo orden mundial" del que había sido parte.

En otra señal de que las naciones BRICS están moviéndose para crear un modelo totalmente nuevo, multipolar y adversario de las potencias occidentales, los cinco países también están construyendo una red propia de Internet, una red alternativa que eluda a los Estados Unidos con el fin de evitar el espionaje de la NSA.

Willie también vincula a ese movimiento del BRICS que tras el derribo del vuelo de Malaysia Airlines, sea explotado por los EE.UU. y Gran Bretaña para presionar con sanciones más estrictas contra Rusia a pesar del hecho de que han tenido poco efecto hasta el momento y sólo parecen ser perjudicar para los intereses comerciales de los países de la Europa continental.

"Aquí está el gran desafío. Los EE.UU. están diciéndole básicamente a Europa que tiene dos opciones. Unirse a nosotros en la guerra contra Rusia. Unirse a nosotros en las sanciones contra Rusia. Unirse a nosotros en una guerra de constantes conflictos, aislamiento y destrucción de su economía, negándose a su suministro de energía y eliminación de todos los contratos. Unirse a nosotros en esta guerra de sanciones, porque realmente nos gustaría que ustedes mantengan el régimen del dólar. Ellos van a decir que están cansados del dólar. . . . Estamos empujando Alemania. No se preocupan por Francia, no se preocupan por Inglaterra, se preocupan por Alemania. Alemania cuenta con 3.000 grandes empresas que hacen negocios en estos momentos con Rusia. Ellos no van a unirse a las sanciones".

lundi, 28 juillet 2014

Gaza, il gas nel mirino

gaza_gaz_carte_v_1-0eb77.jpg

Gaza, il gas nel mirino

L'arte de la guerra

 
carte_gaza_gaz.jpgPer capire qual è uno degli obiettivi dell’attacco israeliano a Gaza bisogna andare in profondità, esattamente a 600 metri sotto il livello del mare, 30 km al largo delle sue coste. Qui, nelle acque territoriali palestinesi, c’è un grosso giacimento di gas naturale, Gaza Marine, stimato in 30 miliardi di metri cubi del valore di miliardi di dollari. Altri giacimenti di gas e petrolio, secondo una carta redatta dalla U.S. Geological Survey (agenzia del governo degli Stati uniti), si trovano sulla terraferma a Gaza e in Cisgiordania. Nel 1999, con un accordo firmato da Yasser Arafat, l’Autorità palestinese affida lo sfruttamento di Gaza Marine a un consorzio formato da British Gas Group e Consolidated Contractors (compagnia privata palestinese), rispettivamente col 60% e il 30% delle quote, nel quale il Fondo d’investimento dell’Autorità ha una quota del 10%. Vengono perforatidue pozzi, Gaza Marine-1 e Gaza Marine-2. Essi però non entrano mai in funzione, poiché sono bloccati da Israele, che pretende di avere tutto il gas a prezzi stracciati. Tramite l’ex premier Tony Blair, inviato del  «Quartetto per il Medio Oriente», viene preparato un accordo con Israele che toglie ai palestinesi i tre quarti dei futuri introiti del gas, versando la parte loro spettante in un conto internazionale controllato da Washington e Londra. Ma, subito dopo aver vinto le elezioni nel 2006, Hamas rifiuta l’accordo, definendolo un furto, e chiede una sua rinegoziazione. Nel 2007, l’attuale ministro della difesa israeliano Moshe Ya’alon avverte che «il gas non può essere estratto senza una operazione militare che sradichi il controllo di Hamas a Gaza». Nel 2008, Israele lancia l’operazione «Piombo Fuso» contro Gaza. Nel settembre 2012 l’Autorità palestinese annuncia che, nonostante l’opposizione di Hamas, ha ripreso i negoziati sul gas con Israele. Due mesi dopo, l’ammissione della Palestina all’Onu quale «Stato osservatore non membro»  rafforza la posizione dell’Autorità palestinese nei negoziati. Gaza Marine resta però bloccato, impedendo ai palestinesi di sfruttare la ricchezza naturale di cui dispongono. A questo punto l’Autorità palestinese imbocca un’altra strada. Il 23 gennaio 2014, nell’incontro del presidente palestinese Abbas col presidente russo Putin, viene discussa la possibilità di affidare alla russa Gazprom lo sfruttamento del giacimento di gas nelle acque di Gaza. Lo annuncia l’agenzia Itar-Tass, sottolineando che Russia e Palestina intendono rafforzare la cooperazione nel settore energetico. In tale quadro, oltre allo sfruttamento del giacimento di Gaza, si prevede quello di un giacimento petrolifero nei pressi della città palestinese di Ramallah in Cisgiordania. Nella stessa zona, la società russa Technopromexport è pronta a partecipare alla costruzione di un impianto termoelettrico della potenza di 200 MW. La formazione del nuovo governo palestinese di unità nazionale, il 2 giugno 2014, rafforza la possibilità che l’accordo tra Palestina e Russia vada in porto. Dieci giorni dopo, il 12 giugno, avviene il rapimento dei tre giovani israeliani, che vengono trovati uccisi il 30 giugno: il puntuale casus belli che innesca l’operazione «Barriera protettiva» contro Gaza. Operazione che rientra nella strategia di Tel Aviv, mirante a impadronirsi anche delle riserve energetiche dell’intero Bacino di levante, comprese quelle palestinesi, libanesi e siriane, e in quella di Washington che, sostenendo Israele, mira al controllo dell’intero Medio Oriente, impedendo che la Russia riacquisti influenza nella regione. Una miscela esplosiva, le cui vittime sono ancora una volta i palestinesi.  

Manlio Dinucci

Israël recourt à la violence

 

Israeli_Army_Special_Forces_enter_in_the_Gaza_Strip_to_destroy_missile_launch_sites_640_001.jpg

Bernhard Tomaschitz:

Israël recourt à la violence

Des centaines de civils palestiniens massacrés

 

L'objectif? Les gisements de gaz face au littoral de la Bande de Gaza

 

Du point de vue israélien, il fallait rendre coup pour coup: d'abord, on a annoncé qu'en Cisjordanie occupée, trois jeunes étudiants d'une école talmudique avaient été enlevés puis assassinés. L'Etat d'Israël part alors du principe que les auteurs de ce triple assassinat sont des membres du Hamas, un mouvement palestinien, islamiste et radical qui gouverne la Bande de Gaza. En guise de vengeance, des extrémistes juifs assassinent un jeune Palestinien de manière particulièrement cruelle: l'adolescent de seize ans a été brûlé vif. En représailles, le Hamas tire en direction d'Israël des roquettes bricolées au départ de la Bande de Gaza, considérée comme la plus grande prison en plein air du monde. Israël est en mesure de les détruire grâce à son système de défense "coupole de fer". Pour l'Etat sioniste, pourtant, ces tirs de roquettes de mauvaise qualité suffisent pour déclencher une attaque aérienne contre la Bande de Gaza.

 

Entre-temps, ces bombardements ont causé la mort de près de mille personnes, la plupart n'étant toutefois pas des membres du Hamas mais des civils, femmes et enfants. Comme le souligne le "Centre palestinien pour les droits de l'homme", 47 Palestiniens, dont 43 civils, ont été tués entre le 9 juillet, 10 h, et le 10 juillet, 10 h. "Les victimes civiles comprennent 16 enfants et dix femmes, dont huit membres d'une même famille. A cela s'ajoute que 214 Palestiniens, majoritairement des civils, ont été blessés; ce chiffre comprend 58 enfants et 29 femmes. Les avions de combat israéliens ont frappé et détruit 41 maisons sans avertissement préalable".

 

La colère du gouvernement israélien du premier ministre Benjamin Netanyahu s'explique par la fait que les Palestiniens, auparavant divisés entre militants du Hamas et adeptes du Fatah (qui gouverne la Cisjordanie), ont fini par se réconcilier, suite à de longues négociations, et ont constitué un gouvernement unitaire. Le nouveau gouvernement palestinien serait dès lors responsable "de toutes les actions qui nuisent à Israël" et qui partent du territoire palestinien, estime-t-on à Tel Aviv.

 

gisements_petrole.jpgL'animosité de Netanyahu n'est pas dictée, en fin de compte, par le fait que le Hamas refuse obstinément de reconnaître le droit d'Israël à l'existence. La réconciliation entre le Hamas et le Fatah élimine ipso facto le principal obstacle à la solution dite de "deux Etats" et donc à la naissance d'un Etat palestinien indépendant. Ce dernier, s'il ne se limitait pas à la seule Cisjordanie mais comprenait aussi la Bande de Gaza, serait économiquement viable. En effet, devant les côtes de la Bande de Gaza, on a découvert en l'an 2000 d'énormes gisements de gaz.

 

D'après le consortium britannique du gaz, British Gas, ces réserves de gaz naturel s'élèveraient à 40 milliards de m3 et auraient une valeur de quelque 4 milliards de dollars. De surcroît, on estime que d'autres réserves sont encore susceptibles d'être découvertes, surtout si un Etat palestinien indépendant obtient le droit d'exploiter une zone économique maritime devant le littoral de la Bande de Gaza, s'étendant jusqu'à 200 miles marins (370 km). Les Palestiniens disposeraient alors d'une part à eux de ce qu'il est désormais convenu d'appeler le "Bassin du Levant", en Méditerranée orientale. L'importance économique de cette zone, à peu près aussi grande que le territoire autrichien, a déjà été maintes fois soulignée, notamment en 2010 par une agence officielle américaine, US Geological Survey: "Nous estimons, sur base de méthodes d'évaluation géologique, que, dans la région, on pourrait aisément pomper une moyenne de 1,7 milliard de barils de pétrole ainsi qu'une moyenne de 122 billions de pied3 (soit 3,45 billions de m3) de gaz naturel".

 

En 1999 déjà, British Gas, flanqué de deux partenaires, avait signé un contrat avec les autorités autonomes palestiniennes, permettant l'exploitation des réserves de gaz (qui, à ce moment-là, n'étaient qu'estimées). Aussitôt, Israël avait lorgné vers les "bijoux de l'économie palestinienne": c'est ainsi que s'était exprimé le Lieutenant-Général Moshe Yaalon, aujourd'hui à la retraite, devenu un spécialiste des questions de sécurité auprès de la boîte à penser israélienne, "Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs".

 

Michel Chossudovsky, expert canadien très critique à l'égard des processus de globalisation, rappelle que l'élection d'Ariel Sharon au poste de premier ministre en 2001, a constitué un "tournant important": "La souveraineté de la Palestine a été contestée par le Tribunal Suprême d'Israël. Sharon a déclaré sans ambiguïté que jamais Israël n'achèterait du gaz aux Palestiniens", ce qui revenait à dire que "les réserves de gaz situées devant le littoral de la Bade de Gaza appartenaient à Israël". Yaalon le concède sans circonlocutions inutiles: "Bien sûr, Israël a besoin de réserves de gaz complémentaires". Yaalon poursuit ensuite son raisonnement: les recettes que les Palestiniens engrangeraient suite à leur exploitation du gaz gazaoui, si du moins les Palestiniens parvenaient à le faire eux-mêmes, tomberaient entre les mains d'islamistes hostiles à Israël. C'est pourquoi, estimait Yaalon en 2007 déjà, qu'Israël doit "d'urgence contrôler les effets à long terme (de cette situation) pour sa sécurité, s'il décide un jour d'acquérir du gaz de Gaza". Par voie de conséquence, pour Yaalon et Israël, d'autres Etats ne devraient pas, suite à des contrats signés avec les Palestiniens, injecter de l'argent dans les caisses d'un éventuel futur Etat palestinien".

 

La guerre menée par Israël contre les Palestiniens est donc dictée prioritairement par des considérations d'ordre économique.

 

Bernhard Tomaschitz.

 

(article paru dans zur Zeit, Vienne, n°29/2014; http://www.zurzeit.at ).

OCHA_GazaMap09.jpg

 

Did Israel Spark Violence to Prevent a New "Peace Offensive"?

gaza.jpg

After Palestinian Unity Deal, Did Israel Spark Violence to Prevent a New "Peace Offensive"?

Ex: http://www.democracynow.org

Guests

Norman Finkelstein, author and scholar. His most recent books are Old Wine, Broken Bottle: Ari Shavit’s Promised Land and Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel Is Coming to an End.

Mouin Rabbani, senior fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies and co-editor of Jadaliyya online magazine.          

ListenWatch

6542261933_045a35815e_z.jpgIt is widely thought that the flare-up in Israel and the Occupied Territories began with the kidnapping of three Israeli teens in the West Bank just more than a month ago. But our guests — author Norman Finkelstein and Palestinian political analyst Mouin Rabbani — argue that such a narrative ignores the broader context of decades of occupation and recent events highlighting the expansionist goals of the Israeli government in the Palestinian land under its control. "Whenever the Palestinians seem like they are trying to reach a settlement of the conflict — which the [Fatah-Hamas] unity government was — at that point Israel does everything it can to provoke a violent reaction, in this case from Hamas, break up the unity government, and then Israel has its pretext," Finkelstein says. Rabbani and Finkelstein are co-authors of the forthcoming book, "How to Solve the Israel-Palestine Conflict."

 

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Israeli musician and peace activist David Broza, ("What’s So Funny ’Bout) Peace, Love, and Understanding," recorded in an East Jerusalem recording studio with Israeli, Palestinian and American musicians. The Jerusalem Youth Choir, comprised of both Palestinian and Israeli members, lends their voice to the recording. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Aaron Maté.

AARON MATÉ: Well, with the potential for a ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza, we turn now to the roots of the latest crisis and what can be done to avoid another in the future. It is widely thought the flare-up began with the kidnappings of three Israeli teens in the West Bank just over a month ago. Their dead bodies were found later on. But our next guests argue the narrative ignores the broader context of decades of occupation and recent events highlighting the expansionist goals of the Israeli government in the Palestinian land under its control.

AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by Norman Finkelstein, author and scholar. His most recent books are Old Wine, Broken Bottle: Ari Shavit’s Promised Land and Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel Is Coming to an End. And we’re joined by Mouin Rabbani, a Palestinian political analyst, formerly with the International Crisis Group. Today, both Norman Finkelstein and Mouin Rabbani have co-authored a forthcoming book, How to Solve the Israel-Palestine Conflict.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Mouin Rabbani, we’re speaking to you over at The Hague. Can you respond to this latest news of the Egyptian ceasefire, Israel accepting and Hamas weighing this?

MOUIN RABBANI: Well, I think Amira explained it quite well. So far as we can tell, Hamas has been neither directly nor indirectly consulted on a proposal that basically the Egyptians have concocted together with Tony Blair and the Israelis and some other parties, the purpose of which appears to be something that Hamas cannot accept and that can then be used to legitimize an intensification of the Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip.

The problem for Hamas is twofold. On the one hand, as Amira explained, it basically restores an unacceptable status quo, while, on the other hand, it has been endorsed by the Arab League, by the PA in Ramallah, by most of the Western powers and so on. So it will be difficult for them to either accept or reject it, so to speak, while at the same time I think the parties that are proposing this ceasefire are making it clear that they’re not really interested in any further negotiation of its terms.

AARON MATÉ: Norman Finkelstein, give us a sketch of the broader context for how this latest flare-up began.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, before I do, I’m going to just briefly comment on the ceasefire. The ceasefire, first of all, says nothing about the rampages by Israel against Hamas in the West Bank. And it was those rampages which caused the current conflict to escalate. It gives Israel a green light to continue arresting Hamas members, blowing up homes in the West Bank, ransacking homes and killing Palestinians, which was the prelude to the current fighting.

Secondly, if you look at the ceasefire, it’s exactly what was agreed on in June—excuse me, June 2008 and the same ceasefire that was agreed to in November 2012. Namely, in both cases, it was said that there would be a relaxing of the illegal blockade of Gaza. In both cases, after the ceasefire was signed, the blockade was maintained, and in fact the blockade was escalated. So now, in the current version of the ceasefire, it said the blockade will be lifted after there has been calm restored and the security situation has been established. But if Israel says Hamas is a terrorist organization, then the security situation can never be calm in the Gaza, and therefore there will be never a lifting of the blockade of Gaza. So we’re right back to where we were in June 2008, November 2012. Of course Hamas is going to reject that kind of agreement. It means it legalizes, it legitimizes the brutal, merciless, heartless, illegal blockade of Gaza.

As to how we got to where we are, the general context is perfectly obvious for anyone who wants to see it. A unity government was formed between the PA and Hamas. Netanyahu was enraged at this unity government. It called on the U.S., it called on the EU, to break relations with the Palestinian Authority. Surprisingly, the United States said, "No, we’re going to give this unity government time. We’ll see whether it works or not." Then the EU came in and said it will also give the unity government time. "Let’s see. Let’s see what happens."

Pasfoto_0.jpgAt this point, Netanyahu virtually went berserk, and he was determined to break up the unity government. When there was the abduction of the three Israeli teenagers, he found his pretext. There isn’t a scratch of evidence, not a jot of evidence, that Hamas had anything to do with the kidnappings and the killings. Nobody even knows what the motive was, to this point. Even if you look at the July 3rd report of Human Rights Watch, they said nobody knows who was behind the abductions. Even the U.S. State Department, on July 7th, there was a news conference, and the U.S. State Department said, "We don’t have hard evidence about who was responsible." But that had nothing to do with it. It was just a pretext. The pretext was to go into the West Bank, attack Hamas, arrest 700 members of Hamas, blow up two homes, carry on these rampages, these ransackings, and to try to evoke a reaction from Hamas.

This is what Israel always does. Anybody who knows the history, it’s what the Israeli political scientist, the mainstream political scientist—name was Avner Yaniv—he said it’s these Palestinian "peace offensives." Whenever the Palestinians seem like they are trying to reach a settlement of the conflict, which the unity government was, at that point Israel does everything it can to provoke a violent reaction—in this case, from Hamas—break up the unity government, and Israel has its pretext. "We can’t negotiate with the Palestinian Authority because they only represent some of the Palestinian people; they don’t represent all of the Palestinian people." And so Netanyahu does what he always does—excuse me, what Israeli governments always do: You keep pounding the Palestinians, in this case pounding Hamas, pounding Hamas, trying to evoke a reaction, and when the reaction comes—well, when the reaction comes, he said, "We can’t deal with these people. They’re terrorists."

AMY GOODMAN: Mouin Rabbani, on this issue of the Israeli teens who were kidnapped and then killed, when did the Israeli government understand that they had been murdered, as they carried out the siege to try to find them?

MOUIN RABBANI: Well, what we know is that one of these youths called the police emergency line immediately after they were abducted and that gunshots can be clearly heard on the recording of that telephone conversation. On that basis, the Israeli security establishment concluded that the three youths had been killed almost as soon as they were abducted. And this information was, of course, known to the Israeli government. Nevertheless, Netanyahu deliberately suppressed this information, using the broad censorship powers that the Israeli government has, and during this period launched into this organized rampage—

AMY GOODMAN: Put a gag order on reporters from reporting this?

MOUIN RABBANI: Basically, yes, that, you know, this was treated as sensitive security information subject to military censorship. And there were only allusions to it, and only days after, by some Israeli journalists, and then only referring to some elliptical statements that were being made by Israeli military commanders suggesting that, you know, this is not a hostage rescue situation, as Netanyahu was presenting it, but is more likely to be a search for bodies, which is of course how it turned out. And the reason that Netanyahu suppressed this information is because it gave him the opportunity to launch this organized rampage throughout the West Bank, to start re-arresting prisoners who had been released in 2011 in the prisoner exchange between Hamas and Israel, to intensify the bombing of the Gaza Strip, and generally to whip up mass hysteria within Israel, which of course resulted in the burning death of the 16-year-old Palestinian from Jerusalem several days later.

AARON MATÉ: Mouin, you’ve interviewed Hamas leaders. The response from the Israeli government is always that Hamas is committed to Israel’s destruction, so therefore how can we possibly negotiate with a unity government that includes them? What’s your sense of Hamas’s willingness over a long term to reach some sort of agreement or a long-term truce with Israel?

MOUIN RABBANI: I think Hamas, or at least the organization and not necessarily all of its members, but its key leaders, have long since reconciled themselves with a two-state settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I think what’s been surprising in the past several months has been that the Hamas leadership has gone well beyond that, in the context of the reconciliation agreement signed on 23 April between Fatah and Hamas. In that agreement, they agreed to the formation of a new government, which neither Hamas nor Fatah would enter the Cabinet, but that the political program of that government would be the political program of the PA president—at the moment, Mahmoud Abbas. And what you basically had was Abbas stating publicly that he not only accepts the so-called Quartet conditions, but that in addition he would continue security coordination with Israel and, you know, was making these statements almost on a daily basis. And Hamas, more or less, looked the other way and didn’t withdraw from the government.

And this, I think, reflects, in some respects, the increasing difficulty Hamas was experiencing in governing the Gaza Strip and funding its government there, because of its—because of the increasing hostility or the exceptional [inaudible] the regime in Egypt, the deterioration in its relations with Iran, the inability to replace those with funding from Qatar or other sources. So you effectively had a government that was not only amenable to a two-state settlement with the support of Hamas, but it went significantly further and effectively accepted the Quartet conditions, which most [inaudible] view as illegitimate, and additionally was continuing security coordination with Israel that was largely directed at Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the West Bank. I think—you know, and this is—as Norman was explaining, this is a key reason why Netanyahu sought to undermine this agreement and the resulting government.

AMY GOODMAN: Norman Finkelstein, why do you think Israel has hesitated to launch the invasion? Their, you know, thousands of soldiers are lined up along the Gaza border.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, it’s interesting, because all the—there are a large number of theories that are being spun, in particular in the Israeli press. The answer, I think, to that question is pretty obvious. The Israeli domestic population won’t tolerate a large number of Israeli combatant casualties. That’s out. Israel likes to fight—not unlike President Obama, Israel likes to fight high-tech—likes to commit high-tech massacres, and it doesn’t want to fight a real war. And in 2008, Israel carried out, executed the big high-tech massacre in Gaza, killed about 1,400 Palestinians, up to 1,200 of whom were civilians, left behind 600,000 tons of rubble, dropped the white phosphorus and so forth. And for the first time, the international community reacted very harshly to it. The climax, of course, was the Goldstone Report.

And at that point, Israel was placed in a very difficult position, because on the one hand, it can’t stop the rocket attacks unless it conducts a ground invasion, which is exactly the situation it faced in Lebanon in 2006 also. The air force can’t knock out these rockets. They’re short-range rockets, mostly. They’re not even rockets, but we’ll call them that. The air force can’t knock them out. The only way to get rid of them—exactly as in Lebanon in 2006, the only way to get rid of them is by launching a ground invasion. However, the domestic population won’t accept a large number of casualties. And the only way you don’t have a large number of casualties is if you blast everything in sight within a mile’s radius, which is what Israel did in 2008, '09. There were only 10 Israeli military casualties; of those 10, half of them were friendly fire, Israelis accidentally killing Israelis. But after the Goldstone Report and after 2008, ’09, they can't do that again. They can’t carry out that kind of massive destruction, the 22 days of death and destruction, as Amnesty International called it. They can’t do that again. A new constraint has been placed on Israel’s political and military echelon.

So, that’s the dilemma for them. Domestically, they can’t tolerate large numbers of combatant casualties, but the only way to prevent that is blasting everything in sight. The international community says you can’t do that. You kill 150, even kill 200, Human Rights Watch said killing 200 Palestinians in Gaza, that’s not a war crime, they said. That’s just collective punishment. Only Hamas commits war crimes, because one woman apparently died of a heart attack while—Israeli woman apparently died of a heart attack while trying to enter a shelter, so that’s horrible, awful: That’s a war crime. But when you kill 200 Palestinians, 80 percent of whom are civilians, about 20 percent of whom are children, according to Human Rights Watch, that’s not a war crime. But the international community will accept that much, 200. But even Human Rights Watch won’t accept if you go in and you do 2008, '09, again. And so, the Israeli government is faced with a real dilemma. And that's the problem for Netanyahu. Domestically, he loses if there are large number of casualties, combatant casualties; internationally, he loses if he tries to do 2008, ’09, all over again.

AMY GOODMAN: Which resulted in how many deaths?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: 2008, '09, as I said, was about 1,400, of whom about up to 1,200 were civilians, I say 600,000 tons of rubble. They just left nothing there. And by the way, that was demanded by Tzipi Livni. On June 8th—excuse me, on January 18th, Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister then, the justice minister now, the person who's called a moderate by J Street, Tzipi Livni boasted—she went on TV and boasted, "We demanded hooliganism in Gaza. That’s what I demanded," she said, "and we got it." According to J Street, she’s the moderate.

AARON MATÉ: Norman, as we wrap, what needs to be done?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: What needs to be done is perfectly obvious. Amnesty International, which is a real human rights organization, unlike Human Rights Watch—Amnesty International issued a statement. It said, number one, there has to be a comprehensive arms embargo on Israel and Palestine—perfectly reasonable because, under international law, it’s illegal to transfer weapons to countries which are major violators of human rights. So, comprehensive arms embargo on Israel and Palestine. Number two, international investigation of war crimes on both sides.

And I’m saying number three. Number three has to be—there has to be the imposition of sanctions on Israel, until and unless it negotiates an end to the occupation according to international law. Now, that’s not my suggestion. I’m basing it on the International Court of Justice. South Africa occupied Namibia. The International Court of Justice said in 1971, if South Africa does not engage in good-faith negotiations to end its occupation of Namibia, that occupation is illegal under international law. Israel has refused to engage in good-faith negotiations to end the occupation of Palestine, just like in the case of Namibia. It is now an illegal occupier of Palestine, and there should be a comprehensive sanctions imposed on Israel, until and unless it ends the occupation of Palestine under the terms of international law.

AMY GOODMAN: We’ll leave it there. Norman Finkelstein, author and scholar. Mouin Rabbani, senior fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies. That does it for this discussion today. Of course we will continu

 

 
 
 
 

Creative Commons License The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Gaza y el Gran Israel

 

Gaza y el Gran Israel       
 
Ex: http://www.elespiadigital.com             

Por Germán Gorraiz López*

Las bases del gran Próximo Oriente se establecieron en el Pacto del Quincey (1.945) siguiendo la doctrina de los acuerdos franco- británicos Sykes-Picot de 1.916 que favorecían la división regional del poder en zonas de influencia y sustentada en el trípode EEUU-Egipto-Arabia Saudí. Dicha doctrina consistía en la pervivencia endémica en Egipto de gobiernos militares autocráticos pro-occidentales, lo que aseguraba la supervivencia del Estado de Israel (1.948) y proporcionaba a la Marina de EEUU de un acceso privilegiado al Canal de Suez, atajo crucial para el acceso directo a los Emiratos Árabes, Irak y Afganistán, quedando como firme bastión de los intereses geopolíticos de EEUU en la zona, máxime tras la caída del Sha de Persia en 1980.

El otro pilar del acuerdo consistía en el acceso privilegiado de EEUU al petróleo de Arabia Saudí a cambio de preservar su régimen autocrático y favorecer la difusión del wahabismo (doctrina fundada por Mohamed Abdel Wahab a mediados del siglo XVIII con el objetivo de convertirse en una visión atractiva del islam y exportable al resto de países árabes), con lo que la teocracia saudí se convirtió en una potencia regional que proporcionaba a EEUU la llave del dominio energético al tiempo que servía de muro de contención de las corrientes socialistas y panarabistas. Finalmente, tras la Guerra de los Seis Días (1.967), el puzzle geoestratégico de Oriente Medio-Próximo se completó con la instauración de regímenes autocráticos y pro-occidentales en los países circundantes a Israel ( Libia, Siria, Jordania, Arabia Saudí, Irak e Irán), quedando los palestinos confinados en los guetos de Cisjordania y Gaza.

Además, según la encuesta sobre derechos civiles ”Association for Civil Rights in Israel Annual Report for 2007” publicada por el diario Haaretz , “ el número de judíos que manifiestan sentimientos de odio hacia los árabes se ha doblado, pues el 50% de los judíos israelíes se opondrían ya a la igualdad de derechos de sus compatriotas árabes”. Así, el ex-Presidente Jimmy Carter que pasó a la Historia al lograr el histórico acuerdo de Camp David entre Israel y Egipto en 1979, se habría distanciado de la política de los sucesivos Gobiernos de Netanyahu y en su libro ‘Palestina, Paz no Apartheid’, Carter denuncia el “sistema de apartheid que Israel aplica sobre los palestinos”.

Asimismo, en el citado libro denuncia “el incumplimiento por parte de Israel de  los compromisos adquiridos en el 2003 bajo los auspicios de George W. Bush”, que incluían las exigencias de la congelación total y permanente de los asentamientos de colonos judíos en Cisjordania así como el Derecho al retorno de los cerca de 800.00 palestinos que se vieron forzados a abandonar Israel tras su constitución como Estado en 1.948 (nakba). Dicha hoja de ruta fue aceptada inicialmente por Israel y ratificada posteriormente por Olmert y Abbas en la Cumbre de Annapolis(2007) con la exigencia de “finiquitar la política de construcción de asentamientos en Cisjordania y flexibilizar los controles militares que constriñen hasta el paroxismo la vida diaria de los palestinos”.

El mensaje diáfano de Carter sería que “la paz es posible a través del diálogo y que Israel y Estados Unidos tienen que negociar con Hamás y con Siria, dos actores cruciales en la política de Oriente Próximo” , postulados que serían un misil en la línea de flotación de la doctrina del Gobierno de Netanyahu que aspira a resucitar el endemismo del Gran Israel (Eretz Israel), ente que intentaría aunar los conceptos antitéticos del atavismo del Gran Israel que bebe de las fuentes del sustrato bíblico y la concepción de un estado democrático incardinado en el siglo XXI, heredero de los postulados ideológicos de Theodor Herzl, considerado el Padre del actual Estado de Israel y fundador del sionismo. Así, Herzl en su libro “El Estado judío: ensayo de una solución moderna de la cuestión judía”, propuso la creación de un Estado judío independiente y soberano para todos los judíos del mundo al tiempo que promovió la creación de la OSM (Organización Sionista Mundial) y en su obra “La vieja Nueva Tierra”(1902), sienta las bases del actual Estado judío como una utopía de nación moderna, democrática y próspera.

Por su parte, el Proyecto del Gran Israel (Eretz Israel), sería hijo del atavismo bíblico y bebería de las fuentes de Génesis 15:18, que señala que “ hace 4.000 años, el título de propiedad de toda la tierra existente entre el Río Nilo de Egipto y el Río Eúfrates fue legado al patriarca hebreo Abraham y trasferida posteriormente a sus descendientes”, lo que supondría la restauración de la Declaración Balfour (1.917), que dibujaba un Estado de Israel dotado de una vasta extensión cercana a las 46.000 millas cuadradas y que se extendía desde el Mediteráneo al este del Éufrates abarcando Siria, Líbano, parte noriental de Irak , parte norte de Arabia Saudí , la franja costera del Mar Rojo y la Península del Sinaí en Egipto así como Jordania, que pasaría a denominarse Palesjordán tras ser obligado a acoger a toda la población palestina de las actuales Cisjordania y Gaza forzada a una diáspora masiva ( nueva nakba). Dicha doctrina tendría como principal adalid a Isaac Shamir al defender que “Judea y Samaria (términos bíblicos de la actual Cisjordania) son parte integral de la tierra de Israel. No han sido capturadas ni van a ser devueltas a nadie”, doctrina en la que se basarían los postulados actuales del partido Likud liderado por Netanyahu quien aspira a convertir a Jerusalén en la “capital indivisible del nuevo Israel”, tras la invasión de su parte oriental tras la Guerra de los Seis Días (1.967).

La AIPAC y Obama 

En la actualidad, la AIPAC sería el más influyente grupo de presión pro-ísraelí en EEUU pues cuenta con más de 100.000 miembros (150 de ellos dedicados exclusivamente a presionar al Congreso, a la Casa Blanca y todos los organismos administrativos en la toma de decisiones políticas que puedan afectar a los intereses del Estado de Israel) y aunque siempre se ha creído que la AIPAC sería un “gobierno virtual” que teledirigiría la política exterior de EEUU en función de los intereses israelíes, la realidad sería que el lobby pro-israelí tiene verdadero peso en los ámbitos del poder porque EE.UU. e Israel casi siempre han compartido idénticos intereses geopolíticos desde la fundación del Estado de Israel en 1.948. Así, EE.UU. contaría con Israel para mantener a los Estados árabes de Oriente Próximo bajo la amenaza constante de ataque, (asegurándose de paso que se mantengan serviles ante Washington) e Israel no podría seguir existiendo en su forma actual sin el fuerte apoyo político y material que recibe de EE.UU. ( más de 3.500 millones de dólares en ayuda militar) pero tras el estancamiento “sine die” de la enésima ronda de conversaciones de paz palestino-israelíes y la orden de Netanyahu de intensificar la ofensiva terrestre del ejército israelí en Gaza (Operación Margen Defensivo) , asistimos a un nuevo desencuentro Obama-Netanyahu debido al concepto geopolítico imperante en la Administración Obama y cuyo cerebro sería el ex-Consejero de Seguridad Nacional del presidente Carter,Zbigniew Brzezinski.


Así, Brzezinski en un discurso ante al Consejo Nacional Irano-estadounidense (NIAC), afirmó que “creo que los EE.UU. tiene derecho a decidir su propia política de seguridad nacional y no seguir cual mula estúpida lo que hagan los israelíes”, pues desde el asesinato de John F. Kennedy los Estados Unidos no habrían ya disfrutado de ese derecho al quedar desde entonces como rehenes de los intereses sionistas todos lo sucesivos Presidentes electos de EEUU. Además, Brzezinski, estaría enfrentado con los lobbys neocon republicano y judío de EEUU y con su habitual mordacidad habría desacreditado la miopía geoestratégica de ambos grupos de presión al afirmar que “están tan obsesionados con Israel, el Golfo Pérsico, Irak e Irán que han perdido de vista el cuadro global: la verdadera potencia en el mundo es Rusia y China, los únicos países con una verdadera capacidad de resistir a Estados Unidos e Inglaterra y sobre los cuales tendrían que fijar su atención”.

En el supuesto de lograrse la resolución del contencioso nuclear de EEUU-Irán y el restablecimiento de relaciones diplomáticas entre ambos países , Rowhani conseguiría su objetivo de que se reconozca el papel de Irán como potencia regional, logrando de paso el incremento de cooperación irano-estadounidense relativa a la seguridad en Iraq y Afganistán y la resolución del avispero sirio-iraquí. Respecto al contencioso sirio, la jugada maestra de Putin convenciendo a Assad para que entregara todo su arsenal de armas químicas y el escaso apoyo internacional recibido por Obama para iniciar su operación militar contra Siria, podría conducir a la celebración de la anhelada Conferencia Internacional Ginebra III sobre Siria ( rememorando la Guerra de Laos y los Acuerdos de Ginebra de 1.954) .

Nos encontraríamos pues en un momento crucial para definir el futuro mediato de Oriente Próximo y Medio (Oriente PROME), pues si fracasa la vía diplomática de Obama aumentará la presión del lobby pro-israelí de EEUU ( AIPAC) para proceder a la desestabilización de Irán y Siria por métodos expeditivos, momento que será utilizado por EEUU, Gran Bretaña e Israel para proceder a rediseñar la cartografía del puzzle inconexo formado por dichos países y así lograr unas fronteras estratégicamente ventajosas para Israel, siguiendo el plan orquestado hace 60 años de forma conjunta por los gobiernos de Gran Bretaña, Estados Unidos e Israel y que contaría con el respaldo de los principales aliados occidentales, no siendo descartable la gestación de una trama endógena que podría terminar por reeditar el Magnicidio de Dallas (Kennedy,1.963) para lograr que EEUU vuelva a la senda de las seudodemocracias tuteladas por el establishment judío-anglo-estadounidense.

*Analista

dimanche, 27 juillet 2014

La Chine étend sa présence en Amérique latine

La Chine étend sa présence en Amérique latine

La Chine se lance à la conquête économique de l'Amérique latine, écrit jeudi 24 juillet le quotidien Novye Izvestia.

Une délégation chinoise chapeautée par le président Xi Jinping a déjà signé à Buenos Aires, la capitale de l'Argentine, et Caracas, celle du Venezuela, d'importants contrats d'importation de pétrole et de ressources minières. En échange de ces matières premières en provenance d'Amérique du Sud, les Chinois promettent à ces pays des crédits de plusieurs milliards de dollars. La Chine applique dans cette région le même plan qu'en Afrique, où elle a conclu des contrats identiques. Cette situation préoccupe les Etats-Unis, qui considéraient l'Amérique latine comme leur "arrière-cour".

Le président chinois Xi Jinping s'est rendu en Amérique du Sud pour assister au sommet des Brics, avec une grande délégation essentiellement composée d'hommes d'affaires. Après le sommet, il est parti en tournée de neuf jours dans la région. Pékin a profité de ce concours de circonstances favorable pour proposer d'importants crédits à Buenos Aires et Caracas, en échange de matières premières et de produits alimentaires nécessaires à la Chine pour maintenir sa rapide croissance économique et nourrir sa population.

A la pénétration accrue de Pékin dans l'arrière-cour des Etats-Unis, il convient d'ajouter le Nicaragua, où la Chine investira 40 milliards de dollars pour creuser une route maritime reliant les océans Pacifique et Atlantique, devenant ainsi un concurrent du canal de Panama.

Il ne s'agit pas de la première apparition chinoise en Amérique latine. Les besoins croissants du pays en matières premières sont d'un grand secours pour les économies émergentes de la région et ainsi, le commerce avec la Chine et les investissements chinois ont joué un rôle majeur dans le rapide développement de l'Amérique latine. Il suffirait de dire que les échanges entre la Chine et cette région sont passés de 15 milliards à plus de 200 milliards de dollars entre 2000 et 2013. Pour le Brésil, le Chili et le Pérou, Pékin est déjà passé devant les USA en matière d'échanges commerciaux.

Washington est préoccupé par cette apparition de la Chine dans son voisinage mais ne peut rien faire. La seule chose qui rassure la Maison blanche est la position très claire de Pékin.

Elle consiste à séparer la politique de l'économie: contrairement aux pays occidentaux qui délivrent des crédits en échange d'une influence politique - ou autre - la Chine ne s'intéresse qu'aux matières premières et aux produits alimentaires, au lieu de la politique et des questions de sécurité.

Les BRICS contre le FMI

brics-cartoon_2219937b.jpg

Les BRICS contre le FMI

par Baudouin Lefranc

Ex: http://www.medias-press.info       

Tout d’abord, qu’est-ce que les BRICS ? Il s’agit d’un groupe informel – c’est-à-dire sans traité ou accord international ainsi que sans aucun organisme, institution ou bureau permanent – de cinq Etats qualifiés d’ « émergents » : Brésil, Russie, Inde, Chine et Afrique du sud. Ces Etats totalisent ensemble 40 % de la population de la planète, plus de 30 % du PIB mondial et près de 60 % de la croissance mondiale. Engrangeant des taux de croissance souvent supérieurs (voire très supérieurs) à ceux que connaissent les pays occidentaux, ces Etats sont des puissances régionales en voie de devenir dans un avenir plus ou moins proche de grandes puissances mondiales.

Les 15 et 16 juillet derniers s’est déroulé au Brésil le sixième sommet des BRICS. Cette réunion des chefs d’Etat de puissances émergentes a vu la conclusion d’un accord préparé depuis 2012 consacrant la mise en place d’une « nouvelle Banque de développement » (NBD). Cette NBD est destinée à devenir une réserve de change de 100 milliards de dollars alternative au Fonds monétaire international1 et à la Banque mondiale2. La Chine, qui abritera le siège de la NBD à Shangaï, s’est engagée à fournir 41 milliards de dollars sur les 100 tandis que Brésil, Russie et Inde participeront à hauteur de 18 milliards chacun et que l’Afrique du sud versera 5 milliards. La nouvelle institution accordera des prêts aux Etats-membres, leur permettant ainsi de stabiliser leurs réserves de change et leur monnaie.

Si la NBD est, dans un premier temps, un projet porté exclusivement par les BRICS, la participation en sera dans le futur ouverte à d’autres Etats à la condition que la part totale du fonds engagée par les BRICS ne descende pas en-dessous de 55 %.

L’objectif affiché est clair : il s’agit de réduire l’influence financière des Etats-Unis et de l’Union européenne sur les processus dans le monde et de se libérer du (dés)ordre mondial américano-centré. Selon Vladimir Poutine, le lancement de cette nouvelle Banque de développement vise ainsi « à renforcer l’architecture financière internationale pour la rendre équilibrée et juste » et permettra aux BRICS de réduire leur dépendance envers la politique financière des puissances occidentales. Le secrétaire-adjoint du Conseil de sécurité russe, Fedor Lioukanov, a, pour sa part, évoqué « une digne réponse à la Banque européenne d’investissement qui a suspendu ses projets conjoints avec la Russie ».

Baudouin Lefranc

1 Le FMI créditeles gouvernements en cas d’incapacité à couvrir leur déficit courant.

2 La Banque mondiale octroie des crédits préférentiels pour des projets à long terme.

samedi, 26 juillet 2014

Le bloc BRICS et notre destin

BRICS.JPG

Le bloc BRICS et notre destin

Ex: http://www.dedefensa.org

22 juillet 2014 – D’une façon générale, le bloc BAO et son arme favorite, sa presse-Système, ont ignoré la substance de la réunion des BRICS, au Brésil le 15 juillet. Ils en ont souri et ont consacré quelques colonnes condescendantes à ce qui reste, du point de vue du Système, une entreprise marginale qui a peu d’espoir de se concrétiser en une machine efficace, à cause des liens qui tiennent tous ces pays au Système. De toutes les façons, le Système tient prête, contre cette entreprise, son arme favorite, qui est l’isolement des autres ; de même qu’il est prêt à isoler Poutine et la Russie pour sa conduite inqualifiable vis-à-vis de l’Ukraine (voir un Bloomberg.News du meilleur cru, le 21 juillet 2014), – de même est-il prêt à “isoler les BRICS”, et même à “isoler” the Rest Of the World, sinon le monde entier.

Tout le monde ne partage pas ce point de vue d’une exquise paranoïa-schizophrénie typique de l’épisode maniaque des maniaco-dépressifs en charge, bien entendu. C’est notamment et particulièrement le cas de la Russie, qui est dans la situation d’intense tension que l’on sait. Les Russes sont, de loin, le pays des BRICS qui pousse le plus, aujourd’hui, à une transformation de substance de ce rassemblement pour l’instant assez imprécis dans sa nature, dans un sens structuré, politique, entreprenant et d’une solidarité extrême.

On a lu avec intérêt, à cette lumière, les déclarations du ministre russe des affaires étrangères Lavrov, telles qu’elles ont été retranscrites le 18 juillet 2014 par le site chinois Xinhuanet.com : «The BRICS mechanism has been fully developed and can transform into a political alliance, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Friday. “BRICS grows and matures in all directions,” the diplomat told state-run Rossiya 24 TV channel. Lavrov said the “qualitative” growth of the mechanism to a degree made it possible to transform into a political alliance, which is especially noticeable in its work within the Group of 20 (G-20) on global economic and financial affairs.»

Lavrov a précisé qu’au sein de ce G20, certains pays étaient proches des BRICS, jusqu’à parle d’une même voix qu'eux, sur la question de la réforme du système financier international – notamment l’Argentine, l’Indonésie et le Mexique. Ce faisant, le ministre russe des affaires étrangères offrait une perspective indirectement mais très puissamment politique. Par exemple, comme l’hypothèse en sera soulevée plus loin, si l’on rappelle que le prochain sommet du G20 aura lieu en novembre en Australie, que certains ont déjà évoqué le refus australien de recevoir la Russie à cause de la crise ukrainienne (et plus encore avec l’affaire du vol MH17), que la position des BRICS déjà affirmée qu’un boycott de la Russie au G20 devrait entraîner le refus des BRICS de participer au sommet, etc. Une telle hypothèse ne peut être réduite aux seuls aspects techniques du sommet, elle est incontestablement politique.

Cette question de la “politisation” des BRICS, posée par la Russie d’une manière proche d’être formelle, alors que l’on commence à apprécier le poids et les conséquences des décisions prises au Brésil, conduit à envisager avec plus de sérieux et un certain sens de l’urgence les conséquences de l’apparition des BRICS comme un acteur structuré majeur dans le jeu des relations internationales. Plus encore, cette réflexion s’engage également sur des voies idéologiques et philosophiques selon les termes anciens, que nous présenterions, nous, selon les qualifications plus adéquates de “voies d’antagonisme Système versus antiSystème”. En d’autres termes  : admettant que les BRICS commencent à devenir “opérationnels” d’une façon plus structurée, apparaissant de plus en plus selon une voie concurrente, ou alternative, etc., du système financier international, jusqu’où faut-il pousser ce défi ainsi posé au Système ? S’agit-il d’une voie concurrente à l’intérieur du Système, c'est-à-dire discrètement antiSystème ? Ou bien s’agit-il d’une voie alternative au Système, c’est-à-dire ouvertement antiSystème ?

L’intérêt que nous voyons dans cette question, qui peut sembler soit prématurée, soit irréaliste, est qu’elle apparaît aujourd’hui comme un objet de débat chez des spécialistes, universitaires le plus souvent. Certes, il s’agit de personnalités professant des positions très critiques du Système, souvent au nom d’une position idéologique identifiable ou assimilable (par exemple, néo-marxiste) mais cela n’empêche nullement la perception selon laquelle nous arrivons à un point essentiel de l’évolution des BRICS, celui où une structuration s’avère nécessaire, où sa politisation s’avère inévitable, où la construction conceptuelle doit se substantiver dans la réalité des relations internationales. C’est ce que Lavrov appelle “la maturité” des BRICS.

Pour substantiver cette observations générale, nous allons donner des références, ainsi que des extraits de débats, venus du site The Real News, site US aux engagements dissidents “de gauche” très affirmés, c’est-à-dire soutenant une position explicitement hostile au capitalisme néolibéral. Il s’agit de deux interventions, sous forme de débat ou d’interview télévisées, de personnalités universitaires. Ces illustrations doivent permettre de prendre conscience de l’ampleur du débat, de sa profondeur, de son caractère éventuellement déstabilisant.

• La première référence date du 18 juillet 2014, sous le titre «Is the New BRICS Bank a Challenge to US Global Financial Power?». Elle oppose deux professeurs US, d’une même tendance de gauche progressiste, adversaires du capitalisme tel qu’il est développé, mais professant chacun des opinions différentes sur l’évolution des BRICS. Il est à noter qu’aucune de ces opinions ne prévoit que les BRICS constituent une tentative ratée d’établir un système différent de l’actuel système. Ce point de départ marque bien l’impact du sommet brésilien : tout le monde considère ce sommet comme une réussite, comme un événement de la première importance, sinon un événement fondateur de la phase de maturité des BRICS, cela parmi ceux qui suivent sérieusement l’évolution des BRICS. Ces commentaires sont donc au-delà des commentateurs-Système, anglo-saxons et le reste, qui restent aveugles à l’évolution des BRICS, totalement sous l’empire de l’arrogance de la pensée-Système dont ils dépendent absolument. Les deux intervenants sont les professeurs Michael Hudson and Leo Panitch, respectivement professeur d’Economie (Distinguished Research Professor of Economics) à l’université du Missouri, et chef de recherche en économie politique comparée à l’université de York, à Toronto. (Le modérateur est Paul Jay, rédacteur en chef du réseau TRNN, ou The Real News Network)

Paul Jay : «... BRICS countries have also created a $100 billion contingency reserve arrangement (CRA), meant to provide additional liquidity protection to member countries during balance-of-payments problems and other financial shocks. The CRA, unlike the pool of contributing capital to the BRICS bank, which is equally shared, is being funded 41 percent by China, 18 percent by Brazil, India, and Russia, and 5 percent from South Africa. The new bank is being described as a challenge to the IMF and the World Bank, that is, a challenge to American global financial power. But is it, as Vijay Prashad wrote, neoliberalism with southern characteristics? [...] So, Michael, kick us off. How significant a development is this?»

Michael Hudson : «I think it's much more significant than any of the press has said. The press treats it almost as if, well, they're very small, and what do these countries have to do. Think of the BRICS as doing on the government level what Occupy Wall Street has been advocating. When they say a new development bank, they don't mean they want to be like the World Bank or the IMF. They want a different kind of development.

»But also it's not only a development bank, but it's the $100 billion currency scheme. They are trying to--they've been driven into a mutual economic defense alliance by the U.S. sanctions against Russia, by the threats against China, not letting it invest in the U.S. on national security grounds. They've forced other countries really into let us do whatever we want with you, there is no alternative, and we're going to do to you what we did to Ireland and Greece, and that's it.

Well, basically what the BRICS are saying in their new bank and their clearing house is, yes, there is an alternative. We don't have to be like neoliberalism. Their critique of the World Bank and the IMF isn't that they're not given big enough quotas; it's they disagree with the whole philosophy of the World Bank and the IMF that is subsidizing economic dependency, food dependency, and basically anti-labor parties that result in budget deficits, that then governments are told, well, in order to finance your foreign debt and your budget deficit, you have to sell off your water, your natural resources, your privatization. The BRICS banks, they're not going to go to the member countries and saying, you have to sell off your water supply and raise prices in order to pay us.

Paul Jay : «Right. Let me bring Leo in here... So, Leo, what do you make of Michael's take? How significant is all this?»

Leo Panitch : «Well, I think it's very significant, and it is designed to give these large developing capitalist countries more room for maneuver vis-à-vis the American state and the European Central Bank and the IMF and the World Bank. But I think the significance he's attaching to it is remarkably overblown. There's no evidence that their purposes are indeed not to apply conditionality to loans. There's loads of evidence with the nonoperationability of the Bank of the South, which was the bank created in Latin America that the Brazilians – which have made it nonoperational by insisting it be a very conventional development bank which in fact goes to the markets and therefore is constrained by the markets in terms of interest rates to be charged, etc., conditionalities, as opposed to Bolivia and Venezuela that wanted it to operate on very different, not market principles. The Brazilians don't want that and don't want it for the new bank. And I don't think it's just a matter of the Brazilians. The Chinese don't want it either. There's a much deeper factor why it's not so significant, although it does give them some room for maneuver in their operations. But the main reason is that it's embedded in countries, even with China, that don't have the very, very, very--as Michael knows very well--deep financial markets that is needed for this kind of bank to play that kind of role.»

Paul Jay : «Okay. Leo, hang on one second. That's sort of a second point. Let Michael respond to your first point. Your first point is that this is not something against a neoliberal strategy; this is some independent maneuver of countries that do work within a neoliberal strategy. So what do you make of that?»

Leo Panitch : «Well, let me just to emphasize that look at who was just elected as the government of India. Look at the extent to which even the Workers Party has been keen to integrate further into global capitalism. Let's look at the way in which China has just begun to remove some of its financial restriction. And let's look at what the ANC now represents. So, sure, they want more room for maneuver, but within the framework of buying into capitalist globalization and being extremely dependent on it.»

• La seconde référence date du 20 juillet 2014 et porte le titre significatif de «BRICS: Progressive Rhetoric, Neoliberal Practice». Il s’agit de l’interview du professeur sud-africain, – l’Afrique du Sud est un des cinq BRICS, – Patrick Bond, de l’université de KwaZulu-Natal. Bond dirige également le Center for Civil Society. C’est un militant, théoricien de la recherche d’une économie alternative de rupture avec le système capitalisme ultralibéral.

Paul Jay : «So let's talk about ordinary people, not the elites running all these countries. You know, for people living in the United States, it's pretty straightforward, in the sense that, you know, if you want to take a progressive the position on U.S. foreign policy, you're opposed to its seeking and achieving hegemony and militarization and so on and so on. But if you're in one of the BRICS countries, do you consider this a positive development for your own people? And, obviously, let's start with South Africa, ’cause that’s where you are. I mean, is this – you know, it's not going to transform the conditions of South Africa, but is this something positive or not? I'm talking about BRICS and the new bank and all of this.»

Patrick Bond : «The BRICS Development Bank could be a very dangerous phenomenon, because to the extent that the anti-imperialist movements and solidarity movements have actually begun to discipline, say, the World Bank, which is under pressure not to make any new coal-fired power plant loans, the last one being here in South Africa in 2010, $3.75 billion, the biggest such loan ever by the World Bank, that then, that refusal to make these kinds of dreadful loans, pushes the borrowers like the South African government to a BRICS bank. And I think in many ways what we're seeing with BRICS is a recommitment to an extractive and predatory kind of capitalism, desperation capitalism, that will be more dangerous for ordinary movements struggling to retain their own integrity of community, their livelihoods, the nature around them. The proof of that will be in 2016 and when we start seeing what kind of loans the BRICS bank gives.

»Now, the rhetoric sounds good. They've--BRICS has actually ask Joe Stiglitz to be one of the main advisers and put a position paper together in 2011. And so what you'll hear this week in Fortaleza, for example, lots of rhetoric about sustainable development and inclusivity. When you hear those words, look at the details, because when they're using them, it often means they're planning to do the opposite, and instead of infrastructure in local currency for water systems, sanitation, housing, clinics, schools, and so forth, we're much more likely to see megaprojects that help multinational capital from BRICS and from the West.»

Paul Jay : «Okay. So, then, the proof is going to be in the pudding, then. We still have to really see what they're going to do with it.»

Patrick Bond : «And I think the proof is also whether the geopolitical relations tighten up, because if the West gets more aggressive towards Russia, for example, having just thrown Russia out of the G8 – it was a G7 meeting a couple of months ago – and then the G20 is meant to meet in Australia and November. Will it be the G19, throwing Russia out for the reasons you've already mentioned? And then the BRICS have already said, well, if you throw Russia out, then make it the G15, because we're also leaving. There's some very interesting maneuvering going on at the level of these multilateral arrangements. So far, all evidence is that the BRICS are stabilizing world capitalism, but there may be some surprises ahead as these geopolitical tensions might compete with the overall project of accumulation.»

Résumons ces différents propos en trois points (dont un éclaté en deux termes d’une alternative), selon la perception que nous en avons pour le développement de notre commentaire...

• Il ne fait aucun doute que ce qui s’est passé au sommet brésilien des BRICS est important, voire essentiel, en termes opérationnels comme en termes de perception. Il donne aux BRICS une capacité d’action qui en fait un acteur, c’est-à-dire un participant actif, des relations internationales ; sur ce dernier point, “participant actif” d’une ambition de réforme du système financier international, ce qui a plusieurs signification...

• La première signification de ce passage des BRICS à la position de “‘partisan actif’ d’une ambition de réforme du système financier international” doit figurer sous la forme d’une alternative. Le premier terme de l’alternative est que le bloc BRICS reste dans le Système (capitalisme ultralibéral avec tout ce qui va avec dans les domaines financier, économique, commercial, et social également), mais en formant un bloc concurrent du bloc BAO, et qui imposera ses conditions, qui affrontera s’il le faut le bloc BAO pour cela. L’option “bloc BRICS contre bloc BAO à l’intérieur du Système” signifiant malgré la position dans le Système une montée aux extrêmes à l’intérieur du Système, – et ce que Patrick Bond qualifie très justement, dans le chef des BRICS, de “capitalisme du désespoir” (“desperation capitalism”) ; l’expression a une très forte connotation, qui rend compte implicitement de la situation de grande tension qu’implique l’évolution de la situation et, finalement, selon notre conception, l'absence de la moindre chance de stabiliser cette situation du capitalisme, particulièrement avec la survenue des BRICS en tant que tels.

• Le deuxième terme de l’alternative de la première signification de l’évolution des BRICS est celle d’une rupture avec le Système, avec la capitalisme ultralibéral. C’est la thèse que défend le professeur Hudson, les BRICS instituant selon lui au niveau des gouvernements et des grands ensembles internationaux l’équivalent des buts recherchés par le mouvement Occupy Wall Street. («Think of the BRICS as doing on the government level what Occupy Wall Street has been advocating. When they say a new development bank, they don't mean they want to be like the World Bank or the IMF. They want a different kind of development.»)

• La seconde signification de ce passage des BRICS à la position de “‘partisan actif’ d’une ambition de réforme du système financier international” est que le groupement, arrivé à maturité et sur la voie d’une politisation de facto, deviendrait, dans la perception qu’on en aurait, un acteur obligé du jeu de la puissance ; ce rôle s’exprimerait, selon nous, en termes de communication (d’abord) ou en termes géopolitiques (nécessairement, comme conséquence). Bond, qui estime pourtant que les BRICS ne sortent pas du Système, expose in fine l’inéluctabilité de la transformation de la perception qu’on a des BRICS, – si l’on veut, en terme d’image, le passage des BRICS au bloc-BRICS. Il en situe, très justement selon nous, la possibilité avec la réunion du G20, d’où la Russie pourrait être exclue, ce qui pourrait, et même devrait entraîner l’abstention au moins des cinq BRICS, et cela ouvrant une crise politique entre le bloc BAO et le bloc BRICS. Si le G20 se transforme en G19, puis G15 pour la réunion australienne, remarque Bond, «There's some very interesting maneuvering going on at the level of these multilateral arrangements». Dès lors, ceux qui voyaient les BRICS comme un groupe pouvant stabiliser le capitalisme ultralibéral en équilibrant ses groupes (ses blocs) régionaux, en sont pour leurs frais... «So far, all evidence is that the BRICS are stabilizing world capitalism, but there may be some surprises ahead as these geopolitical tensions might compete with the overall project of accumulation.»

... Mais on note aussitôt que cette évolution n’est nullement envisagée du point de vue des facteurs composants des BRICS. Elle est envisagée en termes géopolitiques (et surtout de communication, selon nous), c’est-à-dire politiques en général, c’est-à-dire selon le contexte crisique qu’on connaît, – particulièrement sinon essentiellement la crise ukrainienne avec ses effets globaux puisqu’elle affecte les pays du bloc BAO et l’un des pays du bloc BRICS. En ce sens, le phénomène des BRICS, et du groupe BRICS devenant bloc BRICS, dépend beaucoup plus de la crise ukrainienne dans ce qu'elle a de global (crise générale, si l'on veut) que d'aucun autre événement, et c'est dans ce contexte qu'il faut l'apprécier.

Lien entre la crise ukrainienne et le “bloc-BRICS”

Simplifions le problème que nous soumettrons à notre commentaire. Des deux termes de l’alternative considérée, – le bloc BRICS se constituant à l’intérieur du Système, le bloc BRICS se constituant pour offrir de l’extérieur une alternative au Système, – nous privilégions le premier. Nous ne croyons pas que les BRICS puissent échapper aux règles et aux nécessités du Système, d’une façon assez structurée et assez puissante pour présenter une alternative, alors que les pays qui le constituent jouent selon les règles du Système, bon gré mal gré, en le critiquant plus ou moins vivement, etc. Leur démarche initiale est une protestation contre l’inégalité du traitement des uns et des autres à l’intérieur du Système, nullement une démarche rupturielle.

Mais cette spéculation importe peu pour notre propos, toujours en nous en tenant à l’aspect opérationnel de la chose. La seule chose qui nous importe est de savoir si les BRICS, devenus ou en voie de devenir le bloc BRICS dans la perception qu’on en a, rencontreront l’hostilité du bloc BAO, et derrière lui, du Système. Notre réponse est absolument positive, dans les deux cas. Ce n’est pas un problème économique, financier, géopolitique, même si tous ces domaines joueront un rôle, c’est un problème que nous qualifierions d’eschatologique. Nous voulons dire par là que, même si les BRICS (certains parmi les BRICS) s’effrayaient d’une telle avancée qu’est leur politisation, voire envisageaient de la refuser, les circonstances effaceraient ces flottements et ces freinages, elles feraient très rapidement en sorte qu’ils seraient perçus comme étant effectivement dans cette voie. Dès lors que les BRICS seront perçus comme en voie de constituer un bloc politique, ou constituant d’ores et déjà un bloc politique, et même si ceci ou cela ne correspond pas à la vérité de la situation et parce qu’il ne s’agit que d’une perception, dès cet instant l’affrontement sera inévitable, et du fait du Système, impitoyable et sans la moindre concession. Par exemple, un pays comme l’Inde, que les Etats-Unis s’imaginent encore pouvoir retourner à leur avantage en jouant de son antagonisme avec la Chine à l’occasion de l’arrivée de la nouvelle équipe Modi, sera instantanément perçu comme adversaire et ennemi dès lors que cette perception de l’évolution du BRICS que nous évoquons aura pénétré le cuir épais des dirigeants-Système du bloc BAO.

Cette perspective eschatologique est ouverte par la politisation des BRICS (passage “des BRICS” en “bloc BRICS”, à la fois inévitable et nécessaire), ou dans tous les cas par la perception de ce qui paraît être un inévitable et nécessaire processus de politisation à partir du moment où cette perception intègre les décisions prises au Brésil. Ce que signale Patrick Bond est évident, dans le climat actuel, dans le cadre de l’extraordinaire tension établie par la crise ukrainienne passée en mode-turbo avec la destruction du vol MH17. Dans de telles conditions, – et encore sans spéculer sur les probables développements d’ici là dont nous ne savons rien, et qui seraient nécessairement dans le sens d’une tension encore plus grande car tel est le destin de la crise générale actuelle, – on peut avancer que les pressions seront irrésistibles au sein du bloc BAO pour exclure la Russie de la réunion du G20. Dans ce cas, les BRICS devront être solidaires, ou dans tous les cas ils devront affirmer leur solidarité sous peine d’un effondrement terrible du statut de ceux qui refuseraient ; et cette solidarité sera affirmée pour des raisons absolument politiques, sinon pour la cause de l’eschatologie de cette crise générale.

Effectivement, il y a un lien puissant et serré entre le destin immédiat des BRICS et la crise ukrainienne. Ce lien implique la complète politisation de l’événement qu’est l’immédiat destin des BRICS, et nous sommes alors loin, très loin du débat pour savoir si les BRICS-devenant-“bloc-BRICS” seront à l’intérieur du Système ou en-dehors. Le temps, qui se contracte extraordinairement vite, l’histoire qui accélère non moins rapidement, la métahistoire qui nous parle directement, renvoient ce débat à la passionnante et inutile discussion sur le sexe des anges. (Mais, encore une fois, après avoir noté que ce débat aura permis, qu’il permet d’ores et déjà de faire évoluer la perception que les BRICS deviennent politique et “bloc-BRICS”.) L’amplification et l’accélération terrifiantes de la crise générale, autour de l’Ukraine, doivent très rapidement y impliquer les BRICS en tant que tels, et la perception qu’on en a évoluant aussi rapidement sinon accélérant le phénomène.

En d’autres mots, les BRICS ne sont d’ores et déjà plus un regroupement économique, ils constituent de facto, qu’ils le veuillent ou non, une force politique qui devra se structurer comme telle devant l’évidence. Le phénomène évolue dans ce sens sans qu’on puisse le mesurer car il se fait en-dehors même du contrôle de ses membres et sans que nul ne puisse encore en identifier les signes. L’avantage de la situation actuelle est que le bloc BAO, tout occupé à déployer son extraordinaire arrogance en forme d’aveuglement triomphant et terroriste et son addiction pathologique aux narrative, ne s'est aperçu de rien et ne s'apercevra de rien jusqu’à ce que la chose soit accomplie, – ou, dans tous les cas, que s’impose la perception de la chose en train de s’accomplir, et un incident comme celui qui marquerait éventuellement le G20 serait une circonstance idéale à cet égard. Il ne s’agit plus d’un débat antagoniste sur une formule économique, des prérogatives d’un éventuel bloc BRICS, etc., il s’agit de la phase terminale de la crise d’effondrement du Système, – puisque le Système est promis à s’effondrer, d’une façon ou l’autre, y compris la façon apocalyptique, et que nous y sommes... Les BRICS ont nécessairement un rôle fondamental à tenir, qui est politique, géostratégique, etc., avec des composantes financières certes, dans le chef de probables crises à ce niveau ; mais ce rôle est d’abord et nécessairement eschatologique, puisque tout l’est dans cette phase métahistorique fondamentale.

Pour conclure, nous reprenons une phrase écrite plus haut concernant la position du bloc BRICS dans son évolution, par rapport au Système. Lorsque nous écrivons “Ce n’est pas un problème économique, financier, géopolitique, même si tous ces domaines joueront un rôle, c’est un problème que nous qualifierions d’eschatologique”, nous voulons dire que la démarche des BRICS par rapport au Système devient nécessairement rupturielle, par les conditions même qui sont imposées, – conditions crisiques de rupture.

Par “eschatologique”, nous signifions d’abord une définition opérationnelle, qui n’est pas nécessairement exclusive des domaines métaphysiques, au contraire ; cette définition de Roger Garaudy fait l’affaire, que nous rappelions à un propos infiniment moins dramatique, moins pressant, le 14 mai 2008 : «[N]ous voulons dire, si nous nous référons à cette définition pratique et concrète, et excellente en tous points, que donne Roger Garaudy de l’eschatologie (à côté de la définition théorique : “Étude des fin dernières de l’homme et du monde”): “L’eschatologie ne consiste pas à dire: voilà où l’on va aboutir, mais à dire: demain peut être différent, c’est-à-dire: tout ne peut pas être réduit à ce qui existe aujourd’hui.”»

Nous dirions, pour le problème que nous étudions aujourd’hui, impliquant le destin des BRICS, leur constitution éventuelle en bloc BRICS avec tout ce que cela suppose de dynamique crisique et rupturielle par rapport au Système, donc une dynamique antagoniste puis confrontationnelle, que cet événement dépend de l’intervention de forces extérieures aux données actuelles, et des forces hors du contrôle humain, ordonnant effectivement un destin eschatologique, cette fois dans un sens où l’on peut se référer à la dimension métaphysique. Le phénomène des BRICS-devenant-“bloc-BRICS” devient alors cet événement eschatologique dont nul n’est capable de prévoir la course, mais qui sera nécessairement un événement antiSystème et rupturiel, quoi qu’en veuillent les BRICS. Nous serions même tentés d’avancer l’hypothèse que nous sommes arrivés à un point de tension rupturielle tel et d’une forme eschatologique et métahistorique telle qu’une hésitation de certains BRICS à s’engager (par exemple en solidarité avec la Russie pour le G20), c’est-à-dire la possibilité de dissolution de facto du groupe, n’empêcherait pas l’affrontement d’une façon ou une autre à cause des pressions exercées sur les membres du groupe en retraite pour une capitulation complète. Les circonstances même d’un tel flottement de certains membres des BRICS impliqueraient une telle réaction du bloc BAO que le groupement serait reconstitué par la puissance des attaques conduites contre lui. L’inéluctabilité de l’affrontement dans un cadre eschatologique, donc affrontement au moins politique, avec les BRICS perçus comme antiSystème, nous paraît avérée. La logique supérieure de la crise d’effondrement du Système domine tout.

vendredi, 25 juillet 2014

Obama e la strategia del nemico permanente

Obama e la strategia del nemico permanente

Il problema per Obama, come quello dei suoi predecessori, è quello di impedire la saldatura della vecchia Europa con la Russia.

Marco Mari

Barack_Oba.jpgPer gli Usa vincitori della Seconda Guerra Mondale è stato facile tenere uniti gli sati europei nella Nato: c’era da fronteggiare nel periodo della guerra fredda la temibile Urss. Con la caduto del muro di Berlino (1989) e la dissoluzione dell’Unione Sovietica lo scenario è completamente cambiato, in quanto non c’era più un nemico da combattere. Bisognava urgentemente trovarne uno. Ecco comparire l’Iraq di Saddam Hussein per l’nvasione del Kuwait, messo nel mirino in “nome della sicurezza nazionale”.
Il presidente iracheno non era certamente una mammoletta, ma garantiva al suo paese  una vita dignitosa e libertà religiosa, cosa che in altri stati mediorientali non accade nemmeno oggi. Ovvio che quella guerra fu scatenata per il petrolio del quale è ricco quel paese. Da allora gli States hanno organizzato diverse campagne militari in giro per il pianeta al fine di destabilizzare questa o quell’area adducendo la necessità delle guerre umanitarie per l’esportazione della democrazia. La Serbia di Milosevic, l’Iraq 2.0, l’Afganistan. Dove non hanno agito in prima persona, gli Usa hanno sostenuto l’azione degli altri, vedi la Libia per sostituire lo scaltro Gheddafi con una classe dirigente di utili (e incontrollabili) idioti.
E’ evidente che di umanitario in questi interventi militari non c’era proprio nulla: solo interesse economico (petrolio e gas) oppure strategico. In Kosovo c’è una grande base Nato che chiude gli occhi di fronte al crocevia di ingenti traffici di droga e armi. Perfettamente in linea coi suoi predecessori (Bush e Clinton), Obama da più di due anni spinge per bombardare la Siria di Assad e se la cosa non si è ancora verificata è solo per la ferma opposizione della Russia che a Tartous ha una base militare. La Siria è un altro tassello per arrivare all’altro serbatoio di petrolio della zona: l’Iran, nemico giurato dell’Arabia Saudita alleata di Washington.
Vista l’impossibilità di mettere le mani sulla Siria il Pentagono ha il piano B: l’Ucraina paese di faglia, di confine tra due culture, quella occidentale e quella russa. Qui gli americani ci stanno lavorando da anni: prima di cesello (la rivoluzione arancione poi andata come è andata), poi finanziando e sostenendo l’opposizione semi-fascista al governo Yanukovic regolarmente eletto un paio d’anni fa e poi destituito dal golpe di qualche mese fa. Risultato: ecco l’ennesimo governo fantoccio.
Il resto è cosa nota: il referendum della Crimea svoltosi solo per l’intervento di Putin a tutela della regolarità del voto sotto l’occhio attento delle organizzazioni internazionali, ed ora le proteste delle regioni dell’est filo-russe che non si sentono più tutelata da Kiev dopo la chiusura delle tv in lingua russa e la messa al bando negli uffici pubblici e nelle scuole della lingua russa. Al Cremlino non preoccupa l’adesione di Kiev alla Ue, ma la base Nato che i nuovi dirigenti ucraini sono pronti a ospitare sul proprio territorio, avallando così il progetto Usa di circondare la Russia con batterie missilistiche. Dietro questa operazione c’è un vero e proprio risiko geopolitico ed economico. Washington divide l’Europa in due aree: la Vecchia Europa costituita da Germania, Francia, Italia e la Nuova Europa composta dalla Gran Bretagna e dalle nuove economie nate dalla dissoluzione del Comecon (patto di Varsavia) e dell’Urss.
Il problema per Obama, come quello dei suoi predecessori, è quello di impedire la saldatura della vecchia Europa con la Russia. E questo lo vediamo nelle attuali posizioni in campo: da una parte gli Usa e la Gran Bretagna pronte a misure durissime, al limite del bellico contro Putin, e dall’altro la Merkel molto più morbida. Mosca è fortissimamente dipendente dalle esportazioni tedesche, ma se la Germania dovesse chiudere con Mosca perderebbe almeno 300mila posti di lavoro. Senza contare la chiusura delle forniture di gas siberiano del quale non possiamo tutti fare a meno e che al momento non è possibile sostituire in breve tempo.
A questo punto dobbiamo porci un interrogativo: Siamo ancora disposti a seguire gli Stati Uniti per la loro sete di supremazia sul pianeta tenendo conto che ci hanno spinto a partecipare a conflitti che sono  serviti solo alle multinazionali? Agitare lo spauracchio dell’oligarca Putin è ridicolo: Mosca avrebbe potuto invadere l’Ucraina in men che non si dica ma non lo ha fatto dimostrando capacità diplomatiche superiori a quella politica delle minacce americane.
Purtroppo da questa eurocrazia filo-Usa non possiamo aspettarci nulla di buono: speriamo che nel prossimo parlamento Ue ci siano tanti onorevoli pronti a dare un taglio diverso e nuovo alla politica estera continentale, a favore dei popoli e contro le lobbies economico-finanziarie che da troppo tempo imperano su tutti noi. L’Europa deve trovare la sua identità in quanto restando serva degli Sates non può far altro che scomparire perché è questo che la Casa Bianca vuole.


28 Aprile 2014 12:00:00 - http://rinascita.eu/index.php?action=news&id=23394

BRICS-landen vormen politieke alliantie, willen nieuw financieel systeem

BRICS-landen vormen politieke alliantie, willen nieuw financieel systeem

Dollar imperium loopt op zijn einde, en wat heeft Oekraïne hier mee te maken?



De BRICS-landen willen met steun van Argentinië, Mexico en Indonesië een post-Westerse ‘Nieuwe Wereld Orde’ vormen.

De hegemonie van de Amerikaanse dollar begint in steeds sneller tempo te verdwijnen, nu de Russische minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Sergei Lavrov heeft aangekondigd dat de BRICS landen (Brazilië, Rusland, India, China, Zuid Afrika) er helemaal klaar voor zijn om een nieuwe politieke alliantie te vormen, die een machtige vuist kan maken tegen het Westen. De BRICS-landen willen hun invloed in de G20 gaan gebruiken om het wereldwijde financiële systeem te hervormen.

‘BRICS groeit en wordt in alle richtingen volwassen,’ zei Lavrov gisteren tegenover de Tv-zender Rossiya 24. Volgens de minister is de ‘kwalitatieve groei’ van het BRICS-mechanisme inmiddels dermate hoog, dat de vorming van een politieke alliantie mogelijk is. En die alliantie heeft niet alleen 3 miljard inwoners, maar ook nog eens een veel hogere economische groei dan het feitelijk bankroete Westen.

Lavrov wees er tevens op dat de BRICS veel bondgenoten hebben, met name Argentinië, Mexico en Indonesië. ‘Zij spreken in de G20 met gemeenschappelijke stem met de BRICS om het internationale financiële systeem te hervormen.’ (1)

Val dollar = bankroet Amerika

Met name Amerika kijkt met argusogen naar de vorming van het nieuwe machtsblok. De VS hebben een dermate hoge schuldenlast, dat alleen het in stand houden van de dollar als enige wereldreservemunt de overheid in staat stelt om deze schulden te blijven financieren. Zodra de dollar zijn status verliest, zal deze hoogstwaarschijnlijk fors in waarde dalen, waardoor Amerika vrijwel onmiddellijk bankroet zal gaan.

Oekraïne en het neergehaalde vliegtuig

Volgens sommige analisten is dit de ware reden waarom Washington op het oorlogspad is, waarom er in Oekraïne een staatsgreep werd opgezet, gefinancierd en gesteund, en waarom ogenschijnlijk alles uit de kast wordt getrokken om een militair conflict met Rusland te veroorzaken – misschien zelfs wel het (laten) neerhalen van een vliegtuig met hoofdzakelijk Westerse passagiers.


Xander


(1) Zero Hedge

Zie ook o.a.:

06-07: Amerika drijft Duitsland en Frankrijk in armen van Rusland (/ BRICS-landen zetten serieuze stappen naar antidollar alliantie)
19-06: Kremlin wil wereldwijde anti-dollar alliantie om agressie VS te stoppen (/ ‘Gigantische verliezen voor Europa als EU kant van Amerika blijft kiezen’)
15-06: Grote man achter Putin beschouwt VS als rijk van de Antichrist
08-06: Bijna alle klanten Gazprom ruilen dollar in voor euro
15-05: Rusland dumpt 20% staatsobligaties VS; België koopt juist $ 200 miljard
14-05: Gazprom: Europa moet Russisch gas in roebels gaan betalen
07-04: Adviseur Putin waarschuwt EU voor € 1 biljoen verlies en wereldoorlog
29-03: Obama drijft mensheid naar laatste wereldoorlog

BRICS, puissant contrepoids à l’hégémonie de Washington

 

BRICS-Toon.jpg

BRICS, puissant contrepoids à l’hégémonie de Washington

Auteur : Jornada (Espagne) Traduit de l’espagnol par irisinda
       
 

Les divers événements qui ont eu lieu ces jours derniers dans notre région ont donné un élan important à la nouvelle configuration multipolaire conçue en Amérique Latine et dans les Caraïbes depuis l’arrivée d’Hugo Chavez à la présidence du Venezuela (1999).

Cette nouvelle configuration est favorisée à l’échelle internationale par l’irruption du moteur économique chinois et par la récupération par la Russie (puissance nucléaire de premier ordre) de son indépendance, jointe à une brillante projection géoéconomique de sa richesse en hydrocarbures et à ses efficaces contrecoups aux Etats-Unis à partir de 2008 (échec de la Géorgie pourtant appuyée par Washington et Tel-Aviv, lors de la guerre avec la Russie). Cela est dû aussi à la croissante coordination de ces puissances entre elles et avec les autres membres de l’Organisation de la Coopération de Shanghai de l’Union Economique Euro-Asiatique et du BRICS.

Le sixième Sommet du BRICS à Fortaleza au Brésil fut remarquable par l’assistance des Chefs d’Etats : Dilma Roussef, Présidente du pays hôte, le Brésil ; Vladimir Poutine, de Russie ; Narendra modi, Premier Ministre de l’Inde ; et les Présidents de Chine et d’Afrique du Sud, Xi jinping et Jacob Zuma. Il faut souligner que ces pays ont maintenu à flots l’économie mondiale après la crise de 2008 et que la chine a été le levier de la croissance économique Sud-Américaine.

Avec comme thème « Croissance inclusive : solutions durables », le Sommet a fait trembler les finances internationales avec la création de la Nouvelle Banque de Développement(NBD) du BRICS, avec un capital autorisé de 100 milliards de dollars. L’institution canalisera ses fonds principalement pour l’infrastructure de ses membres sans les exigences de la Banque Mondiale(BM) et du Fond Monétaire International(FMI) contre le bien-être et la souveraineté des peuples.

A cela s’ajoute l’Accord Contingent de Réserve (ACR) au même capital que la NBD, pour protéger les systèmes financiers de ses membres de la volatilité spéculative. Dilma n’a pas écarté la possibilité que des pays en dehors du groupe puissent profiter de l’appui économique des la MBD et du ACR.

Le Sommet a adopté la « Déclaration de Fortaleza » qui censure la Banque Mondiale et le FMI, et met en question, explicitement ou implicitement les schémas idéologiques, économiques et politiques instaurés dans le monde par le Consensus de Washington et le cycle de guerres initié avec les occupations étasuniennes d’Afghanistan et d’Irak. La déclaration de Fortaleza plaide pour un monde d’inclusion et de paix, où règne le dialogue, la solution politique des conflits et le respect des souverainetés nationales sur la base du droit international et – dans une évidente allusion aux Etats-Unis – condamne les actions unilatérales qui « peuvent bénéficier à ceux qui les réalisent mais portent préjudice à la grande majorité ».

Bien qu’elle ne fasse pas directement référence à l’actuelle agression israélienne contre Gaza, elle adopte une posture opposée à celle de Tel-Aviv, Washington et sa comparse Europe dans le conflit Palestino-israélien en exprimant que ce conflit doit se solutionner sur la base des résolutions de l’ONU, dans le respect des frontières de 1967 et considère que la construction de nouvelles colonies juives dans les territoires occupés par Israël constitue un empêchement à toute solution.

Un autre fait remarquable de ce Sommet est la participation, au troisième jour des sessions, cette fois à Brasilia, des pays membres de UNASUR, d’autant plus que Poutine s’était prononcé la veille de son voyage dans la région « pour une Amérique Latine unie, durable et indépendante », ajoutant que le BRICS cherchera à « éviter une partie de chasse des Etats-Unis contre les pays qui sont en désaccord avec eux ».

La tournée latino-américaine de Poutine mérite un chapitre à part pour son énergie amicale et ses résultats indiscutables : annulation de la volumineuse dette que Cuba avait contractée avec l’ex URSS et la concrétisation de dix accords de coopération ainsi que de forts investissements dans le pétrole en eaux profondes et en divers secteurs stratégiques de l’économie cubaine ; de très importants accords avec le Brésil et l’Argentine, tous également dans des secteurs stratégiques comme l’énergie nucléaire, qui donneront un élan au développement économique de chacun de ces pays. Il y a une attente justifiée liée aux imminentes visites officielles du Président chinois Xi Jinping au Brésil, en Argentine, au Venezuela et à Cuba ainsi qu’à sa réunion avec le quatuor de CELAC.

J’inclus dans ce bilan l’organisation très réussie par le Brésil de la Coupe du Monde de football, qui en plus d’avoir dépassé les revenus prévus par le tourisme, ne produisit aucun des scénarios dramatiques pronostiqués par la campagne médiatique impérialiste de mèche avec la droite brésilienne.

National Nihilism

200903309.jpg

National Nihilism

by Mark Hackard

Ex: http://souloftheeast..org

 

Strategies for full-spectrum dominance encompass far more than just military means – their entire point is found in politics, the struggle for power. Movements proclaiming themselves the champions of national salvation thus deserve extra scrutiny, since they might serve precisely the opposite end.

Ever since a US-backed junta seized control of Ukraine in February, the country’s ethnic, cultural and linguistic fault lines have been accentuated to deadly effect. The predominantly russophone south and east have already paid a terrible price for resisting the new liberal-nationalist regime, from a fiery massacre in Odessa to outright war against Donetsk and Lugansk, two regions bordering Russia that have declared their independence. Had Vladimir Putin not moved to secure Crimea, the peninsula today would be suffering an analogous fate. When we consider the atrocities committed against the inhabitants of historical Novorossiya (New Russia), it must be understood that Kiev’s counterinsurgency is far more significant than a local conflict – it is a proxy war the Pax Americana wages against Russia in order to command the Eurasian heartland.

In the quest to “contain” and destabilize Russia, Washington has found willing and eager proxies in Ukrainian nationalists. Longtime enemies of Moscow, outfits like Stepan Bandera’s Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Rebel Army (UPA) worked in close partnership with Nazi Germany during the Second World War. With the Reichstag still smoldering and the new Cold War underway, the United States would continue where the Abwehr and SS left off, dropping nationalist agents into western Ukraine to conduct sabotage and guerrilla campaigns against the Soviet government until the early 1950s. The Berlin Wall may no longer stand, but US/NATO employment of Ukrainian nationalists in subversion programs continues to this day. Aside from the $5 billion the US has openly spent over twenty years to suborn Ukraine, it stands to reason that substantial clandestine assets were also dedicated to that objective.

Supported by the CIA as well as Polish intelligence, Kiev has attempted for the past two months to bring the east to heel, yet the regime has little to show for the effort other than dead and wounded in the thousands, while towns such as Slavyansk and Kramatorsk are pulverized under sustained bombardment. The regular Ukrainian army, demoralized, underfunded and under-equipped, hasn’t taken to the repression with the revolutionary fervor expected of them by the junta. Rather, Kiev has relied on the newly-instituted National Guard, foreign mercenaries and paramilitaries bankrolled by billionaire oligarchs like Dnepropetrovsk governor Igor “Benya” Kolomoisky, an ardent Zionist with a business empire reportedly built on ruthless criminality. Filling the ranks of these “special battalions” are motivated but often inexperienced thugs from neo-fascist Right Sector, the group that played a pivotal role in the success of February 22nd’s Maidan putsch. The death squads have proven adept at terrorizing civilians, but they haven’t fared so well in combat with local resistance forces.

Novorossiya and Crimea (South/East), Malorossia and Galicia (North/West).

Possible outcome of the Ukraine crisis: Novorossiya and already Russian Crimea (South/East), Malorossiya-Ukraine and Galicia (North/West).

Underlying the regime’s disastrous attempt to smash the revolt in the east is the utter incoherence of Ukrainian nationalism. Ukraine as a nation-state has all the natural viability of Belgium, for it is an artificial country hopelessly divided within Soviet-era borders. Civil war has erupted because ethnic Russians and culturally Russian Ukrainians, for generations living on traditionally Russian lands, refuse to accede to a poisonous chauvinism demanding the surrender of their religious, cultural and linguistic heritage. The armed ideologues who come to impose “ukrainianization” might as well be foreign invaders seeking to wipe out a subjugated people’s very identity, and this is why bands of rebels in the Donbas are fighting to the knife.

While far from the only case, the fabricated nature of militant Ukrainian nationalism becomes clearer through the lens of great-power competition. The shaping of “Ukraine” (originally Malorossiya – Little Russia – plus Galicia and Volynia) as an entity implacably hostile to “Muscovy” is an ongoing Western geopolitical project launched in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when Poland and the Vatican maneuvered to fracture the unity of Orthodox Eastern Slavdom. From that time and in succession, Austria-Hungary, Germany, and now the United States have all found fostering and further inciting this antagonism as an economical means to undermine and even attack Russia itself. Though foolish and extremely dangerous, America’s latest bid to incorporate Ukraine into the “free world” is thus well-founded in historical precedent.

Also set in historical precedent is US collaboration with fascists. Far from limited to sponsorship of Pinochet-style military governments in Latin America, it’s worth recalling that Wall Street actively financed Adolf Hitler’s rise to Weltmacht. And so today the ultra-nationalists of Ukraine enjoy Washington’s tacit support as they drive to ethnically cleanse the country’s south and east of Russians and attain a pyrrhic victory for their ideology. Since Right Sector, Svoboda and other radical parties are enraptured by the legacy of National Socialism, they would do well to remember not only its fate, but also its dialectical function. The wholesale destruction and dehumanization wrought by Nazism merely cleared the way for the triumph of international capital, which from the end of World War II has enforced its dictates through liberal political economy, cultural Marxism and American military power. As US President Barack Obama elaborated in a recent speech in Warsaw:

We have a solemn duty — a binding treaty obligation — to defend your territorial integrity.  And we will.  We stand together — now and forever — for your freedom is ours.

The banksters are at liberty to subvert, invade and expropriate across the world forever. A key condition for the IMF’s extension of its $18 billion loan to Ukraine is “territorial integrity” – in their war on Novorossiya, nationalists act as the foot soldiers of predatory multinationals. They march not for their fatherland, but for the greater glory of Exxon-Mobil, Monsanto, and Lady Gaga; they are expendable, and so is Ukraine. Fantasies of a state from the Carpathians to the Caucasus seem quaint compared to the vision of planetary rule decreed by the masters of the dialectic, and the parochial nihilism of Bandera’s disciples represents only a transitory stage toward universal enslavement and the dissolution of all peoples.

Globalist elites design their policies according to the classical maxim of divide et impera, yet its esoteric corollary is solve et coagula, the alchemical process applied to entire societies. Behind inane sloganeering on freedom, democracy and human rights lies a relentless desire to destroy. Sovereignty must be ended, sex and the family distorted unto grotesquery, and God usurped by Mammon. The nation – the great extended family – must be annihilated. What the Brave New World needs are neither Russians nor Ukrainians, but demographic biomass engineered for exploitation.

Ukraine’s tragedy provides us a ready example of nationalism manipulated for the benefit of internationalist oligarchs. And Russia must meet its own challenge of upholding traditional identity against the onslaught of the West’s postmodern imperium. The organic, tribal nationalism of the blood can be reconciled with the higher demands of the spirit; such has been the mission of the Church and state in forming a wider Russian Orthodox civilization. In the meantime, the mounting outrages and provocations of the Kiev junta are catalogued for the sake of justice – to be meted out at a time of the Kremlin’s choosing.

jeudi, 24 juillet 2014

Russian Nationalism and Eurasianism

demonstration.jpg

Russian Nationalism and Eurasianism

 
 

The recent flurry of writing on Russian politics, nationalism and Alexander Dugin shows the contemptible inability of western savants to apprehend any idea beyond the cliche's of stagnant neo-liberalism. Worse, “Russia specialists” in academia are now tripping over themselves trying to “analyze” Dugin and the Eurasianist idea. Bereft of the vocabulary to understand the concept, they merely apply fashionable labels from western political thought onto Russia in a pathetic and pretentious attempt to show how “dangerous” such ideas are to “European values.”

Reading A. Toynbee, especially Volumes IV-VI of his Study of History, lead one to question both the “civilizational” fundament and, later, his “higher religion.” The problems are not that, at such a level of analysis, he is inaccurate. Such an epic level of perspective cannot be held to the sharp standards of accuracy that a study of, say, the state of New Hampshire might be subject. The very nature of such a sweeping history means that, in the main, he might be seen as “more or less” on the right track. That is as far as one can go. However, that begs the question, since the very concept of such an epic orientation is open to doubt.
 
Equally sweeping is the general criticism of P. Sorokin and others, namely, that such a view of history is problematic because it isolates a few variables from the rest, making them extremely important. This means that others are minimized. This criticism gains force to the extent that one sees the knowledge required for any epic vista of history to work at all. One cannot know that much about global history to come to such conclusions. Those specializing in an element of a civilization (such as Hellenistic aesthetics) will easily annihilate sweeping generalizations. Hegel's desire to label entire epochs of history with one word means that such an approach cannot be true; unless one is willing to reduce epochs of civilization to slogans about them.
 
In the case of this present author, the concern has been to refuse such grand historical panoramas and focus instead on a single nation, or elements within a nation that lend themselves to detailed study. There, the actual living conditions of real people can be analyzed. The sweep of Toynbee, Hegel or Marx is interesting, but if the result is to then force all societies to follow that general model, then they should be left unread. Few deny the ability of Eric Voegelin, but again, outside of specialized studies on Plato or Marx, Voegelin's sweep is such as to make it interesting, but a fatal temptation to the study of actual historical life.
 
This preface is needed because the Eurasians fall into the same problem. They too, deal in civilizational norms, though their interest is very specific: defining the Atlantian civilization as against the Russian one. At the level of elite society, this is useful. Western elites, generally speaking, are of one mind in their commitment to science, secularism, individualism (in theory), capitalism, positivism and empire. There is nothing strange about this. Toynbee, in areas in which he is well schooled (such as Greek antiquity), becomes extremely important. When he generalizes this experience to medieval Hindustan, however, he becomes less tenable.
 
Identity and foreign policy go hand in hand. Domestic and foreign policies are closely linked. In Russia's case, her sense of corporate selfhood has changed radically since the fall of the Marxist empire in the early 1990s. Russia's foreign policy has changed as her global status has changed, and the debate among the different factions of Russian life has dominated her foreign policy. The purpose in this paper is to define, in specific terms, the nature of a Russian, Eurasianist foreign policy. Eurasianism is a popular foreign policy idea in elite Russian circles and therefore, must be taken very seriously by scholars (Shlapentokh, 2007).
 
Russia is a state and nation. It is also a broader based civilization taking in many ethnic groups to herself. This means that its values and virtues are far more than the result of specific historical conditions, but are, in some sense, eternal virtues that give life meaning. There are “civilizational” values that take what is crucial in those nations the civilization encompasses. These are not ethnic groups (which are much smaller) but refer to “imperial” ideologies that can rule many different groups and are formulated precisely to justify the rule of a large and diverse policy. Examples of such civilizations might be Chinese, Indian or African. These go beyond historical experience and are supposed to contain greater truths.
 
The concept of a “Russian civilization” undergirds the vision of the Russian Eurasianists. This is both a political theory and a source of foreign policy decisions. The “imperial mission” of a society is not about local values, but cosmic ideas. In politics, these “imperial ideologies” serve as the foundation of global rule.
 
Eurasianism as foreign policy refers to Russian geopolitical space. Russia is a “cosmos,” it takes smaller “solar systems” under its wing to create a loose federation of allied nations and states. In some instances, it rejects the very notion of “nation-statism” in that a true civilization can be only a federation, not a state. 
 
I. Ideological History of Eurasianism
 
Prior to the well known Alexander Dugin, Eurasianism has a rich ideological heritage unknown to those who cannot read Russian. PM Bitsilli (1953) took a broad look at global history. “Rhythm” is specific to a people. It is dialectical both in that it is becoming (rather than being) and takes the familiar trinity as undifferentiated unity – fragmentation – reflective unity. This also was essential to the metaphysics of Karsavin. Rhythms differ radically, but they still partake of the same formula.
 
Finally, inertia is the third element. Dialectic, rhythm and inertia govern the historical process. Tribal life is unreflective, yet, historical forces and local conditions force a chaotic mixing of tribes that are more or less compatible. Finally, in the construction of the ethnos, a reflective unity is created as conditions now exist for reason, thought and the development of the historical person.
 
In his “Tragedy of Russian Culture,” Bitsilli takes the common Eurasian position that “progress” and “history” are both loaded and ideological terms which contrast all existence with that of the west. That is to say, the lineal development of mechanized and commercial capitalism is the standard of global development. For Bitsilli, culture is the “self-disclosure” of the personality en masse. It is an overcoming of history in the sense that this self persists through time. 
 
PN Savitsky (1968) focused his research on the primordial argument for national, that is, ethnic development. Tribes mix together to form ethnicities. This mixing is not arbitrary, but can only take place among groups who share significant elements in common. This mixing, further, is also not arbitrary due to its context. As is common in this doctrine, climate, topography and local resources are extremely significant in the development of a decentralized tribal life into early forms of ethnic groups. Organizations of peoples, as they come out of their tribal background, take from local conditions. Thus, territory is significant and becomes a part of the development of the national unit. 
 
The soil literally is incorporated into the flesh of the people. Local resources, soil conditions and the general environment become a part of the physical makeup of ethnicities. Soil conditions are aspects of topography in that they are dependent on it. The ethnic group then becomes like its surroundings: an organic whole.
 
Ethnicities developing near the shoreline, all other things equal, develop into mercantile states. They think globally in terms of markets and resources.  Russia, on the other hand, is a land and forest based community and does not, as a result, develop the trading ethic to the extent that the Greeks or Phoenician have. This is not to argue that these conditions determine outcomes. They only provide dispositions.
 
Savitsky stresses that the Mongol occupation was not destructive for Russia, but quite the opposite. The Horde was a culturally advanced people who protected Russia from the inroads of western religious ideology. All occupied lands, so Savitsky and Most Eurasians would argue, did well under Mongol administration. 
 
In terms of politics, Savitsky argues that linear progress is a myth. Social organisms run in cycles, repeating some basic institutions but adding and subtracting others. The state, in the sense of its Cultural Constitution, requires a unity of religion and basic moral foundations in order to carry out even minimal tasks. The cultural and religious unity obviates the need for a strong state, administratively speaking.
 
Most importantly, Savitsky argued as early as 1928 that the future belongs to Asia. After World War I and storm clouds brewing over Europe, this was not a ludicrous idea. It is even more significant now. The simple idea that can be drawn from the prophetic words of Savitsky is that Europe destroyed itself in two world wars, went broke during the “Cold War” and, as of 2014, has little to offer the east. To reject “Europe” is to make a realistic judgment about the state of their finances, elites and economic foundations.
 
Of course, the most significant Eurasianist, and the most verbose, is Alexander Dugin. His work is generally more esoteric than the rest, arguing that the ancient symbolism of east and west points to two sorts of civilization: the sea based and the land based. What makes Dugin attractive to those who can read the language is his use of Plato to ground a new vision of the nation and its context, the civilization.
 
What the west lacks is the concept of higher meanings. Nominalism and positivism, the two official ideologies of western thought (in general) see objects per se. Nominalism argues that there are no necessary connections among things in society or nature, there are merely individual acts, people or institutions. Dugin, using Plato, argues that the “object” is merely phenomenal, not real. “Realism” is the view, assumed by positivism and nominalism, that there are two entities only: the observer and the observed. This is naive because there can be no way to prove the existence of actual objects solely based on perception.
 
The nominal has no purpose. They are random individual things that might form a system for “mutual advantage.” Its social applications are obvious. However, to oversimplify, objects and particulars exist only in a context, and that context soon becomes the All, or the single set of relations that make up the cosmos. Each is dependent on all. Dugin's critique of the west, given this simplistic model, is that western man has been trained to see objects as “facts,” brute givens that are only provided with meaning by man, and that usually refers to a political or scientific elite. All is reduced to the “practical,” and as a result, all meaning is lost.
 
The west replaced natural law with markets. Markets took science and make it an appendage of commercial dominance. The concept of pure mechanism, the product of the Renaissance, was to create a world, one imposed upon the real one, that reduced matter to a machine that can be taken apart and put back together in the form of man-made technology. This is the essence of capitalism (and has no relation to the market model). Capitalism is based on egocentricity, the denial of private property except for the few, and, perhaps most important, that morals and culture have no place in “rational” economics.
 
Socialism is quite similar. It is obsessed with technology, science and production as ends in themselves. Power may be reached by different means, but it all comes down to economics. Capitalism and socialism depend, not on intelligence, but on deviousness. The Marxist critique of capital is correct as far as it goes. Economics is inherently historical, egocentrism can never create stability and capital functions by using labor as a tool.
 
These are not the only options. Eurasianism, as economics, is based on the concept that economics is not a field in itself. It may not make its own rules, but is subordinated to the common good of the community. Competition always has a place, but so does cooperation. Production is culturally specific in nearly every way, only that globalization has gone very far in standardizing its methods.
 
Nations exist. They create states. However, with the possible exception of great states such as Russia and China, autarky is not rational. Regionalism is the response. For Dugin, several civilizational spaces exist: Eurasia, Africa, the Far East and Europe. These are now the actors in history. Nations retain their autonomy within their civilizational space, but the regionalism of Dugin seeks to retain the gains made by globalization while retaining local and regional sovereignty. The result is a multipolar world.
 
Globalization is western ideology and scientific culture masquerading as “reason” itself; as science per se. It is the rebirth of Atlantis, the necropolis, the world of Twilight, or unreality. Both Dostoevsky and Gogol used these metaphors to describe St. Petersburg. Atlantis lives on, deriving from the Phoenicians, and leading to the ruse of Venice in the High Middle Ages, then concluding with the English and institutionalized as a “global ideology” under the US. 
 
II. Basic Concepts of Eurasianism and the West
 
The discussion above does not even scratch the surface of the richness of Eurasian thought. It is a summary of some of the Russian-language literature. In a more understandable way, much of the Eurasian idea can be summarized in these points:
 
1.Communitarianism against nominalism. Identities are necessarily collective.
2.Non-alignment in global affairs.
3.Eurasianism holds that while nations exist, they are not self-contained. The political unit is the civilization, which is a federation of complimentary nations.
4.Culture is the essential tie among people in a nation or civilization. The quantifiable aspects of rule are highly limited and secondary. 
5.Russians are not Europeans, or at least not entirely European. Russians are mixtures of Slav, Mongol and Turkish blood that help inform their genetics. This means that Russians are genetically related to the Caucasian and some Central Asian peoples. In addition, this “third world” blood makes the Russians an ideal intermediary between Asia and Europe, or even Europe and the third world. (cf. Shlapentokh, 2007 for greater detail) 
6.The state (in its true sense as the cultural collective) should put its stamp on the economy. In general, public-private ownership mixes are essential for larger and strategic industry, while private ownership remains for small business. 
 
The Eurasian idea is one that both defines those within it as well as excludes those without. In this case, the “other” is the “West.” In the broadest of terms, the cardinal ideas of the West are these:
 
1.Egocentrism manifest as abstract rights rather than function, station or vocation. Rights are more rhetorical and strategic than real.
2.Democracy as necessarily proceeding from nominalism. This is not merely a “procedure” but a state of affairs. Democracy exists when liberalism does.
3.Materialism and secularism in public and economic life. In general, since rights have no discernible origin, utilitarianism becomes the official ideology by default. 
4.Liberal Messianism is crucial: liberalism needs to be imposed by force.
5.The west defines “state” as that which is bureaucratic and administrative.  
6.Liberal rhetoric sounds merely procedural. This is to mask the ideological core of liberalism which is essentially totalitarianism.
7.Politicians serve as window dressing for economic elites. When the economy fails, the politicians, who control nothing, are said to be at fault.
8.Evolution is part of the west's official ideology. It serves to a) secularize society, but more importantly, b) justify colonialism, industrial capitalism and “competition.”
9.“Rationality” is defined in purely economic terms.
10.“Science” and the “scientific establishment” are treated as identical. Science is defined as that which deals with formal and quantitative properties. This, in turn, is identical with the concept of “intelligibility.”
11.Liberalism rejects the “nation” as fiction, yet, holds formal quantity, the “international community,” and the isolated ego as palpable realities. 
 
These two views of the world are antithetical. The west views itself as the apex of human liberty while seeing the east as in need of western assistance.  Evolution is leading the world to the western idea, which was the purpose of the Darwinian system from the beginning. It is no accident that this view of the world arose from the height of English colonial rule and industrial development. Capitalism sees the world merely as a series of markets or resource bases to control. Peoples are treated in purely quantitative terms. 
 
Representative government, which is radically distinct from “democracy,”is an important factor in Eurasianist thought. The Eurasianist movement evaluates the “democracy” ethic as being a mask for economic power. Elections are competitive races among economic factions speaking for “the people,” a collective abstraction that does not exist.  A strong Russian executive can help filter the demands of the monied class and seek the common good. Putin's approach has mirrored this demand (Shlapentokh, 2007).
 
“Russian pluralism” is a vision that motivates Russian domestic policy (Tolz, 1998). Eurasianism as a political theory revolves around the concept of civilization over ethnos. A pluralist society would imitate the look of a federation, using the most significant elements of nationalism without its tribal negatives. A Russian Eurasianism stresses the fundamental autonomy of these ethnic groups within a broader state, and these different groups would maintain a large degree of independence.
 
Russia under Vladimir Putin has been a strong supporter of the non-aligned movement. This movement seeks to improve the condition of the third world and build a global society based on the independence of nation states. This idea is a direct attack on westernism. At the same time, larger states that are in various stages of development have taken the lead from one time to another, including Indonesia, Russia and India. This just means that these countries on the periphery of development have the size and potency to wring concessions from the central states such as England or Japan (Shulman, 2005). in Russian Eurasianism, the main foreign element is the “multipolar” world shared by the non-aligned movement and its dedication to alter global capitalism and westernism.
 
This “non-aligned” idea is central to Eurasianism in that the west, given their “New World Order” and “End of history” rhetoric, is implying that it and it alone has the right to shape the rules of the political game. It is not so much that these rules have been deduced from democratic elections and hence enforced, they are the rules that govern elections. Eurasianists make quite a bit of fuss about this distinction. Democracy is just as much a set of results as a set of processes (Nikitin, 2005). Russian Eurasianism and the non-aligned movement are closely related.
 
Russia cannot be considered as a “developed” or “developing” country since those terms imply an absolute standard.  The Soviet use of domestic force to rapidly develop heavy industry (that may or may not have been appropriate for the time) makes her a developed country, though one that did not develop according to the typical pattern of European states. In fact, Russia's industrialization drive in the 1960s and 1970s might (with some adjustments) be a model for the third would that wants to see a great state presence in the economy rather than just profit-seeking businessmen. Since Russia can be seen as the “periphery” of the European Union, she shares some elements in common with the third world.
 
In the (2010) work of Kazakh President Narsultan Nazarbayev, the above concepts are restated in a way more congenial to the development of Central Asia. His essential political theory can be summarized in five points:
1.A strong, independent state is required for both development and sovereignty over resources. “Self-regulated” development is part of the concept of independence, since anything else would give development priorities to others. The public good should always take precedence over private profit.
2.Within any Eurasian Union, a specific Central Asian bloc needs to be formed to focus on issues concerning this region. This is a part of Nazarbayev's emphasis on Eurasianism being practical and loose rather than federative (see below).
3.Free trade should focus on regions and culturally similar peoples. Central Asia is a good example. Free trade should be pursued with common policies on substantial economic issues. Its purpose is to keep foreign forces out of the area. In areas where Central Asia is impacted the most, even other members of the union, such as Russia, should stand aside.
4.Any decision made by the Central Asian Union, as well as, presumably, any Eurasian Union including Russia, will require a 4/5 vote. 
5.Slowly, regional groupings will consolidate basic laws on development policy. 
 
Nazarbayev's main concern is a practical one: the modernization of the Central Asian states with no reciprocal duties in any specific direction. His view is guarded and cautious due to his concern for Kazakh independence as well as its stress on modernization. In fact, convergence is not an issue here except as a matter of fiscal law, and he goes out of his way to stress that there is no single ideology nor any sense of unitarism. While this is consistent with Eurasianism, Nazarbayev's emphasis on practical economic programs aimed at modernization is not.
 
Even more, he stresses that, in terms of basic policy, each state within the union should retain the option to remove itself from any law it deems problematic. At best, The Kazakh program is based on a loose structure. Since there is no “doctrine” of Eurasianism on these matters, it remains an open question. In general, Eurasianists remain national in their focus.
 
The problem which Nazarbayev points out is that the states to be a part of this Union are far from homogeneous, and remain at different levels of development. Hindrances to any union he sees as primarily based on a lack of strategy. There is no method of dispute resolution, nor does there seem to be any connection among ministers dealing with these issues and their own governments. 
 
Relative to currency, the President argues that it needs to be based explicitly on production and the development needs of the societies involved. While it should be kept out of the hands of private bankers, no specific state should control it either. He advocates that all branches of government be involved in currency decisions, since these are so essential to economics and development. Keeping the currency out of the hands of speculators seems to imply that he wants the regional currency non-convertible.
 
III. Concepts in Eurasian Foreign Policy
 
In the work of Professor Vera Tolz, there are three basic concepts of Russian Eurasianism that can serve as the basis of foreign policy. In all cases, the idea of the USSR lies at the root. The USSR was an empire promising basic independence for each of its republics. In other words, the official position was that all ethnic organizations under the Soviet system were to be permitted autonomy within the broader society. This approach, thought honored only in the breach, is very close to Eurasianism. These views Tolz calls “revisionist” in that they seek to challenge the west and its increasing hegemony in various ways:
 
1.The USSR was a noble enterprise that went awry. This was because the Bolsheviks thought they could run the country from a central source. This was incorrect and led to tremendous distortions in the economy. The USSR needs to be reborn, but on a far more decentralized and humanitarian basis.
2.Russian civilization can develop along the lines of a limited federation of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. 
3.The third concept is traditional ethno-nationalism, where the state develops to incorporate all Russian speakers contiguous to her borders. 
 
Dugin, in his essay on Nikolai Trubetskoy, argues that both the tsarist and liberal approaches to the USSR are incorrect. He argues that Bolshevism derives directly from the revolutionary state pioneered by Peter I, and the Petrograd bureaucracy that failed to connect with the broader population. They accepted Bolshevism because it was a “vague, unconscious, blind and desperate desire to return to Old Russia, prior to the 'Romano-German yoke.” At the same time, the Eurasian idea rejects this movement as secular and anti-traditionalist. It was the westernization of the Russian elite, rather than any alien imposition on society, that served as the model for the revolution. In other words, the alien regime existed from the early 18th century onward.
 
Trubetskoy saw the USSR as a basically positive phenomenon because it unified the Eurasian plain and maintained a multinational state dedicated to a unified economic end.  In addition, in doing battle with western imperialism, it served to weaken the west's stranglehold over most of the planet. Finally, in protecting Russians against the west, the USSR, despite itself, preserved much of Old Russia.
 
While often not mentioned in English, the Eurasian idea derives from the Old Belief. As this writer has also written, the Old Rite is representative of pre-Petrine Russia, and this state, given its limited resources, made war on the church no less systematically than the Bolsheviks. After Nikon, the close association of the church with the bureaucracy made the love of Orthodoxy dependent on the love of the state. 
 
While exaggerated, this is essentially true; the deposition of Nikon left Alexis in charge, only very soon after to permit Peter and the Germanic ruling class later to purge all national elements of the church. The followers of Alexis saw the Old Rite as ignorant fanatics and themselves, increasingly, as Enlightened westerners. The fact that the atheist and materialist Theophan Prokopovytch was placed in charge of reorganizing the Russian church under Peter shows just how far this process went.
 
These three visions are about recreating Russia as a powerful civilization on the ruins on both the USSR and the democratic capitalism of Yeltsin. These three concepts are different ways of making it legitimate. All three of these are anti-western in that they reject the liberal cosmopolitanism that serves to justify western expansion. None of these three are specifically economic, but use culture and political to situate economic development. Economics for the Eurasianist is but an aspect of the broader political idea (Tolz, 1998).
 
In a recent review of Empire (2000), by A. Negri and M. Hardt, Alexander Dugin remarks:
 
The essence of empire is corruption. Corruption, as destruction, is the antithesis of construction; it is a usurper. Empire is the perennial contagion in world history; it destroys life, but it does so through a highly complex and subtle system of control based on man's base desires, individuality and freedom. As intellectual work is today crucial, the nature of production has changed. If the mind is the main means of production, then the machine and the brain slowly merge. On the other hand, new technologies such as the computerization of technique, have become an indispensable aspect of the human body, and soon, these two will also merge. . . Empires are not imposed from without, but they slowly create mental dependencies that tie man into their networks. These gradually serve as our sources of information that integrate ourselves economically, legally and psychologically. This implies a total loss of identity. 
 
The connection between the physical world and the its mental analogue is common enough in western criticism, most famously in the early 20th century work of Bernard Bosanquet. Contrary to a naive realism, structures of social life and the means of their justification soon become organizing principles in the mind. This is the problem with recent work on Dugin and Eurasianism, these structures cannot manage the nature of the Eurasian critique of the western world.
 
IV. Eurasianism and Domestic Policy
 
Building a new Russian nation with its own specific interests in the world requires a strong civil society. This concept, which has become cliche over time, primarily deals with the institutions necessary for the functioning of a state, any state. Even a state that uses the most strict criterion of ethnicity must maintain a civil society that undergirds that idea. All states and governments must, in some way, provide the population with institutions that give regularity and law to social forces regardless of their origin.
 
The great issue in building the new Russia is membership. In Ukraine, for example, the proverbial distinction between east and west Ukraine has almost torn the country apart. Western Ukraine is seen as pro-western,. Eastern Ukraine seen as pro-Russian. In Russia's case, the Eurasianists do not normally use an ethnic criterion of membership, but would rebuild Russia as a federation of ethnic groups that can serve to check and balance each other (Sengupta, 2009).
 
Even if Russian foreign policy were to center around gathering all Russian speaking areas under Moscow, this would not free the state from the rule of law or basic representative institutions. There is no clear connection between liberalism and representation, that is, there is no reason to believe that a democratic government is necessarily a representative government. The Russian nationalist movement  in general, and Eurasianists in particular, normally holds that liberalism is about ideology and the interests of capital, not the protection of rights. A state can be highly representative without being a democracy, and a democracy can enshrine an oligarchy rather than “the people.” The Eurasianists are fairly cynical about western claims to tolerance and “universal values.”
 
Representation, at its root, is the “matching” of a constitution to domestic ideas of justice. A constitution is more than a scrap of paper. It is a living mode of thought that is meant to bind a community together in a world of shared ideas. Laws cannot come from mere self-interest or utility, but must be representative of the popular will. Popular wills are not necessarily manifest in elections, but show the broader contours of social life over time. The General Will is the public good, and its differs, as in the work of Rousseau, from the mere counting of votes and might even be opposed to it.
 
Even more, a strong, new Russia requires an educational system that creates a firm foundation to the constitutional order. Education in the Eurasianist case should be tilted towards that which is useful for the society as a whole, rather than the liberal arts as a broad category of “classics.” The idea is that education brings students into the constitutional order and both, taken together, form a strong sense of national identity; a linguistic and cultural bond that brings people together in shared responsibility rather than abstract rights.
 
This concept of constitution is central to foreign policy because when “Russia” acts on the world stage, there must be some important and significant entity that is called “Russia.” The Eurasianist looks askance at the United States acting on the world stage for democracy and human rights. These are abstractions. For the Russian Eurasianist in 2012, the U.S. acts for the interest of the corporate bodies who control her (Sengupta, 2009).
 
Dugin, in his article on National Bolshevism, reduces the Eurasian-socialist idea to three:
1.For development according to Russian tradition, socialism, ethnic roots and a adhesion to the constants in Russian history. These include the mir, sobornost', a rejection of utility, universalism and the imperial idea.
2.Towards the restoration of the values of Old Russia, traditional spiritual culture and the doctrine of “The Third Rome.”
3.To build a society without classes, toward brotherhood, equality, solidarity and justice. It is a combination of the social ideals of the populists, communists, socialists, and the national anarchist revolutionary tradition (Dugin, 2004).
 
V. Regionalism and Democracy
 
Regionalism is significant for Russia given her immense geographic distinctions. Eurasianism usually supports a strong sense of regional identity to balance centralized institutions. Regionalism for Russia has been an important problem since the Yeltsin administration because these were considered the more corrupt parts of the Russian polity. Regional governments were (and are) seen as the weak spots on the Russian body politic because of the older, clan-based models of both patronage and rent-seeking.
 
In the work of professors Phyllis Dininio and Robert Ortung, regional corruption has been the Achilles heel of Russia as a polity. In their 2005 article on the subject, there are two overpowering variables dealing with the regional idea: first, the size of the government and, second, the level of economic development. If Eurasianism is to enshrine regionalism as an essential part of its doctrine, then the problems of regional corruption need to be faced. While Putin has long promises to deal strongly with corruption, regional elites have been dug in through control over patronage and raw materials. In fact, the Dininio and Ortung thesis is that rent seeking increases in areas of great raw material production.
 
Corruption provides a great incentive to develop central institutions. The typical Eurasianist view is that internal moral virtues are just as important as external institutions. The “spiritual bonds” that the Eurasianist movement harps on continually is about the ability of local institutions to form virtuous citizens. A virtuous public would do well under even the worst form of government. In Russia's case, internal virtue is needed to rebuild institutions since the decay of the state in the early 1990s. 
 
Corrupt regions in Russia can be traced to large bureaucracies, tightly centralized, that can serve as rent protection for raw materials. The basic corrupt practice is that the bureaucrats use their access to the halls of power to charge a premium for those wishing to exploit or profit from it. This, in turn, strengthens the forces of disintegration and weakens the forces of the national will. While regionalism is important to the Eurasianist movement, it can never be the “cover” for an elite seeking to profit at the expense of the broader economy (Dininio and Ortung, 2005).
 
Regional corruption is an ideological issue for both the Eurasianists and the Putin government because both share the sense of a strong central authority that represents a well integrated regional identity. Regional identity and proper central representation are not opposites, but rather require each other to function. Putin's 2005 attempt to appoint certain regional leaders was seen as a way to correct this imbalance, yet, for the most part, American media treatment of the move was negative (Robertson, 2009)
 
Another reason why the regional idea is important is because it connects Russia to its “near abroad.” In a real sense, these can be called “regions” since—at least—they contain a certain proportion of Russian speakers. Ukraine is a powerful case in point. Ukraine was the center of the older Imperial state because her fertility fed the rest of Russia. To destabilize Ukraine and force it away from Russia is to wound Moscow tremendously. Ukraine is a region in the eyes of the Eurasianist, a region with legitimate cultural aspirations. Yet, there is no reason why she should remove herself from the Russian embrace and become the main agricultural supplier to the EU as a regional dependency (Shulman, 2005 and Bukkvoll, 1997).
 
Ukraine and other “regions” of the Russian near abroad show the significance of regionalism for Russian foreign policy. Eurasianism — and to a great extent the Putin presidency — wants to see a different sort of sovereignty. The Ukrainian national idea saw the world in black and while: either independence or empire. The Eurasianist sees it differently. As there is a “third way” in economics, there is also a third way in sovereignty, one that does not posit independence and empire as opposites, but rather as counterparts. In this case, a federative Russia sees Ukraine and Belarus retain basic control over internal cultural policy while serving a loose confederation of independent powers. Basic legislation is in the hands of regional elites, while foreign policy is maintained in Moscow. These federative concepts are a crucial element of Eurasian foreign policy, especially since both Ukraine and Russia have an active role in the Caucuses mountains. In both cases, the Slavic and Turkic connection is clear – the Slavs will be dealing with Asians as equal partners within a single “civilizational space” (Sangupta, 2009)
 
Ukrainian foreign policy as compared with the Russia shows many areas of overlap that display the significance of Eurasianism even for Kiev. Ukraine sees Russia the way the Eurasianists do – as a powerful empire and civilization more than a nation state. On the other hand, Kiev sees itself as a “central European” state using and manifesting certain parts of Russian Slavdom for its own purposes. Ukrainian foreign policy centers around making sense out of the competing demands of Moscow and the western powers, whether in Washington or Brussels. The seemingly unending recession and depression since 2007 is making the western option that much less appealing. 
 
The Eurasianist—naturally—sees southern and eastern Asia to be the future. If Ukraine s to “turn to the west,” she might be turning to a moribund body too indebted to help her development. Eurasianists can easily point to the apparently terminal stage of western capitalism and seek compensation in Asia (MacFarlane, 2006).
 
Ukraine and Russia both need to deal with regions. In Ukraine, the far Eastern coal and steel areas remain staunch Russian supporters and, to a great extent, neo-communists. These do not want a recreation of the Russian empire, but seek an independent Ukraine in fraternal union with Belarus and Russia, creating a Slavic colossus and trading empire the west must respect on the world stage. 
 
Ukraine and Belarus, in the Eurasian idea, are integral parts of a broader Russian federation. Such a federation is based on spiritual bonds and cultural history rather than economic self interest. Abstractions like rights and fraternity make no sense unless the spiritual bonds of the whole can be found in them. The concept of “home and hearth” is far more than a mere slogan of the bankrupt, but is crucial for any functional policy. Political debate implies a great level of commitment and consensus. Foundational issues must be settled before there can be any common ground to debate. 
 
VI. Conclusions
 
The Eurasian idea is central to Russian politics. While still only partially digested by western writers, Russians have been concerned with rebuilding. From the dust and ashes of an old empire a new identity is being forged, and, judging by the popularity of Vladimir Putin, the basic elements of Eurasianism seem to be significant (Kullberg and Zimmerman, 1999). The slavish imitation of the west is not an option, nor is going back to some kind of central control. The non-aligned movement, regionalism and the battles against corruption are but three pillars in a basic domestic and foreign policy that is to institutionalized many Eurasianist concepts. 
 
In conclusion, we can see several things developing:
 
1.Russia will not copy the west. The Yeltsin administration saw a huge proportion of the Russian economy shipped to foreign bank accounts and be taken over by those who had no hand in creating it. Democracy can be a dirty word in Russia since it is the system partially imposed by Boris Yeltsin. It just meant that the well connected were able to take advantage of the vacuum in both political and economic power.
2.Eurasianism is a popular and coherent option. Russia increasingly sees the west to be bankrupt, both literally and figuratively. The rebuilding process itself—similar to the 1960s decolonization movement in Africa—requires both a strong state and a significant sense of membership.
3.The state will continue to be an important part of the national economy. This is especially the case in areas such as oil and natural gas. The state will continue to own enterprises and can compete with cooperative and private ownership. Simple economic self-interest can never be the foundation of a national economy. The common good (represented y the state, albeit imperfectly) is equally as important as efficiency.
4.The west is in trouble, and is likely to continue in trouble. Her debt is massive, and her dependence on foreign oil equally so. Increasingly large trade deficits with China are the price she has paid for her retail prosperity. To think that the “western option” is an obvious or automatic one for Russia is absurd. The Eurasianists have a point when they stress the significance of the east in terms of economic potential. 
 
The shocking ignorance of American intellectuals trying to grapple with Eurasian concepts they do not understand underscores Dugin's main concerns. The US does not have the conceptual apparatus to properly understand the sweeping ontology of Eurasianiam. Western and westernized writers, such as Gene Veith, Doug Sanders, Anton Barbashin, Hannah Thoburn, and Anton Shekhovtsov display a disgraceful ignorance born of two things: first, their utter lack of intellectual preparation for the ontology and metaphysics of Dugin or anyone else outside of the western mainstream, and just as importantly, the fact that few of their readers know any better. This latter problem is everywhere, and gives the above a license to write as they please. This both frees them from actual understanding and insulates them from serious criticism. 
 
Since Eurasianism does not proceed from familiar journalistic cliches and pseudo-academic pretension, they do not have a framework to understand – let alone criticize – any of the views laid out. It shows the total collapse of serious thought in the pursuit of recognition as an “intellectual.” These are the residue of mass society and the collapse of intellectual honesty.

Bibliography:

Dininio, Phyllis and Robert Ortung. Explaining Patterns of Corruption in the Russian Regions. World Politics 57, 2005 500-529

Bukkvoll, Tor. Ukraine and European Security. Continuum Publishing 1997

Kullberg, Judity and William Zimmerman. Liberal Elites, Socialist masses and the Problem of Russian Democracy. World Politics 51 1999 323-358

MacFarlane, S. Niel. Is Russia an Emerging Power? International Affairs 82, 2006 41-57

Nikitin, Alexander. Russian Eurasianism and American Exceptionalism. Eurasia: A New Peace Agenda, Michael Intrilligator, et al (eds). Emerald Group Publishing, 2005, pps 157-170

Robertson, Graeme. Managing Society: Protest, Civil Society and Regime in Putin's Russia. Slavic Review 68, 2009 528-547

Sengupta, Anita. Heartlands of Eurasia: the Geopolitics of Political Space. Lexington Books, 2009

Shlapentokh, Dmitry. Russia between East and West: Scholarly Debates on Eurasianism. Brill, 2007

Shulman, Steven. National Identity and Public Support for Political and Economic Reform in Ukraine. Slavic Review 64, 2005 pps 59-87

Tolz, Vera. Conflicting Homeland Myths and Nation-State building in Postcommunist Russia. Slavic Review 57, 1998 267-294

Sorokin, P. A Survey of the Cyclical Conceptions of Social and Historical Process. Social Forces, 6(1), 1927: 28-40

Nazarbayev, Nursultan (2010). Eurasian Doctrine (Евразийская доктрина Нурсултана Назарбаева). Almaty: Institute for Philosophy

Dugin, A. Overcoming the West: An Essay on Nikolai Trubetskoy. эссе о Николае Сергеевиче Трубецком Arktogye, Eurasian Portal of A. Dugin, 2003

 The New National-Bolshevik Order. Arktugye, 2004

Eurasian Triumph: Essay on PN Savitsky.  Arktugye, 2000

Николай Алексеев: Теория евразийского государства. Eurasian Portal, 1999

http://evrazia.info/article/197

Ustrialov, N. Национал-большевизм. (Reprinted on the Site Russian Literature, first compied 1926)

http://www.rulit.net/books/nacional-bolshevizm-read-252152-136.html

About Trubetskoy. Eurasian Portal, 1997 (earlier version of the article above)

http://evrazia.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=109

Nikitch, E. «Классовая борьба» (Widerstand, Berlin, 1932)

Ernst Niekisch: Europäische Bilanz, Potsdam: Rütten & Loening 1951

Ustrialov Nikolai. Понятие государства. «Сменовехизм» («Новости Жизни», 1925)

Alexeev, N. (1935) Теория государства: Теоретическое государствоведение, государственное устройство, государственный идеал. (Prague, 1935)

Alexeev, N. (1934)Об идее философии и её общественной миссии. (Put', Путь, 1934, no 44)

Alexeyev, N (1935) The Spiritual Background of Eurasian Culture. Trans, M. Johnson, Young Eurasia (originally published in the Eurasian Chronicle, Berlin, 1935)

http://yeurasia.org/library/classical_eurasianism/николай-алексеев-духовные-предпосыл/

 

L`Isis? Un boomerang in faccia agli Usa

EIIL.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L`Isis? Un boomerang in faccia agli Usa

L`avanzata del fondamentalismo sunnita da Mosul alle porte di Baghdad per formare un`entità statale islamica in Iraq e in parte della Siria

Lorenzo Moore

In una decina di giorni appena la marcia degli integralisti sunniti dell’Isis - il gruppo che si batte appunto per insediare sui territori dello storico califfato di Baghdad (dal Mediterraneo al Golfo, Kuwait incluso) uno “Stato islamico dell’Iraq e della Siria” – è giunta a ridosso della capitale irachena dopo aver operato assedi e conquiste di intere provincie dell’Iraq del nord, a stento contenuta nelle regioni più periferiche settentrionali dalle milizie curde, da tempo allineate ai desiderata di Washington.
Non è peregrino qui ricordare che per abbattere il regime ba’athista di Saddam Hussein (con la scusa di inesistenti armi di distruzione di massa) le forze di invasione angloamericane, per giungere da Bassora a Baghdad ci misero 22 giorni.
Né è inutile rammentare che di fatto, nel concreto, l’Isis non sia altro che l’ennesimo gruppo integralista sunnita utilizzato dai regimi feudali del Golfo – e indirettamente dagli statunitensi – per  raggiungere lo scopo di “federalizzare” l’Iraq già ba’athista in tre macroregioni nazionali-religiose,  curda a nord, sunnita al centronord e sciita al centrosud. Un obiettivo, diciamo così, allargato due anni fa al finanziamento e all’innesco della guerra civile contro la Siria, l’ultimo bastione sociale e nazionalista arabo ba’athista.
L’Isis, che è attualmente egemone tra i gruppi terroristi islamici più radicali, avendo sul terreno spazzato via o comunque reso inoffensivo l’altro gruppo inizialmente più attivo nella Siria del nord, al Nusra, appare, secondo fonti di intelligence statunitensi, e in particolare nell’analisi del think-tank Usa, Institute for the Study of War (ISW), che ha documentato lo sviluppo decennale (dal 2004, dopo il caos seguito all’invasione atlantica) del gruppo islamico, che pretende rifondare un califfato basato sui canoni della Sharia, inizialmente formato da quadri medi sunniti già ba’athisti. Nel rapporto dell’ISW viene tra l’altro messa in rilievo la potente capacità di “relazioni” e di “stampa e propaganda” dell’Isis e viene ripresa e pubblicizzata una sua ponderosa “nota” che riepiloga la sua forza, la sua organizzazione, le sue azioni sul terreno vantate e presumibilmente reali.
In sintesi l’Isis auto dichiara di avere una forza, attuale, di 15.000 combattenti, dei quali la gran parte arruolati nella jihad non solo in Iraq o Siria, ma nei diversi Paesi mediorientali ed europei (2000 circa , secondo una stima, quelli arruolati nel nostro continente).
Nella nota dell’Isis estratta dal centro studi Usa, si focalizza il periodo tra il novembre 2012 e lo stesso mese del 2013.
L’Isis si attribuisce 9540 attacchi in Iraq, 1083 assassinii, 4000 attentati circa, la liberazione di centinaia di prigionieri reclutati dai fondamentalisti dalle carceri irachene.
 
L’ISW statunitense riporta un commento di Nigel Inkster, già vicecomandante del MI6 britannico che sottolinea l’importanza e la solidità organizzativa, militare e politica, e finanziaria del gruppo jihadista sunnita. Negli Usa il parlamentare Michael McCaul, presidente del comitato congressuale di Sicurezza Nazionale, ha definito l’emergere dell’Isis – che controlla ormai sia Mosul (seconda città irachena) che Tikrit, “la più grave minaccia dopo l’11 settembre 2001”. Non a caso un pastore-missionario evangelico, Elijak Abraham, dal canto suo ha dichiarato che l’Isis “è un’estensione di al Qaida). C’è da notare che con la sua brutale avanzata in Iraq (lo stesso Isis ha infatti diffuso ferocissimi immagini e filmati, con atrocità commesse ai danni, in particolare, delle minoranze religiose: è ormai generale, ad esempio, il doppio esodo dei cristiani caldei nell’enclave di Ninive e degli sciiti nei quartieri di Baghdad) il gruppo terrorista radicale ha comunque indebolito il suo dominio nella provincia siriana a ridosso della frontiera irachena.
Al contrario di quanto  appare dalle reazioni “stupite” delle istituzioni di sicurezza nazionale statunitensi e britanniche, di fatto e in realtà l’Isis appare dunque il risultato-boomerang della vergognosa aggressione angloamericana.
Il cosiddetto Stato Islamico di Iraq e Siria è infatti una fedele “trasposizione” sul terreno del progetto Usa di trasformazione degli Stati nazionali siriano e iracheno nelle tre diverse identità statali territoriali sunnita, sciita e curda.
Un divide et impera geopolitico immaginato dagli Usa su diretto “consiglio” di Israele.
 


19 Giugno 2014 12:00:00 - http://rinascita.eu/index.php?action=news&id=23506

Moscou, coupable idéal...

missile-system.jpg

Moscou, coupable idéal...

Le billet de Patrick Parment

Ex: http://synthesenationale.hautetfort.com

A l’heure même où les Israéliens mènent une énième opération militaire contre les Palestiniens à Gaza, on apprend qu’un avion de la Malaysia Airlines était abattu au-dessus du territoire ukrainien. Aussitôt la presse « occidentale » a accusé la Russie, et donc Vladimir Poutine, d’en être indirectement responsable en raison de son soutien à la résistance prorusse qui sévit dans l’Est de l’Ukraine.

Voici qui ne manque pas de nous laisser perplexe. Pour la bonne raison que l’on ne voit guère l’intérêt de Poutine dans cette affaire, pas plus d’ailleurs que celui des prorusses ukrainiens.

En revanche, plusieurs arguments militent en faveur d’une provocation « occidentale. D’autant que le régime du plus que douteux Piotr Porochenko est entièrement à la botte de toute la clique occidentale et à son désir d’amarrer l’Ukraine à l’Europe comme le souhaitent aussi les Américains. Ce qui est un mauvais calcul et dénote du peu de discernement du pouvoir ukrainien. Passons.

On rappellera également qu’Israël a envoyé des « observateurs » à Kiev au tout début des événements qui ont entraîné la chute de Viktor Ianoukovitch et que ceux-ci ne semblent pas avoir déserté le terrain. D’autant que les Israéliens ont tout lieu d’être actif dans une guerre larvée contre la Russie en raison de son soutien à l’Iran.

Pour les Américains, ce n’est pas leur coup d’essai dans cette région du monde où leurs « services » sont très actifs. Affaiblir la Russie, déstabiliser ses « marches » parce qu’elle n’entend nullement se soumettre à la dollarisation outrancière du monde, telle est la ligne géopolitique américaine.

Hasard du calendrier, Vladimir Poutine était de retour d’une réunion des BRICS (Brésil, Russie, Inde, Chine et Afrique du Sud) à Fortaleza au Brésil où ces pays ont décidé de se doter d’une banque à hauteur de 100 milliards de dollars (voire plus) afin de se mettre à l’abri des crises du marché financier. En un mot, se protéger des aléas du dollar. Ce qui n’est pas fait pour plaire à Barack Obama, on s’en doute.

Enfin, il y a l’argument technique. Pour atteindre un avion à 10 000 mètres d’altitude, il faut un missile sol-air plutôt sophistiqué. On a cité un missile du type « Buck ». Or, ce genre d’engin nécessite la participation d’une soixantaine de personnes avant de pouvoir appuyer sur le bouton meurtrier. Il ne semble pas que la résistance prorusse soit en mesure d’aligner de tels techniciens. Il semble bien que nous soyons face, une fois de plus, à une provocation « occidentale » afin de discréditer Moscou. Et pour Israël de faire diversion et de minimiser l’opération de nettoyage dans les territoires palestiniens.

Israël et l'Arabie saoudite : une alliance forgée dans le sang des Palestiniens

Israël et l'Arabie saoudite : une alliance forgée dans le sang des Palestiniens

Auteur : David Hearst   
 

 

Cette alliance israélo-saoudienne est forgée dans le sang, le sang palestinien, le sang, ce dimanche, de plus de 100 victimes dans Shejaiya, écrit David Hearst.

L'Arabie saoudite est dirigée par une clique de vieillards cacochymes, dignes représentants d'une caste qui s'accapare la rente pétrolière et se maintient au pouvoir par tous les moyens...

Il y a beaucoup de mains derrière l'attaque de l'armée israélienne sur la bande de Gaza. L'Amérique n'est pas malheureuse de voir le Hamas devoir supporter tant de coups. Alors que les images des scènes de carnage dans les rues de Shejaiya venaient d'être diffusées, John Kerry a déclaré sur ??Meet NBC le même jour qu'Israël avait le droit de se défendre, et l'ambassadeur américain Dan Shapiro a déclaré sur la chaîne israélienne Canal 2 que les États-Unis feraient en sorte que les forces modérées soient [après le conflit] dominantes dans la bande de Gaza, ce qui veut dire [qu'Israël amènerait dans ses fourgons] l'Autorité palestinienne.

L'Égypte n'est pas non plus écrasée de douleur. Son ministre des Affaires étrangères Sameh Shoukry a tenu le Hamas pour responsable de la mort des civils, après que le mouvement ait rejeté le cessez le feu [concocté par l'Égypte et Israël et totalement à l'écart du Hamas - NdT].

Un troisième partenaire non déclaré dans cette alliance contre nature a cependant donné un feu-vert à Netanyahu, le couvrant à l'avance pour une opération militaire d'une telle férocité. Nous ne parlons pas d'un allié aussi impuissant que les États-Unis, car cette autorisation ne peut venir que d'un État arabe.

L'attaque sur Gaza a été lancée avec une approbation royale saoudienne.

Ce mandat royal n'est rien de moins qu'un secret de polichinelle en Israël et l'ex-ministre de la défense comme celui qui est en fonction en parlent de façon très ouverte. L'ancien ministre israélien de la Défense Shaul Mofaz a surpris le présentateur sur Canal 10 en disant qu'Israël devait attribuer un rôle à l'Arabie saoudite et aux Émirats arabes unis dans la démilitarisation du Hamas. Interrogé sur ce qu'il entendait par là, il a ajouté que des fonds de l'Arabie saoudite et des Émirats devraient être utilisés pour reconstruire Gaza une fois le Hamas anéanti.

Amos Gilad, homme-clé au ministère israélien de la défense dans les relations avec l'Égypte de Moubarak et aujourd'hui directeur du département israélien des relations politico-militaires, a déclaré récemment à l'universitaire James Dorsey : « Tout est souterrain, rien n'est public, mais notre coopération sécuritaire avec l'Égypte et les États du Golfe est unique. C'est la meilleure période de sécurité et de relations diplomatiques avec les pays arabes ».

Les félicitations sont réciproques. Le roi Abdallah a fait savoir qu'il avait téléphoné au président Abdel Fattah El-Sisi pour approuver une initiative égyptienne de cessez-qui n'avait même pas soumise au Hamas, ce qui a incité des analystes cités par le Jerusalem Post à se demander si un cessez-le feu avait été sérieusement proposé.

Le Mossad et les responsables saoudiens du renseignement se réunissent régulièrement. Les deux côtés se sont concertés lorsque l'ancien président égyptien Mohamed Morsi était sur ??le point d'être déposé en Égypte, et ils sont main dans la main en ce qui concerne l'Iran, à la fois dans la préparation d'une attaque israélienne qui traverserait l'espace aérien saoudien, et dans le sabotage du programme nucléaire.

Il y a même été dit de bonne source que les Saoudiens financent l'essentiel de la très coûteuse campagne d'Israël contre l'Iran.

Pourquoi l'Arabie Saoudite et Israël font-ils à ce point bon ménage ? Pendant des décennies, les deux pays éprouvaient une sensation identique quand ils regardaient autour d'eux : la peur. Leur réaction a été similaire. Chacun sentait qu'ils ne pouvaient se prémunir contre ses voisins en les envahissant (Liban, Yémen) ou par le financement de guerres et coups d'État (Syrie, Égypte, Libye). Ils ont des ennemis ou rivaux en commun : l'Iran, la Turquie, le Qatar, le Hamas dans la bande de Gaza, et les Frères musulmans ailleurs. Et ils ont des alliés communs : les lobbys militaro-industriels américains et britanniques, l'homme fort du Fatah et l'atout des États-Unis Mohammed Dahlan qui a essayé autrefois de prendre le contrôle de Gaza et qui serait probablement prêts à le faire à nouveau.

La différence aujourd'hui, c'est que pour la première fois dans l'histoire de leurs deux pays, une coordination militaire a été mise en place. Le prince Turki, neveu du roi Abdallah, est le visage public de ce rapprochement rendu visible par la publication d'un livre sur l'Arabie écrit par un universitaire israélien. Le prince s'est rendu à Bruxelles en mai pour rencontrer le général Amos Yadlin, l'ex-chef du renseignement israélien qui a été inculpé par un tribunal en Turquie pour son rôle dans l'abordage du Mavi Marmara.

On pourrait faire valoir qu'il n'y a rien de sinistre dans l'implication du prince Turki dans le débat israélien et que ses motivations sont à la fois paisibles et louables. Le prince est un fervent partisan d'une initiative de paix proposée par le roi saoudien Abdallah. L'Initiative de paix arabe soutenue par 22 États arabes et 56 pays musulmans aurait effectivement été une base pour la paix si Israël ne l'avait pas ignoré il y a quelques 12 ans.

Le prince Turki est très lyrique sur les perspectives de paix dans un article publié par Haaretz. Il y écrit : « Et quel plaisir ce serait d'être en mesure d'inviter non seulement les Palestiniens mais aussi les Israéliens que j'allais rencontrer de venir me rendre visite à Riyad, où ils pourraient alors visiter ma maison ancestrale dans Dir'iyyah, qui a souffert aux mains de Ibrahim Pacha le même sort qu'a subi Jérusalem aux mains de Nabuchodonosor et des Romains ».

C'est les moyens utilisés, pas la fin en soi qui exposent le véritable coût humain de ces alliances. La promotion par le prince Turki de l'Initiative de paix arabe se fait au prix de l'abandon par le royaume de son soutien historique à la résistance palestinienne.

L'analyste saoudien Jamal Khashogji fait ce même constat quand il parle en langage codé du nombre d'intellectuels qui attaquent la notion de résistance : « Malheureusement, le nombre de ces intellectuels ici en Arabie Saoudite est plus élevé que la moyenne. Si une telle tendance se poursuit, elle va détruire la louable prétention du royaume d'avoir soutenu et défendu la cause palestinienne depuis l'époque de son fondateur, le roi Abd Al-Aziz Al-Saoud ».

La paix serait en effet la bienvenue pour tout le monde, et surtout pour Gaza en ce moment. Mais les moyens par lesquels les alliés d'Israël en Arabie saoudite et l'Égypte veulent y arriver, en encourageant Israël à donner au Hamas un coup fatal, amènent à douter de ce qui se trame vraiment. Le père de Turki, le roi Faisal bin Abdulaziz se retournerait dans sa tombe s'il voyait ce que son fils fait en son nom.

Cette alliance israélo-saoudienne est forgée dans le sang, le sang palestinien, le sang, ce dimanche, de plus de 100 victimes dans Shejaiya.


- Source : David Hearst

mercredi, 23 juillet 2014

Geostrategic Battles for control of the Heartland

tchetchenie.jpg

Chechnya and the wars in the nineties: Geostrategic Battles for control of the Heartland

Chechen separatism and Chechen wars (1994-1996 and 1999-2000) are part of the process of anti-Eurasian  dissolution developed by Atlanticist strategists in the post- Soviet period. The Russian Federation is historically since Tsarist times a large-continental, integrating and tellurocratic state, an imperial power ... and a multi-ethnic state. In addition to the Slavic Russians, there are many other peoples living in the Russian Federation, and each enjoys a considerable degree of autonomy in their respective republic or oblast (region), with the absolute freedom to practice their religion or to use their language at an institutional level. 
 
Turkic people like the Tatars or Bashkirs, Mongol peoples like the Tuvans or Yakut, Caucasian like Chechen or Ingush... Christians, Muslims , Buddhists or adherents of ancient shamanism. There is even a Jewish Oblast near the Chinese border, whose capital is Birobidzhan .
 
Shortly after the final collapse of the USSR in 1991, not still satisfied with having achieved the breakup of the Soviet republics, the international Atlanticist thalassocracratic conspirators also attempted to dismember the Russian Federation, starting with the destabilization of the Caucasus. While in the Balkans they were destroying Yugoslavia, and while Russia was being sacked by massive capital evasions to the "west" and was being vampirically weakened by cosmopolitan oligarchs that privatized large national industries and by the implementation of ultra-liberal reforms to establish parasitism, a separatist subversion began in Chechnya, which later should (according to the  thalassocratic - globalist plans) then also extend to other republics, especially those with a Muslim majority, by the infiltration of Saudi Wahhabism. The goal was not only to dismantle the USSR, but also the Russian Federation.
 
The Chechen people
 
The Chechens are an ancient people located in the North Caucasus since at least 5000 years. The Caucasus has always been a region of great geostrategic importance because historically in this region three rivalizing Empires had their borders: Russia, Ottoman Turkey and Persia.
 
Being a mountain people (like the Basques in Spain, the Albanians in the Balkans or the Kurds in the Middle East) Chechens as well as other peoples of the North Caucasus (mainly Ingush and Dagestani) remained isolated for centuries and developed without foreign interference their particular idiosyncrasy, which includes a language of unknown origin without any apparent relationship with other languages spoken outside that area. They had contact with neighboring peoples such as the Alans (Ossetians), Georgians and with Byzantine culture and with the Terek Cossacks. 
They were lately Islamized and kept syncretistically in Islam particularities of their ancestral religion. Therefore, the traditional Caucasian Islam, although formally adhering to the Sunni  Hanafi school, incorporates ethnic elements that differentiate it from the mainstream Arab Sunnism.
 
Sufism is also extremely popular in the Caucasus. The two main tariqas (brotherhoods) are present: Naqshbandiyya is mostly in eastern Chechnya and Daghestan, while Qadiriyya has more adherents in western Chechnya and Ingushetia. One of the ritualistic differences between the two streams is the way to do the zikr; "Memory (of  the name of Allah)" a mystical practice of pronouncing the shahada - "la illah has illa'Allah " - , ritually , in a rhythmic and repetitive way until reaching a state of trance; this practice is analogous to the recitation of mantras of Hinduism and Buddhism; or to the Hesychasm in Orthodox Christianity.
 
While the Naqshbandi Sufis practice the zikr sitting in a state of stillness, the qadiris move rhythmically and sometimes run in a circle around an imaginary axis. (The Black Stone of the Kaaba?). In Chechnya there are 5% of Christians, most of them of Cossack origin.
 
The Chechens call themselves "Vainakh " or "nokhchiy" , which means "our people". Their language belongs together with the Ingush and Dagestani , to the nakh (Ibero-Caucasian) languages. Throughout history they have used Georgian, Arabic, Latin and Cyrillic alphabets. Ethnically they are of Caucasoid type, and they have societal similarities to the Avars and Alans.
 
The Alans, ancestors of today's Ossetians, are an ethnic group of Iranian origin that partially moved westwards after the invasions of the Huns,  reaching the Iberian Peninsula, after joining on the way Germanic tribes such as the Vandals and the Swabians. According to the Encyclop?dia Iranica, Alans contributed along with the Goths to name Catalonia (Got- Alania).
 
The Chechens have the haplogroup J2, mainly associated with the Mediterranean and the Fertile Crescent. They are genetically closer to the Basques or Britons than to the Slavs. In fact, they are by blood as close to the Basques as to the Ingush. Apparently, they are also associated with the mythical Cimmerians (equestrian nomads of the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea region, in which the writer Robert E. Howard found inspiration to create his character Conan the Barbarian), with the Sarmatians and the Assyrian-Hittite Kingdom of Urartu (cradle of the Armenian people).
 
After World War II, they were deported en masse to Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan on Beria's orders; on accusations of having collaborated with the Axis.
 
The Chechens are historically a martial society organized in teips (clans), with a significant agrarian culture and attachment to the land.
 
The social structure is made based on nekye (families) integrated into gar (branches), which form the teip (clans), organized  in tukhum (web or union of clans).
 
They have a social code of honor: the nokhchallah (whose core values are morals, ethics, generosity, hospitality and protect women).
 
They all mythically descended from the same man, the Turpalo - Nokhchuo. The wolf is the national animal.
 
Religion
 
Religion is very much influenced by the Caucasian ethnic idiosyncrasies, so the traditional Chechen Islam syncretistically integrates elements of their ancestral spirituality.
 
Many Chechens and Ingush refer to God as Dela (instead of Allah), which is the supreme god of the Pantheon in the pre-Islamic period, comparable to the Greek Zeus or Wotan for the Germans.
 
There is a popular saying: "The Prophet Mohammad may have been an Arab, but God is a Chechen for sure".
 
The Wahhabism which was infiltrated during the '90s sought to "de- chechenize" Islam in Chechnya, imposing their demented satanic/globalist ideology of a Saudi-kind "universal caliphate". In addition, the emergence of Wahhabi separatism caused that secular nationalist idea was abandoned for the pan-Islamism (from "Republic of Ichkeria" to "Caucasus Emirate"). This caused many former secessionist militants (including Ahmad Kadyrov himself, father of Ramzan) to switch to the side of the Russian Federation after realizing what "independence" actually meant.
 
Post-Soviet separatism in the North Caucasus region
 
The idea of Chechen separatism (using subversive Islamic extremism and foreign mercenaries) was resurrected in the early '90s in the process of Soviet disintegration. The international plutocracy with the geopolitical goal of dominating the Eurasian Heartland, wanted to promote not only the dissolution of the tellurocratic, bi-continental and imperial power of the USSR, but also the dismemberment of the Russian Federation. Chechnya thus became the scene of a global battle between the two opposing geopolitical conceptions; corrosive globalism against the multipolarity of the large blocks; imperialism ("divide and conquer") against the Empire (federal autarky and integration).
 
In October 1991; Soviet ex - general and president of the Chechen Republic Dzhokhar Dudayev made a unilateral declaration of "independence", proclaiming the "Republic of Ichkeria ". His intention was to turn Chechnya into his personal feud, and to do so he was helped with covert CIA support.
 
For centuries, Chechens traditionally always devoted to the profession of soldier. The demobilization of the Red Army in the post- Soviet years led many to unemployment.
 
With Dudayev, who as a Soviet military man had never resided in the land of his ancestors, Chechnya became a haven for organized crime as it would later became Kosovo. The oligarchs were very involved in the illegal business with Chechnya, especially Boris Berezovsky. Dudayev came to threaten Russia with a terrorist campaign against its nuclear plants. Grozny's airport became a transit point for world heroin trade. 
 
In the previous decade, Dudayev had participated in the war in Afghanistan against the Mujahideen, but paradoxically he and his successors would later use them in Chechnya. He was not an Islamist as Basayev and Umarov, but he lacked scruples and in order to realize his aspirations of "independence", he allied with Saudi Arabia (soon establishing in Chechnya a network of mercenaries through Prince Bandar) and Turkey (member country of NATO). He is the Izetbegovic or Thaci of the Caucasus. 
 
He was an ally of the anti-Soviet Estonian nationalists (while his successor Aslan Maskhadov repressed them). In summer 1992, Dudayev made trips to Saudi Arabia and the UAE for support. Also to Turkey and Bosnia.
 
Berezovsky was an associate of Chechen gangsters. In 1993 he flew to Tel Aviv, and acquired Israeli citizenship without having to give up the Russian one.
 
General Alexander Lebed (who died in a mysterious "plane crash") stated that Berezovsky was responsible for the "peace negotiations" in Chechnya doing everything possible to make them fail.
 
Lebed : "After the signing of the peace accords of Khassaviurt [ ... ] Berezovsky came to see me and tried to intimidate me. When he realized that it was not possible to scare me, he simply said, "you have spoiled an amazing business. Everything was going so well. Were they killing each other? So what? They always have and will continue to do so anyway."
 
Salman Raduyev was a friend of Berezovsky. Ramzan Kadyrov declared years later that Berezovsky financed terrorists back in 1996 and 1997: "He could not afford to just give them the money, so (Berezovsky) invented the following mechanism: He asked (Raduyev and Basayev ) to kidnap people and he would pay the ransom: "I will receive good publicity and you will have the money". (Source: http://rt.com/politics/berezovsky-financed-terrorists-by-paying-ransoms-chechen-prez/)
 
Looter oligarchs like Berezovsky or Gusinsky, in those turbulent years, contributed to emphasize the precariousness of the Russian people and to spread misery; these plutocrats also collaborated with international high finance that sought to dissolve not only the USSR but also the Russian Federation.
 
Geoenergetic Question: There are not the natural resources of Chechnya which matters most to the Russians, but the network of oil pipelines in the Caspian sea. USrael steals oil from Russia through Georgia and Azerbaijan. Baku- Novorossiysk.
 
In 1993 Dudayev announced that Chechen language would stop using the Cyrillic alphabet and would begin to use the Latin one; also they stopped teaching Russian in schools.
 
Meanwhile, Chechen political groups from within the republic opposed his regime and decided to ally with Russia.
 
The first war to regain Chechnya took place between 1994 and 1996, ending with a ceasefire. Dudayev died in 1996 after being hit by a missile during the war.
 
Aslan Maskhadov came to power in 1997, he wanted to maintain the "sovereignty" and continue pressuring Moscow (which had enough economic problems on their own because of the parasitical oligarchs) to rebuild the country. Russia continued to send money for the rehabilitation of the republic, to build schools and hospitals, but most of the money was taken by the separatist authorities and the warlords who keep the money for themselves.
 
Formally, "Ichkeria" was still part of Russia, and enjoyed government subsidies and participation in the Russian financial system (their "independence " was UNILATERAL), but it did not contribute at all to the Federation. It was beyond the control of the customs bodies and of the Russian security forces. In a concession to the Islamists, Maskhadov decreed the imposition of Sharia in 1999. Chechnya began increasingly to become a Caucasian version of Taliban Afghanistan.
 
The second war began in July 1999 with the invasion launched by Basayev and Arab mercenary Khattab against Dagestan from Chechnya; with the complicity of Maskhadov, with the scope of also separating Dagestan from Russia and integrate it into the "Republic of Ichkeria" as a potential " Islamic emirate". In September, terrorist acts in Moscow apartment caused over 300 deaths.
 
Proponents of the conspiranoic theory that the bombs in the apartment were a "false flag" of the FSB, have connections with Berezovsky (Litvinenko, Kasparov, etc). The most rabid Zionist neocon hawks in Washington are also adherents of this real "conspiracy theory". A major case of PROJECTION (attributing to the crimes they themselves commit or the own ways of doing things to the adversary) is seen here: The same ones who affirm that after the bombings in Moscow apartments were Russian secret services to have an excuse to intervene in Chechnya, are the ones defending tooth and nail the "official version" of 9/11.
 
The Russian intervention in Chechnya in 1999 drew criticism (and even economic sanctions) from Washington, accusing Moscow of "violating human rights", urging the Russian government to "engage in dialogue" with the "moderate" Maskhadov. The State Department of the U.S. received in January 2000 none other than Ilyas Akhmadov, cabinet member of the separatist regime of "Ichkeria". Meanwhile, oligarch Vladimir Gusinsky (like Berezovsky also an Israeli citizen), owner of Media -Most and NTV channel, performed in Russia itself a media campaign in line with the Atlanticist view, attacking the "barbarism" of the Russian Army and the "war crimes" (obviously only the ones of the pro - Federation forces, systematically ignoring the atrocities perpetrated by the Chechen "rebels" - In Chechnya, as today in Syria, there were also two types of "combatants" : the "extremists" of  "Al Qaeda" (of which nobody was still speaking in the West, because this was before 9/11) and the "moderate" Maskhadov (analogous to current members of the "FSA"). 
 
Instead, the pro-Federation Chechens (which were increasing in numbers) were systematically ignored by the media (both Western and "Russian" - ie oligarchic - media, as the aforementioned Media-Most of Gusinsky). It was thus intended to give the public the wrong perception that it was a conflict of "Russians against Chechens" (of "evil imperialist Russians against poor Chechens who just wanted freedom"); when in fact it was a geopolitical conflict between supporters of the Federation and sympathizers of secessionism (among them less and less civilians and increasingly more militant Wahhabis - many of them foreigners - as well as organized crime figures and, of course, those who always benefit from the "divide and conquer".
 
Political analyst F. William Engdahl said that if Russia had not intervened in Chechnya between 1999 and 2000; the US would have had the excuse after the attacks of 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, to directly interfere in the North Caucasus (ie in the Russian Federation) alleging that the region could serve as a refuge to Bin Laden and Taliban leaders, after "not having found" them in Afghanistan.
 
Raduyev mantained that Dudayev (officially dead since 1996) was still alive, and gave orders for the "liberation of the Caucasus" from a secret NATO base in Turkey ( ! ). In 1999 Raduyev , whom the effects of an explosion had deformed the face, went to get plastic surgery to Germany (!) He got titanium implants, so they nicknamed him "Titanic" and "Michael Jackson". In 2000 he tried to assassinate Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze, who a few years later was to be overthrowed by one of those colored revolutions of the post -Soviet space, and replaced with the more “cooperative” puppet Saakashvili.
 
In retaliation for the terrorist bombing of the Moscow apartments in September 1999, air strikes were carried out by Russia against the regime of "Ichkeria", and ground attacks in October. The Russian reaction, coordinated by Putin, was much better planned and executed than in the first war in 1994.
 
Since 2000, the separatists had access to sophisticated radars and anti-aircraft batteries (made in USA) . Georgia 's border with Chechnya was used to smuggle weapons and mercenaries for the CIA (perhaps the attempt to assassinate Shevardnadze in 2000 had something to do with his refusal or resistance to it?). In Taliban Afghanistan (with which "Ichkeria" had optimal contacts) there were trained terrorists for the " jihad" in Chechnya , with the help of the Pakistani ISI. Among them was Basayev, possible CIA agent.
 
Individuals like Zbigniew Brzezinski and Richard Pipes cynically criticed the "invasion" and "genocidal atrocities" supposedly committed by Russia in Chechnya (while, at the same time, the U.S. was planning and executing a TRUE invasion, that of Iraq) , and demanded  through the "American Comitee for Peace in Chechnya " (ACPC ) and other globalist organizations such as the "National Endowment for Democracy" (NED ) that Moscow should "negotiate" with the "moderate" Maskhadov government, even to the point of proposing to Chechnya "formal independence" under international supervision ( ! ) - see for example the article "Give Chechens a land of Their Own" (The New York Times, 9.9.2004 ) or "The Great Chessboard" (p. 88-89) of Z. Brzezinski.
 
In 2005, the U.S. television network ABC aired an interview with the head of the Chechen terrorists Shamil Basayev, one of the main responsibles for the slaughter of children in school in Beslan (North Ossetia) in September 2004. When the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed outrage about it, the US State Department said that the TV channel is backed by the "freedom of expression".
 
On March 7, 2006 a group of prominent characters of high finance and Western politics published an open letter in the media where they continued the anti-Russian hysteria, comparing the take of Grozny with Hitler's attack against Warsaw in 1944, condemning the "neo -colonial" behavior of Russia and urging to take "drastic measures" against the Russian government. The letter was entitled "End the Silence over Chechnya" and was signed, among others, by none other than the founder of the Open Society Institute George Soros, the French Zionist Andre Glucksmann or Saudi Prince Hassan Bin Talal .
 
At events like the G-8 conference in St. Petersburg in June 2006 or during the parliamentary elections of 2007, the Atlanticist lobby continued hostile anti-Russian statements and media campaigns through individuals like John McCain, Tom Lantos (one of the largest media agitators for the first invasion of Iraq in 1991, propagandist of the incubators-myth) or Ileana Rose-Lethinen, who accused Putin of "authoritarianism" , "corruption", "mysterious explosions in Moscow apartments " and "invasion of Chechnya".
 
Afghan Taliban recognized Ichkeria in 2000; also "Ukrainian nationalists" and Poland. Because of the Ukrainian conflict, it is now common knowledge that criminals of "Pravy Sektor" ( UNA / UNSO ) had ( and have) excellent connections with Wahhabi terrorists in the Caucasus; and that there even were Ukrainian fighters on the side of Dudayev?s separatists, such as Alexander Muzichko a.k.a. Sashko Biliy, while Pravy Sektor?s chief Dimitri Yarosh called for help from Doku Umarov. Ukrainian chauvinists are also fiercely anti -Serb ; recently it came to light that Croatian war criminals "coincidentally" acquitted at The Hague like Ante Gotovina have traveled to western Ukraine to train and advise the anti - Russian militias. (See: http://theremustbejustice.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/the-bloody-croatian-generals-acquitted-by-the-hague-tribunal-took-over-the-ukrainian-land-forces/ )
 
In June 2000, Putin appointed former chief mufti Ahmad Kadyrov head of the Chechen government, and the reconstruction of the Republic from the ashes began. Kadyrov had initially supported the secessionists in the early '90s, but stopped after discovering how talassocracy was instrumentalizing Chechen nationalism, and especially seeing the rise of insane Saudi Wahhabi ideology and the havoc it caused in the Caucasus - also after realizing that protecting ethnic idiosyncrasy and self-determination of the Chechen people were not at all incompatible with integration into the Russian Federation, a great continental power composed of diverse peoples and that had nothing to do with the oppression of the Soviet past. What was bad in the USSR has been reincarnated in (or transferred to) the "EU" and not to the New Russia - that's what many "nationalist" (especially Ukrainians, but also Baltic and Western) do not understand.
 
Following the takeover of Kadyrov and the beginning of the rebuilding of the country, about 7,000 former separatist passed to the federal side.
 
In 2003 it was approved a new Chechen constitution after a referendum; which gave the Republic a significant degree of autonomy.
 
In March 2004 Ahmad Kadyrov was murdered; the "moderate" Maskhadov said "he got what he deserved". Alu Alkhanov succeeded him as the head of the Chechen government, and the following year, in December 2005, he was replaced by Kadyrov 's son Ramzan, who continues to lead the Republic until today.
 
Beslan massacre
 
September 2004: Beslan, North Ossetia , 1100 hostages,  331 killed (186 of them children). The terrorists were drug-addicts used by Basayev. ( Basayev fought on the side of the Azeris against Armenians during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in 92 , where he met Khattab. From that time - which coincides with the visit of Dudayev to Saudi Arabia - Wahhabism began to infiltrate in Chechnya . According to LITVINENKO and Berezovsky ( big " credibility ..."!) Basayev was conspiring with Putin against "moderate" Maskhadov - again we see the PROJECTION scheme, as what happened in reality was Bin Laden working with USA secret services.
 
By the way, Basayev 's brother, Shirvani, lives in Erdogan's Turkey.
 
Another Arab mercenary like Khattab is Muhannad, trained in the U.S., brought Wahhabism to the Kists of Pankisi (Chechens in Georgia) .
 
Spokesman of the separatist Ichkeria government  Ahmed Zakayev, exiled in London (!), said that Basayev "does not represent the Chechen cause" and that he is "an agent of Moscow trying to discredit it". But at the same time, despite the attack in Beslan, Zakayev named Basayev "Deputy Minister"  in 2005.
 
The "moderates " (Maskhadov) and the "extremists" (Basayev), as in Syria the "moderate FSA" and "extremist Al Qaeda / ISIS" etc. - the same false dichotomy as "Democrats vs. Republicans " in the USA .
 
In 2007; Anzor Astemirov (who studied Islamic theology in Saudi Arabia) officially requested U.S. help against "Russian aggression". Thereafter, "rebel" websites took out the phrase that read that Western countries were enemies of the "Caucasus Emirate".
 
Maskhadov
 
On March 8, 2005 Maskhadov was liquidated in a Russian special operation (an Ex-Soviet military commander like Dudayev, Maskhadov had paradoxically suppressed the Baltic independentists by orders of Gorbachev in 1991) Ramzan Kadyrov said in the Komsomolskaya Pravda that the death of Maskhadov on March the 8 was a sign of destiny in honor of all the women who were opressed in the obscurantist Maskhadov republic. Meanwhile, for the French Zionist Glucksmann, Maskhadov is a "hero of freedom".
 
In 2006 also Maskhadov 's successor Abdul Khalim Sadulayev was liquidated and shortly after also Shamil Basayev, mastermind of the Beslan massacre. In 2009 the Russian army withdrew from the Chechen Republic that had been  pacified and reconstructed and where the pro - Federation Chechens headed by Ramzan Kadyrov had managed to consolidate stability.
Interestingly, the same year of 2009 (when terrorists Maskhadov and Basayev had been eliminated and peace had returned to the region), the "Freedom House" placed Chechnya on its list of "most repressive societies in the world" along with North Korea or Burma (Coming from the Freedom House, that was actually a compliment) - It didn?t suit to  Atlanticism that the destabilizing poison had been crushed.
 
Meanwhile, Doku Umarov (successor of Basayev) abolished the "Republic of Ichkeria" and proclaimed the "Caucasus Emirate" calling himself  "emir".
 
Nationalism and Geopolitics
 
For a deeper understanding of the Caucasian conflicts (or the Balkanic one, or the current Ukrainian crisis), it is necessary to emphasize once again that there are only TWO geopolitical models, and in the continental tellurocratic dimension of Russia (or rather the Russias -in plural- analogously to the Spains of Carlist traditionalists) as integrative power of Eurasia and champion of multipolarity. The Russias are comprised of many peoples, that are integrated (not fused !) in the Federation. There is an absolute difference between this idea of federated, integrative union (the idea of Eurasia, whose core is Russia, Haushofer?s Kontinentalblock) and the "EU" a prison of nations that does not integrate but only merges chaotically, and that is not self-sufficient but dependent of the parasitic global finance, and which is not sovereign but an USrael colony.
 
Chechnya and other Caucasian peoples are factually much freer and have more autonomy (culturally and economically) if they are integrated in the Federation under the protective umbrella of Russia/ the Russias in the Eurasian Kontinentalblock, than with a fake "independence" that can not be such, because it would fall under the absolute control of the Rothschilds, Soros, etc. . That's what the "nationalist " and "independentists" do not understand; neither in Russia nor in Spain .
 
Chechnya has more political freedom and more autonomy from Moscow than any country in the "EU" from Brussels. (And who says Brussels, says Washington).
 
 
Meanwhile, the Russian "white supremacist" (racial chauvinists), the " neo-Nazi" and "skinheads" in Moscow and other cities that harass or discriminate against people from the Caucasus and other areas of the post -Soviet space (Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Kyrgyz , etc. ) are the other side of the coin of ethno-social "divide and conquer". They are manipulated and used by those who seek the destruction of Russia (as the Russias / Eurasia). The strategic alliance between the "Ukrainian nationalists" and separatist Chechen Wahhabis is a clear example of this.
 
"Independence" ( ie its constitution as a truly sovereign state) of such small countries and regions (Chechnya has a total population of one million two hundred thousand) is not possible; nor it is desirable such a fallacious "independence", even if these peoples do have indeed a completely different and unique ethnic, cultural and linguistic idiosyncrasy; because then they would inevitably be devoured by the globalism of the "international community". 
 
Thus, "nationalists" feelings (ironically encouraged by those internationalists seeking to establish the dystopian entelechy of the NWO) are transformed in a weapon that turns against the nations themselves. In the case of the Caucasus, the best that can happen to this countries is to be under the protection of the Russian state, integrated in it in a Federation, enjoying full rights of autonomy, with the ability to enjoy their historical and ancestral tribal organization clans (the teips), and with their own regional laws (similar to the "fueros" in the case of Spain) . If not, the alternative to the "independence" of Russia, is the dependence of the "West" ; ie of USrael (which financed Wahhabis there, as it does in Syria), and a greater dependence on IMF, World Bank , and maybe even NATO (see Georgia) and EU ... See also what happened with the Baltic countries, which have gone from the bad (USSR) to the worst (EU).
 
In the case of Spain, Basque separatism is a creation of British imperialism (which was very admired by Sabino Arana - the "Basque Stepan Bandera" so to say), and both the Basque and Catalan separatism is functional to international imperialism, as it always the case with  chauvinist nationalism, seeking to separate from an historical entity (Spain / the Spains) to get into an artificial one ( "EU") , believing themselves to be "independent".
 
Ahmad Kadyrov and son Ramzan
 
Ahmad Kadyrov was born in Karaganda (Kazakhstan) in 1951, within a Chechen family who had been deported following WWII. He studied in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. He was a Sufi Cleric of the Qadiriyya tariqa and a Chechen politician, first a secessionist and finally pro-federation and president of the Chechen Republic from 2003 until his assassination a year later.
 
After the breakup of the USSR he initially joined the breakaway faction and was appointed mufti by Dudayev. But at the beginning of the second Chechen war in 1999, he switched to the pro-Russian side when he realized the geopolitical implications of the conflict and the increasing arrival of militant Wahhabis and Arab mercenaries of the Saudi orbit to extend terror and perpetuate conflict.
 
Kadyrov followed the teachings of the Chechen Sufi master Kunta-hajji Kishiev (1830-1867). His followers (which adhere to the Qadiriyya tariqa) believe that Kunta - hajji is one of the 360 saints who will return to Earth at the End of Time (which has some similarities with the eschatological prophecies of esoteric Shiism, the Hidden Imam, etc. ). 
 
The grave of Heda, the mother of Kunta - haji , is considered sacred by his followers, and became a source of conflict between Wahhabis and Sufis during the separatist government of Aslan Maskhadov. The Wahhabi "Puritans" wanted to destroy the tomb because they believe the veneration of saints to be "paganism". This was one of the turning points that led Ahmad Kadyrov , then grand mufti of Chechnya, to make the decision to break with the regime of Maskhadov and side with the Russian Federation.
 
With him began (from 2003 onwards) the period of peace and stability that lasts until today, under his son Ramzan. Ahmad Kadyrov made many ex-rebels pass to the pro-Russian side. (The Kadyrovtsy, pro-Chechen Federation troops are mostly ex-rebels. They are estimated to be around 5000).
 
There were a dozen assassination attempts against him, before the final one, on March 9, 2004. In the attack against him 30 other people were killed as well. Basayev was the organizer.
 
Ramzan (1976 in Tsenteroi), a boxer, a practicing Sufi, father of 5 daughters and 3 sons.
As Gaddafi in Libya, he banned alcohol and gambling. He replaced Alkhanov as head of the Republic after turning 30, minimum age for the post.
 
In 2006 the industry grew by 11.9 % , in 2007 26.4%
 
Logically , the "informative" media continued (and continues today) its smear campaign against Kadyrov and the pro-Federation Chechens, calling them " warlords" (which curiously had achieved peace, by the way) of "repressing  opposition" and of "crimes against human rights" , etc, etc. Apparently, they are worried about the stability that prevails today in Chechnya and by the fact that the potential of terrorist subversion has been smashed and virtually eradicated (both the "moderate" ones, openly friends with the "West" like the faction of Maskhadov, as well as the "extremists" ones of Umarov).
 
There were numerous assassination attempts against Ramzan, one of the most spectacular in October 2009.
 
In December 2009, the Chechen president said that the remaining terrorists are funded by the West.
 
In December 10, 2013 the opposition leader of Ingushetia, the separatist Magomed Khazbiev, attended the "Euromaidan" in Ukraine and participated in the anti-Russian campaign there. On February 2, 2014 FSB officially confirmed that in the mid December 2013 four  nor- Caucasian instructors were operating in Ukraine, and preparing the maidanite "rebels" for street fighting (Just like the Israelis military who were also there for the same... – See http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-israeli-special-forces-unit-under-neo-nazi-command-involved-in-maidan-riots/5371725)

mardi, 22 juillet 2014

Les BRICS déclarent la guerre des câbles contre Londres et Wall Street

Les BRICS déclarent la guerre des câbles contre Londres et Wall Street

Auteur : Solidarité & Progrès    
 



                      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Réunis à Fortaleza, la cinquième ville du Brésil, les cinq pays membres des BRICS (Brésil, Russie, Inde, Chine et Afrique du Sud) ont mis sur pied une Nouvelle banque de développement (NBD), véritable embryon d’une nouvelle architecture financière internationale et donnant la priorité aux investissements dans les grands projets d’infrastructure.

La carte ci-dessus permet de comprendre le choix de Forteleza, car il s’agit d’une des villes relais pour un nouveau réseau de câbles sous-marins échappant au contrôle de Londres et Wall Street.

Lancé au milieu du XIXe siècle, le système planétaire de câbles sous-marins actuels permettant la circulation de l’énergie et des données informatiques est un pilier fondamental de notre société moderne. En 2013, 265 câbles sous-marins assurent 99 % du trafic intercontinental d’internet et des communications téléphoniques.

Or, la configuration du réseau est telle qu’elle est sous le contrôle du Royaume-Uni et des États-Unis. Ce contrôle a été révélé par l’ex-agent Edward Snowden, qui confirme que si l’agence de sécurité nationale américaine (NSA) parvenait à espionner la quasi-totalité de nos communications c’était en contrôlant la colonne vertébrale d’Internet, à savoir le réseau de câbles et les stations terrestres auxquelles ils aboutissent.

Cependant, cette situation pourra changer d’ici peu. En 2012, un projet passé relativement inaperçu a été mis en marche par le groupe de pays dit des BRICS. L’idée est de développer une nouvelle architecture câblée échappant à celle déjà déployée sous contrôle occidental.

En septembre 2013, la Présidente du Brésil, Dilma Rousseff, avait annonçé publiquement une coopération renforcée avec l’Argentine dans le domaine de la lutte contre le cyber-espionage et la création d’un système « Internet non centralisé ». Si le déclencheur immédiat de la décision (couplé avec l’annulation d’un sommet avec le président américain) était les révélations sur l’espionnage par la NSA, la raison pour laquelle Rousseff pouvait annoncer une telle décision historique est que l’infrastructure de remplacement, les câbles des BRICS de Vladivostok, en Russie, à Shantou, en Chine, à Chennai, en Inde, à Cape Town, en Afrique du Sud et à Fortaleza (où vient de se tenir le sommet des BRICS), au Brésil, étaient déjà en cours de construction et même dans leur phase finale de mise en œuvre.

Les 34 000 km de câble des BRICS auront une capacité de 12,8 terabit/s et seront reliés aux câbles WACS (West Africa Cable System), EASSy (Eastern Africa Submarin System) et SEACOM. Ce qui permettra aux cinq pays initiateurs d’avoir un accès direct à 21 pays africains, qui à leur tour auront un accès immédiat à Internet et aux pays des BRICS. La date de mise en service est prévue pour la seconde moitié de 2015.

Ce projet n’est bien évidemment pas seulement économique, mais également stratégique et géopolitique. Il vise à permettre aux BRICS de s’émanciper du contrôle anglo-américain sur la circulation des données et à briser l’influence de ce même pôle dans le monde. Les transactions financières dans des devises autres que le dollar emprunteront également le nouveau réseau des BRICS.

Une vidéo publiée sur le site Web de Cable BRICS expose en détail ce nouveau système. « Dans le sable international ne domine déjà plus l’ordre traditionnel que dirigeait le dénommé Nord et Occident », affirme t-on au commencement de l’enregistrement.