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.

jeudi, 27 juin 2013

Énigme turque et ours russe

bosphore-peinture-L-4uNxJe.png

Énigme turque et ours russe

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

Le site DEBKAFiles annonce que la Turquie a décidé de fermer ses frontières aux rebelles syriens, et plus précisément au passage d’armes US et otaniennes vers la Syrie. On connaît DEBKAFiles, dont les informations sont diffusées à partir de milieux proches des services de sécurité israéliens et sont nécessairement de véracité variable. Pourtant, il est un domaine où DEBKAFiles s’est montré ces derniers temps particulièrement attentif, qui est celui du comportement de la Russie, et du poids grandissant de la Russie sur la crise syrienne et tout ce qui va autour. Il semble d’ailleurs que cette orientation corresponde à une attention grandissante d’Israël vis-à-vis de la Russie, considérant ce pays désormais comme un acteur majeur de la région avec lequel il faudrait éventuellement envisager (dans le chef d’Israël) certains arrangements, à mesure que les USA sont moins actifs et dominateurs qu’auparavant et le sont de moins en moins. Par conséquent, les nouvelles que donne DEBKAFiles concernant la Russie sont particulièrement soignées et, souvent, reflètent certaines vérités de la situation. Or, la nouvelle rapportée ici concernant la Turquie est directement liée à la Russie, et à la crainte d’Erdogan concernant les réactions de la Russie si la Turquie continue à aider les rebelles syriens. Tout cela correspondrait assez justement au rôle grandissant de la Russie.

Le texte dont nous faisons ci-dessous des citations est donc de DEBKAFiles, du 22 juin 2013.

«The US decision to upgrade Syrian rebel weaponry has run into a major setback: DEBKAfile reveals that Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan phoned President Barack Obama in Berlin Wednesday, June 19, to report his sudden decision to shut down the Turkish corridor for the transfer of US and NATO arms to the Syrian rebels. [...]

»Erdogan’s decision will leave the Syrian rebels fighting in Aleppo virtually high and dry. The fall of Qusayr cut off their supplies of arms from Lebanon. Deliveries through Jordan reach only as far as southern Syria and are almost impossible to move to the north where the rebels and the Hizballah-backed Syrian army are locked in a decisive battle for Aleppo.

»The Turkish prime minister told Obama he is afraid of Russian retribution if he continues to let US and NATO weapons through to the Syrian rebels. Since the G8 Summit in Northern Ireland last week, Moscow has issued almost daily condemnations of the West for arming “terrorists.”

»Rebel spokesmen in Aleppo claimed Friday that they now had weapons which they believe “will change the course of the battle on the ground.” DEBKAfile’s military sources are strongly skeptical of their ability – even after the new deliveries — to stand up to the onslaught on their positions in the embattled town by the combined strength of the Syrian army, Hizballah troops and armed Iraqi Shiites. The prevailing intelligence assessment is that they will be crushed in Aleppo as they were in Al Qusayr. That battle was lost after 16 days of ferocious combat; Aleppo is expected to fall after 40-60 days of great bloodshed.

»The arms the rebels received from US, NATO and European sources were purchased on international markets – not only because they were relatively cheap but because they were mostly of Russian manufacture. The rebels are thus equipped with Russian weapons for fighting the Russian arms used by the Syria army. This made Moscow angrier than ever.»

Par ailleurs, le même DEBKAFiles annonce des renforts importants venant de Russie pour la Syrie, notamment un contingent de 600 “marines” russes, soldats d’infanterie de marine ou/et forces spéciales (Spetnatz). Ce déploiement est présenté comme une mesure consécutive au sommet du G-8, et à ce qui est présenté par DEBKAFiles comme “un échec” (le sommet) et l’occasion pour les Russes de se forger une conviction concernant les livraisons d’armes du bloc BAO vers les rebelles, non seulement projetées mais d’ores et déjà en cours. Ce point est évidemment à mettre en corrélation avec la nouvelle que le même DFEBKAFiles annonce ci-dessus concernant la décision turque de fermer sa frontière aux rebelles syriens. L’argument de la protection des 20.000 citoyens russes en Syrie est largement présenté comme impératif dans la décision russe d’envoyer ces forces en Syrie, avec l’annonce supplémentaire que des forces aériennes russes seraient déployées en Syrie si une no-fly zone était établie par le bloc BAO. (DEBKAFiles, le 21 juin 2013 .)

«Just one day after the G8 Summit ended in the failure of Western leaders to overcome Russian resistance to a resolution mandating President Bashar Assad’s ouster, Moscow announced Wednesday June 19, the dispatch to Syria of two warships carrying 600 Russian marines. They were coming, said the official statement, “to protect the Russian citizens there.” Russian Deputy Air Force Commander Maj.-Gen. Gradusov added that an air force umbrella would be provided the Russian expeditionary force if needed.

»DEBKAfile's military sources report that the pretext offered by Moscow for sending the force thinly disguised Russian President Vladimir Putin’s intent to flex Russian military muscle in response to the delivery of Western heavy arms to Syrian rebels – which DEBKAfile first revealed Tuesday, June 18.»

Si elle est confirmée, la nouvelle donnée par DEBKAFiles concernant la Turquie est évidemment du plus grand intérêt. Si l’on s’en tient aux seules circonstances décrites et toujours en leur accordant le crédit de la véracité, on dirait, en un terme hérité du temps de la Guerre froide, qu’une telle circonstance se nommerait “finlandisation”, en plus appliquée à un membre de l’OTAN dans le cas turc (ce que n’était pas la Finlande dans les années de Guerre froide). Il s’agit de la paralysie, ou plus simplement de l’absence volontaire d’actes de politique extérieure, et encore plus d’actes militaires contraires aux intérêts de l’URSS, qui caractérisait la politique générale de la Finlande en échange de l’indépendance que respectait cette même URSS.

Dans tous les cas, – véracité ou pas de la nouvelle, – il ne fait aucun doute qu’en cas d’aggravation de la tension en Syrie, avec renforcement russe direct, pour une raison ou l’autre, la Turquie sera soumise de facto à de très fortes pressions russes dans le sens qu’on devine. Cela conduirait effectivement à une situation tout à fait inédite, dans la mesure extrêmement importante pour ce cas où la Turquie est membre de l’OTAN. On rapprochera ce cas d’une autre occurrence évoquée le 4 juin 2013 (Russia Today) par Medvedev, lors de questions qui lui étaient adressées par des journalistes, durant le Euro-Atlantic Forum, en Ukraine, et qui concernent plutôt le flanc Nord des rapports Russie-OTAN. Les réponses de Medvedev sur l’attitude de la Russie concernant de nouveaux membres de l’OTAN pourraient être extrapolées pour d’actuels membres de l’OTAN, notamment la Pologne, particulièrement concernée puisqu’elle déploie des missiles antimissiles US contre lesquels sont déployés des SS-26 Iskander russes dans l’enclave de Kaliningrad. Là aussi, la démarche russe telle qu’elle se dessine, également contre des membres de l’OTAN (la Pologne pouvant bien être la Turquie du Nord à cet égard), prend de plus en plus l’aspect d’une riposte offensive aux pressions exercées contre la Russie depuis vingt ans par l’OTAN, les USA et les divers États-clients (anciens d'Europe de l'Est complètement “rachetés” par les réseaux et l'argent US) et autres ONG téléguidés par les USA (type “révolutions de couleur“ et “agression douce“).

«When a reporter asked Dmitry Medvedev how the balance of forces in Europe will change if Sweden and Finland decide to enter NATO, the Russian Prime Minister answered that his country would have to react to such developments. “This is their own business; they are making decisions in accordance with the national sovereignty doctrine. But we have to consider the fact that for us the NATO bloc is not simply some estranged organisation, but a structure with military potential,” the head of the Russian government said adding that under certain unfavorable scenarios this potential could be used against Russia. “All new members of the North Atlantic alliance that appear in proximity of our state eventually do change the parity of the military force. And we have to react to this,” the top official noted.»

D’autre part, et considérant d’un autre point de vue la nouvelle initiale concernant la Turquie, on admettra qu’un (nouveau) changement d’orientation sinon d’“alliance” de facto de la part d’Erdogan, prenant ses distances du bloc BAO pour s’extraire du guêpier syrien et se replacer dans un axe Moscou-Ankara-Téhéran, pourrait être de bonne politique intérieure pour lui. Cela permettrait de remobiliser puissamment les forces qui l’ont soutenu fermement jusqu’à ce qu’elles perdent un peu de leur allant avec sa politique syrienne anti-Assad, détestée par de nombreux milieux turcs, y compris dans son propre parti, y compris chez les contestataires qui occupent actuellement les rues. Il s’agirait, comme nous l’avons envisagé, d’une voie vers une “relégitimisation” d’Erdogan (voir le 10 juin 2013), qui pourrait contribuer notablement à réduire les dimensions et le dynamisme de la contestation publique.

mardi, 25 juin 2013

Выпуск XIX. Индия

Выпуск XIX. Индия

 

 

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

Файл в формате pdf: 

P. Scholl-Latour: “L’Occident s’allie avec Al-Qaeda”

“L’Occident s’allie avec Al-Qaeda”

Peter Scholl-Latour, le grand expert allemand sur le Proche et le Moyen Orient s’exprime sur la guerre civile syrienne, sur le rôle de l’Europe et des Etats-Unis, sur le programme nucléaire iranien qui suscite bien des controverses...

Entretien avec Peter Scholl-Latour

PSLatour.jpgQ.: En Syrie, l’armée vient de reprendre un bastion des rebelles, la ville de Qussayr et a enregistré d’autres succès encore. Ces victoires représentent-elles un tournant dans cette guerre civile atroce, cette fois favorable à Bechar El-Assad?

PSL: Jamais la situation n’a vraiment été critique pour le Président El-Assad, contrairement à ce qu’ont toujours affirmé nos médias. Il y a bien sûr des villages qui sont occupés par les rebelles; des frontières intérieures ont certes été formées au cours des événements mais on peut difficilement les tracer sur une carte avec précision. La Syrie ressemble dès lors à une peau de léopard. Aucun chef-lieu de province n’est tombé aux mains des rebelles, bien que bon nombre d’entre eux soient entourés de villages hostiles à El-Assad. Il est tout aussi faux d’affirmer que tous les Sunnites sont des adversaires d’El-Assad, et la chute d’une place forte stratégique aussi importante que Qussayr est bien entendu le fruit d’une coopération avec le Hizbollah libanais.

Q.: Le Liban sera-t-il encore plus impliqué dans la guerre civile syrienne qu’auparavant? 

PSL: Le Liban est profondément impliqué! Quand j’étais à Tripoli dans le Nord du pays, il y a trois ans, des coups de feu s’échangeaient déjà entre les quartiers alaouites et sunnites. La ville de Tripoli a toujours été considérée comme le principal bastion au Liban de l’islam rigoriste et, pour l’instant, on ne sait pas encore comment se positionneront vraiment les chrétiens. On peut cependant prévoir qu’ils en auront bien vite assez de la folie des rebelles syriens, dont le slogan est le suivant: “Les chrétiens à Beyrouth, les alaouites au cimetière!”.

Q.: L’UE vient encore de prolonger l’embargo sur les armes contre la Syrie, vu que l’Europe ne montre aucune unité diplomatique ou stratégique. Peut-on considérer cette posture comme un prise de position inutile de la part de l’UE?

PSL: Les Européens montrent une fois de plus une image lamentable, surtout les Français et les Anglais. Cette image lamentable, à mes yeux, se repère surtout dans la tentative maladroite des Français de prouver que le régime d’El-Assad utilise des gaz de combat, affirmation purement gratuite car il n’y a pas l’ombre d’une preuve. Cependant, les seuls qui auraient un intérêt à utiliser des gaz, même en proportions très limitées, sont les rebelles, car Obama a déclaré naguère que l’utilisation de telles armes chimiques constituerait le franchissement d’une “ligne rouge”, permettant à l’Occident d’intervenir.

Q.: L’Occident pourra-t-il encore intervenir, surtout les Etats-Unis, même sans utiliser de troupes terrestres et en imposant militairement une zone interdite aux avions d’El-Assad?

PSL: Les Américains ne sont pas prêts, pour le moment, à franchir ce pas parce qu’ils ne veulent pas s’impliquer encore davantage dans les conflits du Proche Orient et surtout parce qu’ils en ont assez du gâchis libyen. L’Occident a certes connu une forme de succès en Libye, en provoquant la chute de Khadhafi, mais le pays est plongé depuis lors dans un inextricable chaos dont ne perçoit pas la fin. En Cyrénaïque, plus précisément à Benghazi, où l’on a cru naïvement qu’un soulèvement pour la démocratie avait eu lieu, l’ambassadeur des Etats-Unis a été assassiné. On aurait parfaitement pu prévoir ce chaos car la Cyrénaïque a toujours été, dans l’histoire, la province libyenne la plus travaillée par l’islamisme radical.

On a cru tout aussi naïvement que des élections allaient amener au pouvoir un gouvernement modéré et pro-occidental, mais on n’a toujours rien vu arriver... Les luttes acharnées qui déchirent la Libye sont organisées par les diverses tribus qui ont chacune leurs visions religieuses propres.

Q.: L’Occident soutient les rebelles en Syrie tandis que la Russie se range derrière El-Assad. Peut-on en conclure que, vu les relations considérablement rafraîchies aujourd’hui entre l’Occident et la Russie, la guerre civile syrienne est une sorte de guerre russo-occidentale par partis syriens interposés?

PSL: Bien sûr qu’il s’agit d’une guerre par partis syriens interposés: les Russes se sont rangés derrière El-Assad, comme vous le dites, de même que l’Iran et le premier ministre irakien Nouri Al-Maliki. La frontière entre la Syrie et la Turquie est complètement ouverte, ce qui permet aux armes, aux volontaires anti-Assad et aux combattants d’Al Qaeda de passer en Syrie et de renforcer le camp des rebelles. De plus, en Turquie, on entraîne des combattants tchétchènes, ce qui me permet de dire que l’Occident s’est bel et bien allié à Al-Qaeda.

Q.: Quelles motivations poussent donc les Turcs? Sont-ils animés par un rêve de puissance alimenté par l’idéologie néo-ottomane?

PSL: Selon toute vraisemblance, de telles idées animent l’esprit du premier ministre turc Erdogan. Mais, depuis peu, des troubles secouent toute la Turquie, qu’il ne faut certes pas exagérer dans leur ampleur parce qu’Erdogan est bien installé au pouvoir, difficilement délogeable, ne peut être renversé. Mais les événements récents égratignent considérablement l’image de marque de la Turquie, telle qu’elle avait été concoctée pour le public européen, celle d’un pays à l’islam tolérant, exemple pour tout le monde musulman. Cette vision vient d’éclater comme une baudruche. Mais les véritables inspirateurs des rebelles syriens sont les Saoudiens, dont la doctrine wahhabite est précisément celle des talibans.

Q.: L’Autriche va retirer ses casques bleus du Golan. On peut dès lors se poser la question: la mission de l’ONU dans cette région pourra-t-elle se maintenir? Si la zone-tampon disparaît, ne peut-on pas craindre une guerre entre Israël et la Syrie?

PSL: Pour les Israéliens, ce serait stupide de déclencher une guerre, ce serait une erreur que personne ne comprendrait car depuis la fin de la guerre du Yom Kippour, il y a près de quarante ans, il n’y a pas eu le moindre incident sur la frontière du Golan. J’ai visité là-bas les casques bleus autrichiens et ils ne m’ont pas mentionné le moindre incident. Aujourd’hui toutefois les échanges de tirs ont commencé et les groupes islamistes extrémistes s’infiltrent; il vaut donc mieux que les Autrichiens, qui ont l’ordre de ne jamais tirer, se retirent au plus vite.

Q.: Mais alors une guerre entre Israéliens et Syriens devient possible...

PSL: Israël a une idée fixe: la grande menace viendrait de l’Iran, ce qui est une interprétation totalement erronée. Si les rebelles ont le dessus en Syrie, Israël aura affaire à des islamistes sunnites sur les hauteurs du Golan. Bien sûr, on me rétorquera que le Hizbollah chiite du Liban est, lui aussi, sur la frontière avec Israël, mais il faut savoir que le Hizbollah est une armée disciplinée. Sa doctrine est aussi beaucoup plus tolérante qu’on ne nous l’a dépeinte dans les médias occidentaux: par exemple, dans les régions tenues par le Hizbollah, il n’y a jamais eu de persécutions contre les chrétiens; les églises y sont ouvertes et les statues mariales y demeurent dressées. Toutes choses impensables en Arabie Saoudite, pays qui est un de nos chers alliés, auquel l’Allemagne ne cesse de fournir des chars de combat... Nous vivons à l’heure d’une hypocrisie totale.

Q.: Vous venez d’évoquer l’Iran: un changement de cap après les présidentielles est fort peu probable, surtout si la figure de proue religieuse demeure forte en la personne de Khamenei...

PSL: On a largement surestimé Ahmadinedjad. Il a certes dit quelques bêtises à propos d’Israël mais dans le monde arabe il y a bien d’autres hommes politiques qui ont dit rigoureusement la même chose, sans que les médias occidentaux n’aient jugé bon de lancer des campagnes d’hystérie. Certes, le zèle religieux est bien repérable chez les Chiites d’Iran et, dans les villes surtout, le nationalisme iranien est une force politique considérable. Si un conflit éclate, l’Iran n’est pas un adversaire qu’il s’agira de sous-estimer.

Q.: Le programme nucléaire iranien, si contesté, est aussi et surtout l’expression d’un nationalisme iranien...

PSL: On ne peut prédire si l’Iran se dotera d’un armement nucléaire ou non. Mais on peut émettre l’hypothèse qu’un jour l’Iran deviendra une puissance nucléaire. Cela ne veut pas dire que l’Iran lancera des armes atomiques contre ses voisins car Téhéran considèrera cet armement comme un atout dissuasif, comme tous les autres Etats qui en disposent. L’Iran, tout simplement, est un Etat entouré de voisins plus ou moins hostiles et aimerait disposer d’un armement atomique dissuasif.

Propos recueillis par Bernhard Tomaschitz.

(entretien paru dans “zur Zeit”, Vienne, n°24/2013).

jeudi, 20 juin 2013

EL TRATADO DE LIBRE COMERCIO ESTADOS UNIDOS – UNIÓN EUROPEA OTRO PASO HACIA LA GLOBALIZACIÓN

 

Union-Europénne-Etats-Unis.jpg

EL TRATADO DE LIBRE COMERCIO ESTADOS UNIDOS – UNIÓN EUROPEA OTRO PASO HACIA LA GLOBALIZACIÓN
 
 
Enrique Ravello
Ex: http://enricravello.blogspot.com/

Jean Baptiste Collbert, fue ministro  de fianzas de Luis XIV, el llamado “Rey Sol”, orador, inteligente, eficaz, gran parte del esplendor del reinado de Luis XIV se debió a su brillante  gestión. Collbert, impulsó una política económica llamada “colbertismo” o de forma más genérica, mercantilismo, su aplicación estuvo asociada al fortalecimiento de la monarquía absoluta y por lo tanto a la centralización del poder, y la capacidad e dirigir la economía del mismo.
El mercantilismo –aplicado también en otros estados europeos– se basa en un intervención dirigista del poder político en la actividad económica y el control de la moneda por parte del Estado, así como en la unificación del mercado interno, el aumento de la producción propia -controlando recursos naturales y mercados-,  la protección de la producción local ante la competencia extranjera, la imposición de aranceles a los productos extranjeros y el incremento de la oferta monetaria. Estas actuaciones tuvieron como finalidad última la formación de Estados lo más fuertes posible, lo que permitió un aumento de la riqueza, una mejora de la calidad de vida y el aumento de la población europea.
 
 
Proteccionismo frente a liberalismo
 
El mercantilismo como concepción tuvo su antítesis en el liberalismo, el hecho de que las potencias que defendía uno y otro modelo económico (Francia y Reino Unido) pugnasen por el dominio del comercio mundial, hizo de este enfrentamiento algo más que una cuestión ideológica. El liberalismo se fundamenta en el principio ideológico  de que  el individuo prima por encima del interés colectivo, la economía debe ser una vector independiente y alejado del control político, confiando de forma inconsciente en el “mercado” que mediante un “mecanismo invisible” (sic) autorregula sus diferencias y corrige las desigualdades sociales, de donde deriva su economicismo antipolítico. El mundo debe convertirse en un mercado mundial donde ni leyes ni estado, ni aranceles coarten su funcionamiento. No es de extrañar que los dos principales críticos del mercantilismo fueran los pensadores de referencia del liberalismo: Adam Smith y especialmente Ricardo.
La pugnas entra las dos concepciones se en el  XVIII y  XIX,  y la primera parte del siglo XX, en el que el liberalismo se fue imponiendo pero con fuertes resistencias en amplias zonas de Europa.
 
De la OMC al Tratado Interatlántico, la creación de un mercando mundial
 
Tras el final de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, se asiste a una liberalización continua del comercio mundial bajo el impulso de las grandes instituciones librecambistas y mundialistas como la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC), el Banco Mundial o el Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI). 
 
En esos años el gobierno de los Estados Unidos propone a varios otros gobiernos la convocatoria de una Conferencia Internacional sobre el Comercio. En 1947 la ONU recoge esta iniciativa, eligiendo la ciudad de La Habana para celebrarla, en esa reunión establece el Acuerdo General de Arancel y Comercio (GATT), suscrito finalmente en Ginebra el 30 de octubre 1947 por 30 estados. Este GATT se basa en el principio del libre comercio internacional y en la progresiva supresión de aranceles y medidas proteccionista.  El GATT ha organizado sucesivas rondas en las que ha ido modelando su política neoliberal y aumentando el número de países firmantes. En la última ronda (Uruguay-Marrakesch 1986-1993) el número de estados firmantes llega a 120 y se constituye la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC) organismo que encargado de unificar las nomenclaturas arancelarias y de promover el librecambio a nivel mundial, los gobiernos de los estos miembros de OMC obedecen ciegamente las instrucciones de la OMC cuyo fin es la unificación del mercado mundial; hay que destacar que  Bruselas (UE) destaca en este nivel de sumisión al GATT, a pesar de ser Europa la zona más perjudica del mundo en la aplicación de  las directrices que emana de este organismo,  dejando a nuestras economías sin defensa ante el dumping social y económico de los productos llegados desde el tercer mundo.
 
Es en esta doble dinámica -creación de un mercado mundial y empobrecimiento de la economía europea- en el que se sitúa el nuevo Tratado de Libre Comercio entre la UE y EEUU, en cuyo texto se incluyen artículo que dicen cosas de este tipo:
 
Una estrecha asociación transatlántica es un instrumento clave para favorecer la mundializaicón basada en nuestros valores comunes y en la perspectiva  de un orden mundial equilibrado en materia económica y política.(Ya sabemos la idea de “equilibro” que tienen las élites mundialistas)
…reforzar el proceso de integración económica transatlántico… mediante la adopción de un marco en el que progresar en la integración económica entre la UE y los EEUU mediante la creación de un Consejo Económico Transatlántico (CET)
El acuerdo ya ha recibido la “luz verde” por parte de David Cameron y Angela Merkel tras la visita del secretario de Estado norteamericano, John Kerry en gira por Europa, que también le llevó a París donde fue recibido con fumata blanca por el sumiso François Hollande, que prometió también el apoyo de Francia al nuevo tratado.
 
El acuerdo, además de perpetuar la sumisión económica y política de la UE ante EEUU, pretende eliminar las restricciones europeas sobre la importación y comercialización de productos OMG, las desregularización en materia de protección de datos en favor de compañías como Google, Facebook o Amazoon, así como la derogación de la legislación en materia de medio ambiente y no contaminación.
 
En su sitio de internet el político y sociólogo Vicenç Navarro se sorprende la poca atención mediática que está teniendo la aprobación de esta tratado, que –como el también afirma– tendrá fatales consecuencias sobre la capacidad económica y calidad de vida de las clases populares de la UE. Navarro señala que –como siempre ocurre en este tipo de tratados– los únicos beneficiados serán las grandes empresas financieras y de servicios, cuyos lobbies presionan en Washington y Bruselas para acelerar la firma del proyecto. Además el Tratado prohibirá el monopolio de los servicios públicos, como en el terreno de la sanidad por ejemplo, lo que dejará abierta la puerta abierta al desmantelamiento de la Seguridad Social y la privatización total del sector.
 
Que la clase dirigente europea esté dispuesta a aceptar y firmar este Tratado que condena a la economía europea a la sumisión, provocará la pauperización de nuestra clases medias y populares, autorizará el desmoronamiento del sector público y permitirá atentados contra nuestra salud, es una prueba más de la necesidad de un cambio de paradigma político profundo y urgente en clava ecologista, social e identitaria.
 
Enric Ravello
Secretario de relaciones nacionales e internacionales de Plataforma per Catalunya.

vendredi, 14 juin 2013

M. Drac : Enjeux géopolitiques pour l'avenir

Entretien avec Michel Drac :

Enjeux géopolitiques pour l'avenir

War and Water

War and Water: Hydropolitics Propel Balkanization in Africa

Ex: http://www.globalresearch.ca/

Wherever there are reports of melting glaciers and a future of diminished water resources, there is an increasing Balkanization of nation-states. Those who manipulate world events for maximum profit understand that it is much easier to control water resources if one is dealing with a multitude of warring and jealous mini-states than it is to deal with a regional power…

The Nile Basin is seeing record fragmentation of nation-states by secessionist and other rebel movements, some backed by the United States and its Western allies and others backed by Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Yet other secessionist groups are backed by regional rivals such as Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda, and Sudan.

Ethiopia has announced that its Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam project on the Blue Nile will begin diverting the Blue Nile at the end of 2014. Ethiopia’s decision has set off alarm bells down river in Sudan and Egypt, which are both critically dependent on the Nile for drinking water, irrigation, and in the case of Egypt’s Aswan High Dam, electric power. A 1959 agreement between Egypt and Sudan guarantees Egypt 70 percent and Sudan 30 percent of the Nile’s water flow.

Egypt’s government has warned Ethiopia, a historical rival, not to restrict the Nile water flow to the extent that it would adversely affect the Aswan Dam or Egypt’s water supply. Sudan has voiced similar warnings. Cairo and Khartoum are also aware that their mutual enemy, Israel, has close relations with Ethiopia and the Republic of South Sudan, the world’s newest nation. The independence of South Sudan would not have been possible without the backing of Israel’s leading neo-conservative allies in Washington and London.

The White Nile flows from the Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, through Uganda and South Sudan, to Sudan. Egypt and Sudan have also been concerned about Israel’s heavy presence in South Sudan. The South Sudanese secession put tremendous pressure on the future territorial integrity of Sudan, which faces additional Western- and Israeli-backed breakaway movements in Darfur and northeastern Sudan.

Independence for South Sudan was long a goal of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and her god-daughter, current U.S. ambassador to the UN Susan Rice. The splitting of Sudan into an Arab Muslim north and a black Christian and animist south was also long a goal of Israel, which yearned for a client state in South Sudan that would be able to squeeze the supply of the Nile’s headwaters to Egypt and north Sudan.

South Sudan’s independence was cobbled together so rapidly, its Western sponsors were not even sure, at first, what to call the country. Although South Sudan was finally agreed upon, other proposals were to call the nation the «Nile Republic» or «Nilotia,» which were rejected because of the obvious threatening meaning that such names would send to Cairo and Khartoum.

 

 

The names «Cush» or «Kush» were also rejected because of their reference to the land of Cush that appears in the Jewish Bible and the obvious meaning that such a name would have for those who accuse Israel of wanting to expand its borders beyond the borders of the Palestinian mandate. «New Sudan» was also rejected because of implied irredentist claims by South Sudan on the contested oil-rich Abyei region between Sudan and South Sudan.

Egypt has been lending quiet support to Ethiopian and Somali secessionists, which Cairo sees as a counterweight to Ethiopian neo-imperialist designs in the Horn of Africa. Although Ethiopia maintains good relations with the breakaway Republic of Somaliland, Addis Ababa does not want to see Somalia fragmented any further. But that is exactly what is desired by Cairo to keep Ethiopia’s military and revenues preoccupied with an unstable and collapsing neighbor to the east.

Two other parts of Somalia, Puntland and Jubaland, also spelled Jubbaland, have declared separatist states. Jubaland should not be confused with the capital of South Sudan, Juba, which is being relocated to Ramciel, close to the border with Sudan. However, all this confusion and map redrawing is a result of increasing hydropolitics in the region, as well as the ever-present turmoil caused by the presence of oil and natural gas reserves. The Rahanweyn Resistance Army is fighting for an independent state of Southwestern Somalia.

Somaliland has its own secessionist movement in the western part of the country, an entity called Awdalland, which is believed to get some support from neighboring Djibouti, the site of the U.S. military base at Camp Lemonier.

Ethiopian troops, supported by the African Union and the United States, are trying to prop up Somalia’s weak Federal government but Somalia’s fracturing continues unabated with Kenya supporting a semi-independent entity called «Azania» in a part of Jubaland in Somalia.

There are also a number of nascent separatist movements in Ethiopia, many being brutally suppressed by the Ethiopian government with military assistance from the United States, Britain, and Israel. Some of these movements are backed by Eritrea, which, itself, broke away from Ethiopia two decades ago. Chief among the groups are the Ogadenis, who want a Somali state declared in eastern Ethiopia and the Oromo, who dream of an independent Oromia.

Ethiopia’s ruling dictatorship has tried to placate the Oromos and Ogadenis with peace talks but these moves are seen as window dressing to placate Ethiopia’s benefactors in Washington and London.

However, separatist movements throughout the Horn of Africa took pleasure in the advent of South Sudan because they saw the «inviolability» of colonial-drawn borders, long insisted upon by the Organization of African Unity and the African Union, finally beginning to wither. In fact, that process began with Eritrea’s independence in 1993. Eritrea also faces its own secessionist movement, the Red Sea Afars. The Afars also maintain separatist movements in Ethiopia and Djibouti, the latter having once been known as the French Territory of the Afars and Issas.

In another U.S. ally, Kenya, the homeland of President Barack Obama’s father, Muslims along the coast have dusted off the Sultan of Zanzibar’s 1887 lease to the British East Africa Company of the 10-mile strip of land along the present Indian Ocean coast of Kenya. Legally, when the lease expired the strip was to revert back to control of the sultan. Since the Sultan was ousted in a 1964 coup, the coastal Kenyans argue that the coastal strip was annexed illegally by Kenya and that, therefore, the coastal strip should be the independent Republic of Pwani. The discovery of major oil and natural gas reserves in Uganda and South Sudan has resulted in plans for pipelines to be built to the port of Mombasa, the would-be capital of Pwani on the Indian Ocean. In Kenya, hydropolitics and petropolitics in the Horn of Africa has resulted in Balkanization spilling into Kenya.

In the Himalayas, glacier retreat and rapidly diminishing snow cover are also adding to hydropolitical angst and fueling separatist movements backed by the bigger powers in the region: India, China, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Snow melt is now being seen in some parts of the Himalayas in December and January. Four dams on the Teesta River, which flows from Sikkim through north Bengal to the Brahmaputra basin, have not only affected the geo-political situation in Sikkim, which has nascent independence and Nepali irredentist movements, but also helps to fuel demands for increased autonomy for Gorkhaland, Bodoland, and Assam, an independent Madhesistan in southern Nepal, an ethnic Nepali revolt in southern Bhutan, and consternation in Bangladesh, where the Brahmaputra and Ganges converge to largely support a country with a population of 161 million people. Bangladesh has also seen its share of secessionist movements, including the Bangabhumi Hindu and the Chittagong Hill Tracts movements.

Hydropolitics, petropolitics, and the status quo, like water and oil, do not mix, especially when it comes to the preservation of current borders. Northeastern Africa and South Asia are not unique in this respect.

L'Afrique réelle nos. 41 & 42

bernard-lugan.jpg

L'Afrique Réelle N°42 - Juin 2013

 
SOMMAIRE :
 
 
Dossier : Côte d’Ivoire, tous les problèmes demeurent
 
 
- Une situation politique complexe
- Les forces du désordre
 
 
Dossier : Le Sahelistan du Nigeria
 
 
- Une situation explosive amplifiée par l’inversion des rapports de force Nord-Sud
 
 
- La question du saillant de Jos
- Boko Haram et la tentative de création d'un Etat théocratique
- Radicalisation islamique et charia
 

 Editorial de Bernard Lugan :
 
Au Mali, durant une vingtaine de jours de combats dans la région des Iforas, dont presque une semaine d’accrochages continus, les forces françaises se sont heurtées à la farouche résistance de petits groupes de combattants organisés en deux lignes de défense, sans possibilité de recul, et qui laissèrent plus de 150 des leurs sur le terrain.
Cette manœuvre de retardement permit à l’essentiel des combattants islamistes qui occupaient le nord du Mali de se réfugier en Libye. Là se trouve aujourd’hui leur base d’action d’où ils peuvent, à tout moment, lancer des opérations dans l’ensemble de la zone sahélienne.

Le président nigérien Mahamadou Issoufou fut le premier à rompre le mur du silence, déclarant que les auteurs de l’attentat meurtrier du 23 mai qui a frappé son pays venaient de Libye. Toutes les forces de déstabilisation se sont en effet regroupées dans le sud de ce pays où elles disposent d’un véritable sanctuaire puisque l’Etat libyen n’existe plus.

Comme je le disais dans un précédent communiqué, ceux qui ont lancé la France dans la guerre civile libyenne portent toute la responsabilité de la situation actuelle.
Celle du président Sarkozy est double car, après avoir renversé le colonel Kadhafi, il est demeuré passif quand, au mois de janvier 2012, au Mali, il était impératif de fixer et de traiter l’abcès islamiste afin d’éviter sa dissémination. Au lieu de cela, dans la plus totale indécision doublée d’un manque absolu de vision géostratégique, la France a camouflé sa démission derrière l’argument d’une « action » militaire de la CEDEAO.

Avec une grande continuité dans l’incompétence, le président Hollande laissa ensuite les islamistes liquider militairement les Touareg tout en affirmant que la France n’interviendrait en aucun cas, ce qui fut un encouragement donné aux jihadistes. Cependant, et heureusement, à la différence de son prédécesseur, François Hollande a fini par écouter les militaires et a ordonné l’opération Serval. Mais cette nécessaire intervention était trop tardive car la dissémination terroriste s’était produite.

Aujourd’hui, le Niger, le Tchad et le Cameroun sont menacés, mais c’est au Nigeria que la situation est la plus explosive. Dans cet Etat mastodonte et fragmenté où les antagonismes nord-sud peuvent à n’importe quel moment déboucher sur un conflit de grande envergure, les islamistes disposent en effet d’un terreau favorable ; à telle enseigne que c’est une véritable guerre que l’armée fédérale mène actuellement contre les fondamentalistes de Boko Haram qui contrôlent une partie du nord du pays.
 

L'Afrique Réelle N° 41 - Mai 2013

 
SOMMAIRE :
 
Dossier : Les guerres de Libye depuis 2011
- La première guerre de Libye (février - octobre 2011)
- Les autres guerres de Libye
 
Histoire : Une traite qu'il est bon ton de passer sous silence : l'esclavage arabo-musulman en Afrique
- Les trois pôles de la traite arabo-musulmane
- La lutte contre la traite arabo-zanzibarite
- La traite arabo-musulmane : quel bilan chiffré ?
 
Editorial de Bernard Lugan :
 
Les vrais responsables de l’anarchie libyenne

Il aura donc fallu l’attentat à la voiture piégée qui a visé l’ambassade de France à Tripoli le 23 avril dernier pour que la presse française découvre enfin que la Libye n’existe plus comme Etat.
Depuis cet attentat, et alors que, jusque là, les perroquets répétaient que le pays était en voie de stabilisation et de démocratisation, son état réel illustre chaque  jour un peu plus leur psittacisme. C’est ainsi que tout le sud du pays est devenu une zone grise dans laquelle évoluent les terroristes chassés du Mali par l’opération Serval. Ailleurs, l’incapacité de l’Etat atteint des proportions inouïes avec le siège mis devant certains ministères par des groupes de miliciens écartés du partage des dépouilles opimes enlevées au colonel Kadhafi. Sans parler de la quasi sécession de la Cyrénaïque, déchirée par une guerre civile et religieuse.

Si, comme le disait Charles Maurras « une politique se juge à ses résultats », le bilan du duo Sarkozy-BHL dans cette affaire est donc particulièrement accablant. En ayant immiscé la France dans une guerre civile alors que ses intérêts n’étaient pas en jeu, le politique et le « philosophe » ont en effet offert la victoire aux délinquants de toutes sortes et aux fondamentalistes islamistes qui se battent au grand jour pour récupérer des miettes de pouvoir.
Pour des raisons encore inconnues, le prétexte « humanitaire » étant une fable destinée aux enfants de l’école maternelle, Nicolas Sarkozy a renversé un chef d’Etat qui n’était certes pas un modèle de vertu, mais qui, dans le combat contre le fondamentalisme islamiste était devenu son allié. Un chef d’Etat fantasque et imprévisible, mais qui, après avoir agité la région sahélienne en était devenu un élément stabilisateur. Un chef d’Etat ancien soutien du terrorisme, mais qui, là encore, s’était mis à le combattre. Un chef d’Etat qui était un partenaire essentiel dans la lutte contre l’immigration clandestine et ses parrains mafieux. Un chef d’Etat qui avait fait croire que la Libye existait alors qu’il ne s’agit que d’une mosaïque tribalo-régionale.
Un chef d’Etat enfin qui ne risquera pas de faire des révélations « gênantes » lors d’un procès. Sa tête ayant été mise à prix comme celle d’un vulgaire délinquant de droit commun, il fut en effet liquidé après avoir été torturé et sodomisé par les doux démocrates de la milice de Misrata… Ces mêmes miliciens avaient été sauvés de justesse quelques mois auparavant par une audacieuse opération menée par des commandos français. La seule de ce genre et de cette importance durant toute la guerre, l’intervention française dans le djebel Nefusa ayant été de nature différente. Là encore, une autre question se pose elle aussi restée sans réponse à ce jour : pourquoi, et alors que d’autres objectifs étaient militairement plus importants, le président Sarkozy a-t-il ordonné de dégager les miliciens de Misrata ?

Bernard Lugan

jeudi, 13 juin 2013

Europe, Globalization and Metapolitics

 

Robert Steuckers:

Europe, Globalization and Metapolitics

Questions by Leonid Savin (April/May 2013)

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

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

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

Interviewed by Leonid Savin

dimanche, 09 juin 2013

Gatestone Instituut: VS helpt herstel Turks-Ottomaans Rijk

Gatestone Instituut: VS helpt herstel Turks-Ottomaans Rijk

Ook Duitsland promoot op achtergrond nieuw Turks-islamitisch imperium


Fethullah Gulen streeft openlijk naar een hersteld islamitisch Turks-Ottomaans Rijk (groen op het kaartje - in al deze gebieden hebben Amerikaanse militaire interventies plaatsgevonden).

Robert Kaplan, historicus en analist bij het onafhankelijke non-profit Gatestone Institute dat zich specialiseert in nieuws dat door de reguliere media wordt genegeerd en onderdrukt, schrijft dat de Verenigde Staten met zowel politieke als militaire middelen meewerken aan het herstel van het Turks-Ottomaanse Rijk. Bijna alle Amerikaanse operaties op de Balkan, in Noord Afrika en het Midden Oosten, inclusief het aanstichten van de Arabische Lente, waren en zijn bedoeld om de heroprichting van het islamitische Kalifaat mogelijk te maken.

Amerikaanse pro-moslim bombardementen

Sinds het midden van de jaren '90 heeft de VS in meerdere conflicten in Europa en het Midden Oosten militair ingegrepen. In 1995 bombardeerden de Amerikanen de Serviërs en Servië om daarmee het moslimregime van Izetbegovic in Bosnië te steunen. In 1999 bombardeerden ze opnieuw de Serviërs, deze keer om de opkomst van de KLA moslims in Kosovo te faciliteren. In 2010 werd de Libische president Gadaffi gebombardeerd zodat islamistische, aan al-Qaeda verbonden rebellen de macht konden overnemen.

Iedere interventie werd gerechtvaardigd vanwege zogenaamde 'humanitaire' redenen: eerst moesten de Bosnische moslims, en later de Kosovo moslims, worden beschermd tegen de 'genocidale' Serven, en daarna moesten de Libiërs ineens worden beschermd tegen hun 'wrede dictator' Muammar Gadaffi.

Delen Ottomaans Rijk 'bevrijd'

Andere redenen die in het Westen werden aangevoerd waren onder andere het verkrijgen van een strategische positie op de Balkan, het communisme in Joegoslavië verslaan, aan de moslims wereldwijd laten zien dat de VS niet anti-islam is, en om de rol van de NAVO na de Koude Oorlog te herdefiniëren.

Iedere Amerikaanse interventie vond plaats in een land of gebied dat vroeger deel uitmaakte van het Ottomaanse Rijk. En overal werd een seculier regime vervangen door islamisten die de Sharia willen invoeren en streven naar een wereldwijd islamitisch Kalifaat. De landen die sinds het begin van de Arabische Lente zonder Amerikaans militair ingrijpen door islamisten werden overgenomen, Tunesië en Egypte, behoorden eveneens tot het Ottomaanse Rijk.

VS volgt steeds hetzelfde recept

Met uitzondering van Irak volgde en volgt Washington overal hetzelfde recept: eerst ontstaat er een gewelddadig binnenlands conflict in het land waar de interventie moet gaan plaatsvinden. De 'goeden' zijn altijd de rebellen, de 'kwaden' zijn 'wrede antidemocratische onderdrukkers' die zich schuldig maken aan 'oorlogsmisdaden'. Internationale organisaties, mensenrechtenactivisten en gerespecteerde publieke figuren worden vervolgens ingezet om op te roepen tot ingrijpen.

De Amerikaanse president gaat dan over tot het verlenen van logistieke steun en het leveren van wapens aan de rebellen. De laatste stap is het uitvoeren van bombardementen vanuit de lucht en vanaf zee (met kruisraketten), allemaal onder auspiciën van de NAVO en telkens onder het mom van het 'beschermen van de burgerbevolking'. Steun van de VN-veiligheidsraad is mooi meegenomen, maar wordt niet noodzakelijk geacht. De door Amerika en de EU gewenste uitkomst is dat onafhankelijk opererende, voornamelijk seculiere regimes worden vervangen door Sharia-islamisten.

Ook Duitsers steunen herstel Turks imperium

Net zoals de Balkanconflicten in de jaren '90 en de 'Arabische Lente' sinds 2010 in historisch perspectief aangeven dat Turkije bezig lijkt te proberen zijn voormalige imperium te herstellen, blijkt uit historisch perspectief tevens dat ook Duitsland de Turken hierin steunen. Al vanaf het allereerste begin in 1870 beschouwden de Duitsers het Turkse imperium als een zeer waardevolle bondgenoot.

Duitse leiders vonden dat Turkije gecontroleerd kon worden door een combinatie van economische banden, het verhogen van het opleidingsniveau, het verstrekken van technische kennis en administratieve hulp en het omkopen van Turkse officials. Duitsland beschouwde invloed op Turkije als een middel om moslims wereldwijd voor zijn eigen belangen te beïnvloeden. Gedurende de Eerste Wereldoorlog steunden de Duitsers dan ook het Turkse Kalifaat en stimuleerden ze de jihad in gebieden waar de moslimbevolking werd geregeerd door de toenmalige vijanden Rusland, Frankrijk, Groot Brittannië en Servië.

Tijdens WO-1 hielpen de Duitsers dus de Ottomaanse Turken, en tijdens WO-2 sloot de opvolger van de Ottomanen, de Moslim Broederschap, een alliantie met Adolf Hitler.

VS beschermt gevaarlijkste islamist ter wereld

Sinds de regering Clinton lijkt het er sterk op dat de VS een vergelijkbaar patroon volgt door het steunen van de 'wedergeboorte' van het Turks-Ottomaanse Rijk. Clinton begon daarmee, Bush gaf vervolgens de Moslim Broederschap -ook in eigen land- vrij baan, en Obama heeft het hele programma vervolgens in de allerhoogste versnelling gezet.

Sterke aanwijzing is het feit dat de Turkse imam Fethullah Gulen, die door velen wordt beschouwd als de gevaarlijkste islamist ter wereld, al jaren veilig en beschermd in de VS woont. In 1998 vluchtte Gulen naar Amerika omdat hij door de toen nog seculiere Turkse regering werd beschuldigd van het aanstichten van een opstand. In 2000 werd hij hiervoor bij verstek veroordeeld. Nadat de islamistische AK Partij van premier Erdogan aan de macht kwam werd hij in 2008 weer vrijgesproken. In datzelfde jaar besloot Amerika dat Gulen gewoon in de VS mocht blijven en zwaaide oud-president Clinton hem zelfs alle lof toe.

Turkije recept voor Europa en Amerika

Gulen heeft over de hele wereld madrassahs (speciale islamitische scholen) opgericht waarin openlijk wordt geleerd dat de moslims geduldig moeten wachten totdat ze sterk genoeg zijn om in Amerika en Europa de macht over te nemen. De islamistische machtsovername in Turkije vormt hiervoor het succesvolle recept, ook al staat Gulens geestverwant Erdogan op dit moment onder druk door massale gewelddadige protesten.

De AKP staat totaal onder controle van Gulen. Hetzelfde geldt voor een groot deel van de Turkse media, financiële instituten, banken en zakenorganisaties. Zowel Erdogan als president Abdullah Gul behoren tot zijn volgelingen. De AKP heeft er binnen enkele jaren voor gezorgd dat Turkije het land met naar verhouding de meeste moskeeën (85.000) en imams (90.000) ter wereld werd. Omdat er een wereldwijde machtsgreep door de islam wordt gepromoot zijn Gulens scholen in Rusland en Oezbekistan verboden.

'Leugens geoorloofd om Westen over te nemen'

Gulen volgt het typerende islamitische recept: tegenover de niet-moslims tolerantie en dialoog verkondigen, en tegen het eigen publiek iets totaal anders: 'Om de ideale moslimmaatschappij te vestigen is iedere methode en ieder pad geoorloofd, inclusief het vertellen van leugens.' In een preek voor de Turkse TV zei hij dat de moslims zich 'onopgemerkt in de slagaders van het (Westerse) systeem moeten begeven, totdat jullie alle machtscentra hebben bereikt.... De tijd is nu nog niet rijp. Jullie moeten wachten totdat jullie de macht van de wetgevende instanties aan jullie kant hebben.'

Zowel in de VS als in Europa bevinden we ons in Gullens 'afwacht'fase - nog wel. Moslims in het Westen presenteren zich nog als 'vreedzaam' en krijgen ruim baan, waardoor moskeeën en islamitische scholen als paddenstoelen uit de grond kunnen schieten. In Amerika zijn met overheidssubsidie al meer dan 90 van Gullens radicaal-islamitische madrassahs geopend, waar jonge moslims worden voorbereid op het sluipend overnemen van de wetgevende- en regeringsinstellingen, iets dat vooral duidelijk zichtbaar is geworden in de regering Obama.

Gullen vergaarde al ruim $ 30 miljard dollar om zijn ultieme droom te kunnen waarmaken: de vernietiging van binnenuit van de Westerse democratieën en de oprichting van een groot islamitisch wereldrijk onder Turks bestuur. En daar krijgt hij al sinds de jaren '90 van uitgerekend de Verenigde Staten alle ruimte en medewerking voor, zelfs militair.

Xander 

(1) Walid Shoebat / Gatestone Institute

Zie ook o.a.:

23-03: Turkse minister BuZa: Wij zullen weer heersen van Sarajevo tot Damascus
21-03: Jordaanse koning waarschuwt het Westen voor Turkse premier Erdogan
12-03: Duitse geheime dienst: Turkije werkt al jaren aan kernwapens
01-03: Turkse premier Erdogan: Israël en kritiek op islam zijn misdaden tegen mensheid
02-02: Turkse minister BuZa roept Syrië op Israël aan te vallen

2012:

15-08: Manifest Saudisch koningshuis wijst stafchef Clinton aan als moslim infiltrant
28-07: Congresleden eisen onderzoek naar infiltratie Moslim Broederschap in regering Obama
04-07: Turkse rechter: ' ... Erdogan en president Gül jagen het Ottomaanse Rijk na'
18-06: Turkije wil terugkeer machtigste en gevaarlijkste islamist ter wereld
18-04: Turkse regering gaat miljoenen Turken in Europa mobiliseren (/ Turkse vicepremier gaat extreem islamistische Gülen beweging inzetten)

2011:

18-08: 'Obama heeft drie leden Moslim Broederschap in Witte Huis'
12-07: Turkije wil leger verdubbelen naar 1 miljoen man (/ Erdogan impliceert nieuw Ottomaans Rijk inclusief Sarajevo en Jeruzalem)
09-06: Turkse opperrechter: Erdogan is tiran en wil sultan van het Midden Oosten worden
09-05: Obama kiest Moslim Broederschap als nieuwe bondgenoot Midden Oosten

2010:

09-12: WikiLeaks (8): Turkije wil Europa islamiseren via lidmaatschap EU (/ 'Wraak op Europa vanwege nederlaag bij Wenen')
08-04: Gevaarlijkste islamist ter wereld is een Turk en leeft veilig in Amerika

2008:

03-11: Islamitische profetie wijst naar Obama als helper van de mahdi

samedi, 08 juin 2013

Finnish-Caucasian Emirate

Finnish-Caucasian Emirate

by Nikolai MALISHEVSKI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Euro-Atlantism must be replaced by Eurasianism

Euro-Atlantism must be replaced by Eurasianism

by Gabor VONA

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Thank you for the opportunity.

By Leonid Savin

vendredi, 07 juin 2013

Vers un monde tripolaire ?

Vers un monde tripolaire ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

mercredi, 05 juin 2013

M. Ochsenreiter: Turkish Revolution

chefredakteur.jpg

Turkish revolution

An interview with Manuel Ochsenreiter

 

Natella Speranskaya:  The national revolution has started in Turkey. What are the forces behind it? Who is fighting who?

 

Manuel Ochsenreiter:  The demonstrations and riots in the Turkish cities show the deep gap within the Turkish society. But is it really a „national revolution“? Right now it seems that all the groups opposing Erdogan and also his AKP party are a quite colourful mix of ideologies and ideas. There are demonstrating Turkish nationalists as well as communists; we see flags of the labour unions and many other groups. But we shouldn´t forget that Erdogan and his party never had the support of those people who are uprising now.

 

One problem: We get all the information about the situation in Turkey right now via the western mainstream media stations. The western commentators and politicians are celebrating the so called „Turkish civil society“. In Germany for example almost all the established political parties gave statements that they support the demonstrators. In the mainstream media you will not find many nationalists or communists in interviews, but many westernized „activists“.

 

Natella Speranskaya:  How is the Turkish revolution related to the geopolitical opposition of Eurasianism (Russia, Iran, Syria) and atlantism (NATO, USA, EU)?

 

Manuel Ochsenreiter:  What we witness right now in Istanbul doesn´t seem to have a lot to do with geopolitical contents. There are of course groups and parties involved who are strongly against an atlantist agenda.

 

But we shouldn´t forget one important thing: The interest of the corporate media began a couple of days ago when the demonstrators in Istanbul clashed with the Turkish police. But in Turkey there are big demonstrations against Erdogan’s aggressive politics against Syria. Those protests have indeed a dominating geopolitical message. The protesters say: „We are on the wrong side of the conflict, we shouldn´t support the western-Islamistic joint venture to overthrow the Syrian government. We should support Syria against the aggressors.” They even criticised in a harsh way the NATO-membership of Turkey. But western mainstream media was not broadcasting those demonstrations, maybe because the message of the demonstrators doesn´t fit into the political guidelines.

 

Ironically, the west promoted the „Turkish model“- the AKP-government – as a role model for the so-called „Arab Spring“ countries. The elements are: moderate Islamism, friendship with Israel, strong ties with the western-transatlantic world. Western politicians always said: “Look to Turkey, there it functions so well!” Today we can say: Obviously it doesn´t.

 

Natella Speranskaya:  Your prognosis of the development of events in Turkey and how it will effect the situation in Syria?

 

Manuel Ochsenreiter:  This is hard to say. We know right now that there might be also an inner conflict within the AKP going on. The Turkish president Abdullah Gül critizised Prime Minister Erdogan in public. What does that mean for Erdogan’s authority and his political future? The guidelines for Turkish politics towards Syria are not written in Ankara, but by the NATO-“partners“. Erdogan turned Turkey within the last two years into a military base for terrorists, mercenaries, djihadists, and simple criminals, who went to Syria to fight against the regime. Turkey gives them support even when they are in Syria. Turkey supports organized theft of industrial compounds from Syria and the transport via the Turkish border. Erdogan tried a couple of times to provoke a conventional war against Syria. When we talk about all those acts of aggression against Syria we shouldn´t forget one important detail: Erdogan is not just supporting the violence against Syrian civilians but also against his own citizens. The bomb explosions in the Turkish city Reyhanli killed 51 people, and 140 more were injured. Erdogan blamed the Syrian secret service, but we know today from leaked documents of the Turkish intelligence that the Al-Qaida affiliated group „Nusra Front“  was responsible for that horrible attack, exactly those same extremists Erdogan provides support to and a safe haven.

 

So what might happen if Erdogan resigns? Will the Turkish politics all of a sudden change? Will it be an AKP inside change? Would a change in the Turkish government automatically mean that the state changes its geopolitical program? Would the west accept this? I deeply doubt.  

lundi, 03 juin 2013

John Morgan: The Fourth Political Theory

The Fourth Political Theory

An interview with John Morgan

Natella Speranskaya:  How did you discover the Fourth Political Theory? And how would you evaluate its chances of becoming a major ideology of the 21st century?

JM:  I have been interested in the work of Prof. Dugin since I first discovered English translations of his writings at the Arctogaia Web sites in the late 1990s. So I had already heard of the Fourth Political Theory even before my publishing house, Arktos, agreed to publish his book of the same name. In editing the translation of the book, I became intimately familiar with Prof. Dugin’s concept. According to him, the Fourth Political Theory is more of a question than an ideology at this point. It is easier to identify what it is not, which is opposed to everything represented by liberalism, and which will transcend the failures of Marxism and fascism. In recent decades, many people have been heralding the “death of ideology.” Carl Schmitt predicted this, saying that the last battle would take place between those who wish to reject the role of politics in civilization, and those who understand the need for it. The death of ideology, I believe, is simply the exhaustion of those political systems that are founded on liberalism. This does not mean that politics itself has ended, but only that a new system is required. The Fourth Political Theory offers the best chance to take what is best from the old ideologies and combine them with new ideas, to create the new vision that will carry humanity into the next age. Although we can’t say with certainty what that will look like, as of yet. But it should be obvious to everyone that the current ideology has already run its course.

NS:  Leo Strauss when commenting on the fundamental work of Carl Schmitt The Concept of the Political notes that despite all radical critique of liberalism incorporated in it Schmitt does not follow it through since his critique remains within the scope of liberalism”. “His anti-Liberal tendencies, – claims Strauss, - remain constrained by “systematics of liberal thought” that has not been overcome so far, which – as Schmitt himself admits – “despite all failures cannot be substituted by any other system in today’s Europe. What would you identify as a solution to the problem of overcoming the liberal discourse? Could you consider the Fourth Political Theory by Alexander Dugin to be such a solution? The theory that is beyond the three major ideologies of the 20th century – Liberalism, Communism and Fascism, and that is against the Liberal doctrine.

JM:  Yes, definitely. The unsustainably and intellectual poverty of liberalism in Europe, and also America, is becoming more apparent with each passing day. Clearly a new solution is needed. Prof. Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory, as he has explained in his book of the same title, is more of a question than an ideology at this point, and it is up to those of us who are attempting to defy unipolar hegemony to determine what it will be. So, yes, we need a new ideology, even if we cannot yet explain exactly what it will be in practice. I think Prof. Dugin’s idea of taking Heidegger’s Dasein as our watchword is a good one, because we are so entrenched in the liberal mindset – even those of us who want to overcome it – that it is only be re-engaging with the pure essence of the reality of the world around us that we will find a way out of it. The representational, virtual reality of postmodernism which surrounds most of us on a daily basis has conditioned us to only think about liberalism on its own terms. Only by renewing our contact with the real, non-representational world, and by disregarding all previous concepts and labels, can we find the seeds for a new way of apprehending it.

NS:  Do you agree that today there are “two Europes”: the one – the liberal one (incorporating the idea of “open society”, human rights, registration of same-sex marriages, etc.) and the other Europe (“a different Europe”) – politically engaged, thinker, intellectual, spiritual, the one that considers the status quo and domination of liberal discourse as a real disaster and the betrayal of the European tradition. How would you evaluate chances of victory of a “different Europe” over the ”first” one?

JM:  Speaking as an American outsider, I absolutely see two Europes. The surface Europe is one that has turned itself into a facsimile of America – the free market, democracy, multiculturalism, secularism, pop culture, sacrificing genuine identity for fashions, and so on. The other Europe is much more difficult to see, but I have the good fortune of having many friends who dwell within it. This is the undercurrent that has refused to accept the Americanization of Europe, and which also rejects the liberal hegemony in all its forms. They remain true to the ancient spirit of Europe’s various peoples and cultures, while also dreaming of a new Europe that will be strong, independent and creative once again. We see this in the New Right, in the identitarian movement, and in the many nationalist groups across Europe that have sprung up in recent years. As of now, their influence is small, but as the global situation gets worse, I believe they will gain the upper hand, as more Europeans will become open to the idea of finding new solutions and new ways of living, disassociated from the collapsing hegemonic order. So I estimate their chances as being very good. Although they must begin acting now, even before the “collapse,” if they are to rescue their identities from oblivion, since the “real” Europe is fast being driven out of existence by the forces of liberalism.

NS:  “There is nothing more tragic than a failure to understand the historical moment we are currently going through; - notes Alain de Benoist – this is the moment of postmodern globalization”. The French philosopher emphasizes the significance of the issue of a new Nomos of the Earth or a way of establishing international relations. What do you think the fourth Nomos will be like? Would you agree that the new Nomos is going to be Eurasian and multipolar (transition from universum to pluriversum)?

JM:  Yes, I do agree. In terms of what it will look like, see my answer to question 4 in the first set of questions.

NS:  Do you agree that the era of the white European human race has ended, and the future will be predetermined by Asian cultures and societies?

JM:  If you mean the era of the domination of White Europeans (although of course that comprises many diverse and unique identities in itself), and those of European descent such as in America, over the entire world, then yes, that era is coming to an end, and has been, gradually, since the First World War. As for the fate of White Europeans in our own homelands, that is also an open question, given the lack of genuine culture and diminishing reproductive rates of Whites around the world, coupled with large-scale non-White immigration into our homelands. While I welcome the end of White hegemony, which overall hasn’t been good for anyone, most especially for Whites themselves, as an American of European descent I do fear the changes that are taking place in our lands. As the thinkers of the “New Right” such as Alain de Benoist have said, if we stand for the preservation of the distinct identities of all peoples and cultures, then we must also defend the identities of the various European peoples and their offshoots. I would like to see European peoples, including in America, develop the will to resist this onslaught and re-establish our lands as the true cradles of our cultures and identities. Of course, in order to do this, White peoples must first get their souls back and return to their true cultures, rejecting multiculturalism and the corporate consumer culture that has grown up in tandem with neo-colonialism, both of which victimize Whites just as much as non-Whites. Unfortunately, few White Europeans around the world have come to this understanding thus far, but I hope that will change.

As for whether the future belongs to Asians, that I cannot say. Certainly India and China are among the most prominent rising powers. But at the same time, they face huge domestic challenges, demographically and otherwise. Whether they will be able to sustain the momentum they have now is uncertain. Having lived in India for the last four years, while it is a land I have come to love, I have difficulty seeing India emerging as a superpower anytime soon. The foundations just aren’t there yet.  Likewise, I find it troubling that India and China continue to understand “progress” in terms of how closely they mimic the American lifestyle and its values. Until Asian (and other) nations can find a way to develop a sustainable and stable social order, and until they forge a new and unique identity for themselves in keeping with their traditions that is disconnected from the Western model, I don’t see them overtaking the so-called “First World.”

NS:  Do you consider Russia to be a part of Europe or do you accept the view that Russia and Europe represent two different civilizations?

JM:  As a longtime student of Dostoevsky, I have always believed that Russia is a unique civilization in its own right. Although clearly Russia shares cultural affinities and linkages with Europe that cannot be denied, and which bring it closer to Europe than to Asia, it retains a character that is purely its own. I have always admired this aspect of Russia. Whereas Western Europe sold its soul in the name of material prosperity in its rush to embrace the supposed benefits of the Industrial Revolution and modernity as quickly as possible, Russia developed its own unique path to modernity, and has always fought hard to maintain its independence. It seems to me, as a foreigner, that as a result, Russia retains a much stronger connection to the spiritual and the intangible aspects of life than in the West, as well as a more diverse, as opposed to purely utilitarian, outlook. The German Conservative Revolutionaries understood this, which is why they sought to tilt Germany more towards Russia politically and culturally, and away from England and the United States (such as Arthur Moeller van den Bruck advocated). Similarly, in today’s world, New Rightists, traditionalists and so forth would do well to look toward Russia and its traditions for inspiration. 

NS:  Contemporary ideologies are based on the principle of secularity. Would you predict the return of religion, the return of sacrality? If so, in what form? Do you consider it to be Islam, Christianity, Paganism or any other forms of religion?

JM:  I think we already see this happening to an extent. In the nineteenth and for most of the twentieth century, the prevailing view was skepticism and scientism, with religion primarily relegated to its moralistic aspects. But beginning in the 1960s in North America and Western Europe, we have seen a renewal of interest in religion and the transcendental view of life on a large scale. This development was, of course, presaged by the traditionalist philosophers, such as René Guénon and Julius Evola, who understood modernity perhaps better than any other Europeans of their time. But unfortunately, this revival in practice has tended toward New Age modes of thought, or else mere identity politics and exotericism as we see with the rise of fundamentalist Christianity in America, rather than in genuinely traditional spirituality. As such, most spirituality in the Western nations today is an outgrowth of modernity, rather than something that can be used to oppose and transcend it. But the fact that more traditionalist books are being made available, and that we see more groups dedicated to traditional spirituality and esotericism than ever before, is a promising trend.

As for the form that this revival will ultimately take, that depends on the location. For much of the world, of course, people are likely to return to and revitalize the traditions that grew out of their own civilizations, which is as it should be. We already see efforts in this direction at work in some parts of the so-called “Third World.” But in Western Europe, and especially America, it is a more difficult question. The Catholic Church today doesn’t hold much promise for those of a traditional mindset. Guénon himself abandoned his native Catholicism and began to practice Islam because he had come to believe that Catholicism was no longer a useful vehicle for Tradition. And of course today, things are much worse than they were in Guénon’s time. Protestantism, besides being counter-traditional, is in even poorer shape these days. And while I am very sympathetic to those who are seeking to revive the pre-Christian traditions of Europe, or adopt traditions from other cultures, this ultimately isn’t a good strategy for those who are engaged in sociopolitical activity alongside spiritual activities. The vast majority of Europeans and Americans still identify with Christianity in some form, and this will need to be taken into account by any new political or metapolitical movement that emerges there.

In America, unlike Europe, we have no real tradition of our own. This is both a blessing and a curse. It’s a blessing because our culture has always been tolerant of allowing and even embracing the presence of alternative forms of spirituality. (Interest in Hinduism, for example, began in America already in the Nineteenth century with such figures as Thoreau and Emerson, and with the arrival of Hindu teachers from India such as Protap Chunder Mozoomdar and Swami Vivekananda.) But it is also a curse because there is no particular, universal spiritual tradition that underlies American civilization which can be revived. Christianity remains dominant, but certainly the popular forms of it that exist in America today are unacceptable from a traditional standpoint. At the same time, most Americans are unlikely to accept any form of spirituality which they perceive to be different from or in opposition to Christianity. So it is a difficult question.

The best solution may be to exclude advocating any specific religion from our efforts in the West for the time being, and leave such decisions to the individual. Of course, we should encourage everyone who supports us to integrate the traditional worldview into their own lives, in whatever form that may take, and to oppose secularism on the grounds of the resacralization of culture. Perhaps once the process of the collapse of the current global and cultural order is further along, and as the peoples’ faith in the illusions of progress, materialism and nationalism inculcated by modernity are shattered, the new form or forms of religion that must take root in the West will become more readily apparent.

 

samedi, 01 juin 2013

John Morgan: Theory of multipolar world

Theory of multipolar world

An interview with John Morgan

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

John Morgan:  I’m not certain about a return to the bipolar model anytime soon. While we have seen the rise of new powers capable of challenging American hegemony in recent years – China, India, Iran, and of course the return of Russia to the world stage – none of them are capable of matching the pervasive influence of the American economy and its culture, nor of projecting military power around the world as NATO has been doing. At the same time, we can plainly see now that America and its allies in Western Europe have already passed their economic limits, now racking up unprecedented debt, and their power is beginning to wane. This process is irreversible, since the post-1945 American lifestyle is unsustainable on every level. America may be able to coast for a few more years, or at most decades, but the “American century” that began at the end of the Second World War will probably be over by mid-century at the latest. Rather than the return of a bipolar world, I think we will see the emergence of the multipolar one, as Prof. Dugin has suggested, in which several nations wield significant power but none reigns supreme above all. In order to protect their interests, stronger nations will need to forge alliances with weaker ones, and sometimes even with other strong nations. But I think the era of the superpower is rapidly coming to an end. 

 

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

 

JM:  As an American, I have witnessed this firsthand. I don’t think the American era is over just yet; it still possesses awesome military might, and will most likely retain this advantage for a little while longer. But the persuasive powers of a country whose defense spending comprises nearly half of all global military expenditures each year are obviously on the wane. My understanding of the collapse of the Soviet Union is that it occurred more because of domestic economic problems rather than as a direct result of its military failure in Afghanistan in the 1980s, even if that exacerbated the problem. Similarly, while the many wars the U.S. has engaged in over the past decade have unquestionably weakened it, it is the ongoing financial crisis, brought about by America’s reliance on debtor spending, that is the most important factor in the decline of American power. And actually, America’s military adventures have brought little in terms of benefits. The Iraq War has really only served to strengthen Iran and Syria’s position. Afghanistan remains a sinkhole in which America stands little to gain, apart from ongoing humiliation as the failure of its policies there is as plain as day. Nations like Iran and North Korea have been emboldened, since they know that America isn’t interested in challenging them militarily, at least for the time being. This has no doubt been a large factor in the increasing use of drones by the U.S., as well as its return to waging proxy wars against enemy regimes through concocted “rebel” movements, as it did during the Cold War against the Soviets, and as we have seen in Libya and now in Syria. Regardless, the primary factor in American decline is definitely its economic predicament. But if it returns to its earlier policies of attempting to spread democracy and the free market through war, this will only hasten its end. Obama seems to be aware of this and has sought to keep America from engaging directly in wars at all costs, but we don’t know who his successor will be.

 

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

 

JM:  This is an interesting question, but I think it is difficult to answer definitively at the present time. The United States as a whole has still not acknowledged the fact of its own inevitable decline, and for the time being I expect it to continue to attempt to maintain the unipolar world for as long as it possibly can. Once the fact of the death of the hegemonic system can no longer be denied, I can see several possible directions. The U.S. may adopt some sort of primitive, imperialistic nationalism and attempt to restore its position through military means. Or, it may become too overwhelmed with its own domestic problems, as they increase, and perhaps disengage from the world stage, opening up possibilities for new geopolitical orders that have been restricted by American power for nearly a century. But since we do not yet know how severe the coming economic and political collapse will be, or what its impact will be globally, we cannot know whether it will lead to multipolarity or non-polarity. We can only attempt to set the stage for the former and hope that circumstances permit it.

 

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

 

JM:  I agree with Prof. Dugin that the three ideologies which dominated the twentieth century have already exhausted themselves as paradigms for the nomos of the Earth. What I imagine and hope to see will be the emergence of blocs which may be similar to the Holy Roman Empire and other ancient empires, in which there will be loose confederations of nations and communities where there is indeed an overarching central political authority (perhaps a monarchy, as Evola prescribed) that will defend the sovereignty of its subjects, but in which most of the political power will rest with local, communal authorities. They may not have a specific ideology in themselves. However, there may be variations in how this is realized within the various communities which comprise them. Some peoples may choose to return to some variant of socialism or nationalism, or perhaps even some sort of pre-modern form of social organization. And these communities should be free to choose the particular form of their social organization, in accordance with their unique traditions. Liberalism, however, which depends for its survival on the consumption of all attainable resources, will completely die, I believe, since before long everyone will understand that it only leads to short-term gains followed by total destruction on every level.   

 

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

 

JM:  I have not studied Friedrich List in any detail, so I’m not familiar with this concept, although of course I am in favor of the development of a new economic order to supplant the current, capitalist model. I do know that List opposed the justification of individual greed favored by the English liberal economists, in contrast to an economic model that considers the needs of the community/nation as a whole, as well as the impact one’s actions have on future generations. Given that the destructiveness of the current economic order is the result of its shameful neglect of these two factors, List’s conception is much better.

 

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

 

JM:  Yes, and my company, Arktos, will soon be making an English edition of this vital text available. I absolutely agree that multipolarity is both necessary and desirable. If we survey human history, this was always how the world was ordered in ages which we, as traditionalists, consider to have been far superior to the way the world is today. It is only from the unique, and degenerative, conditions of modernity that unipolarity has emerged in recent centuries, first in the efforts of the European colonial powers to dominate the planet, and culminating, of course, in American hegemony, which is the direct heir to the European colonial project. As we can see with our own eyes, hegemony hasn’t been good for anyone, neither for those peoples who have enjoyed its ephemeral material benefits nor for those who have been dominated by it. The unipolar idea is what brought the “Third World” into existence and perpetuates it (since, today, it has even conquered these peoples culturally and psychologically). Simultaneously, it has deprived those nations which pursued it, both in America and Europe, of security, stability, sustainability, and most importantly, of any form of genuine culture or identity, replacing it with plastic consumer culture and identities. Ultimately, unipolarity has victimized everything in human civilization that is good while offering nothing apart from the purely material benefits temporarily reaped by those in charge of it in return, and even that will soon cease. We can only hope that multipolarity will re-emerge, since it is obvious to anyone who looks at the world with an open mind that unipolarity is rapidly coming to an end. 

dimanche, 19 mai 2013

Les Russes vent arrière

SYRIA1_G_20120207181843.jpg

Les Russes vent arrière

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

Observons d’abord, puisque c’est aujourd’hui que Netanyahou est allé rendre ses devoirs à Poutine, à Sotchi-Canossa, que nous avons connu d’autres temps où des problèmes de cette importance et de ce domaine (livraisons ou pas de S-300 à la Syrie où se déroule une guerre qui concerne “la communauté internationale”) se réglaient avec les USA, et où un Premier ministre israélien, s’il avait quelque chose à dire à Moscou dans ce domaine, consultait d’abord les USA et s’en remettaient aux USA. Mais, aujourd’hui, les USA, c’est, disons, l’“isolationnisme-cool”. Alors, Netanyahou va directement voir Poutine.

...Lequel Poutine dirige une puissance qui prend de plus en plus de place au Moyen-Orient. Certains jugeraient que la Russie est en train de reprendre sa place au Moyen-Orient, du temps de la Guerre froide. Nous aurions tendance, nous, à aller plus loin que cela ; c’est-à-dire, envisager simplement que les Russes sont en train d’y prendre une place prépondérante, pendant que les USA s’effacent... Nous détaillons quelques faits qui semblent aller dans ce sens, directement en faveur des Russes, ou indirectement.

• La flotte russe s’installe en permanence en Méditerranée, retrouvant la place qu’y occupait le 5ème Escadron naval en Méditerranée, actif de 1967 jusqu’à sa dissolution en 1992. La décision de réinstaller une unité autonome russe en Méditerranée a été prise en avril et l’on a aujourd’hui des détails sur cette flotte permanente, qui aura son propre état-major, et qui disposera éventuellement de sous-marins nucléaires lanceurs d’engins. (Voir Novosti, le 12 mai 2013.)

«Russia’s Mediterranean task force will comprise 5-6 warships and may be enlarged to include nuclear submarines, Navy Commander Adm. Viktor Chirkov said on Sunday. “Overall, already from this year, we plan to have 5-6 warships and support vessels [in the Mediterranean Sea], which will be replaced on a rotating basis from each of the fleets – the Black Sea, Baltic, Northern and, in some cases, even the Pacific Fleet. Depending on the scope of assignments and their complexity, the number of warships in the task force may be increased,” Chirkov told RIA Novosti.

»The Russian navy commander also said nuclear submarines could be deployed in the Mediterranean, if necessary. “Possibly. In a perspective. They [submarines] were present there during the existence of the 5th squadron. There were both nuclear and diesel submarines there. Everything will depend on the situation,” he said.»

• Il est clair que l’affaire des attaques israéliennes contre la Syrie, puis la décision russe de livrer des S-300 à la Syrie ont resserré les liens entre la Russie et la Syrie. La même chose pourrait survenir avec l’Iran, si la vieille affaire opposant la Russie et l'Iran, concernant une commande iranienne de S-300 que la Russie a refusée jusqu’ici d’honorer à la demande du bloc BAO, était résolue dans le même sens (livraison de S-300 à l’Iran). De même, les Russes ont l’intention d’accélérer des livraisons d’armes à l’Irak, après le déblocage (voir le 27 avril 2013) de l’énorme contrat d’armes russes commandées par l’Irak. On retrouve bien entendu une ligne d’alliance Téhéran-Bagdad-Damas qui se fait selon une dynamique qui a notamment les allures d’un soutien matériel russe actif.

• ... Ce à quoi il faut ajouter désormais le Hezbollah. Des nouvelles sont répercutées, commentées et enrichies par Jean Aziz, journaliste libanais au quotidien Al-Akhbar et à la station TV OTV, dans Al-Monitor Lebanon Pulse du 12 mai 2013, à propos des contacts récents entre la Russie et le Hezbollah et les perspectives qui s’ouvrent pour ces deux interlocuteurs, selon une dynamique nouvelle de coopération. On observera, souligné par nous en gras, l’appréciation selon laquelle ces deux interlocuteurs parlent en termes d’équilibre général dans lequel la Russie serait désormais appelée à jouer un rôle prépondérant.

«For the second time in nine days, Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah appeared in a televised speech, knowing that both appearances fall into the same political context — one that was previously discussed in this column to indicate three reasons behind the timing of the two appearances and speeches.

»The previous article detailed the first reason behind the appearance of Nasrallah, which was to confirm the religious tenets and the ideological justification of Hezbollah’s stance on the Syrian situation. The second reason was directly related to the political developments in Lebanon and its neighboring regions, starting with the visit of Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov to Beirut on April 26 and 28. The Russian minister’s visit to the Lebanese capital after Tehran and Damascus is not without meaning. Clearly, Russia, Iran, Syria and Hezbollah have been coordinating at some level and have tackled all the regional developments and stances taken in this regard by any of the elements of this new axis... [...]

»Meanwhile, sources in the know on the results of Bogdanov’s visit to the Lebanese capital revealed to Al-Monitor that the conversation clearly tackled the role of Russia in protecting the forces that are close to it in the region, as well as the importance of facing Washington and returning the balance to the global system in its Middle Eastern side at least. Moreover, both officials discussed the prospects of imposing the demarcation of the international spheres of influence in this region. In a clear and straightforward conversation, they brought up the different as well as matching ideological, economic, geostrategic and security-related interests of Moscow and local forces in achieving these goals.»

• Le dernier point concerne ce qui pourrait constituer un rapprochement entre l’Arabie Saoudite et l’Iran, manœuvre qui ne déplairait pas à la Russie, qui a de bons liens avec l’Iran et des liens qui ne sont pas si mauvais avec l’Arabie. La nouvelle est présentée par DEBKAFiles (le 13 mai 2013), qui suit désormais avec une hargne particulière l’enchaînement des épisodes marquant la dégradation de la position US au Moyen-Orient.

«Saudi Arabia has decided to explore dialogue with its great regional rival Iran for ending the Syrian conflict and assuring Lebanon’s political future, DEBKAfile’s Gulf sources report. They have given up on US policy for Syria in view of Russian and Iranian unbending support for Bashar Assad; his battlefield gains aided by Hizballah and Iranian Bassij forces; and Turkey’s inaction after Saturday’s terrorist bombings in the town of Reyhanli near the Syrian border which caused 46 deaths. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal took advantage of the Organization of Islamic Conference-OIC, in Jeddah this week on the Mali conflict for getting together Monday, May 13, with Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi who was in attendance.

»Our sources report that Riyadh’s first priority is to stabilize Lebanon through a Saudi-Iranian entente on political equilibrium in Beirut. The Saudis would next seek an accord with Tehran on the outcome of the Syrian civil conflict.

»The Saudi rulers have come to the conclusion, which the West and Israel have been slow to acknowledge, that since the Iranian-Hizballah-Syrian military alliance is pulling ahead in the Syrian conflict and chalking up victories, they had better look to their interests in Lebanon, which hinge heavily on the Sunni clan headed by Saad Hariri. If they wait till a victorious Hizballah comes marching home and grabs power in Beirut, protecting Lebanon’s Sunni community will be that much harder...»

Le même texte fait état du faible crédit accordé par les Saoudiens au projet de conférence organisée par les USA et la Russie conjointement, notamment à la lumière du peu d’enthousiasme que montrerait Obama pour la chose, – souligné, ce peu d’enthousiasme, par la remarque d’Obama lors de sa conférence de presse du 13 mai avec Cameron, concernant la “suspicion persistante héritée de la Guerre froide, entre la Russie et les USA” («“lingering suspicions between Russia and the US” left over from the Cold War»). Cette remarque est très singulière, dans la mesure où cette suspicion n’est nullement en état de persistance, mais plus évidemment une ré-invention des USA, à coup de lobbies, d’“agression douce”, d’accusations humanitaristes, etc., contre la Russie, alors que la Russie a au contraire depuis longtemps écarté cette sorte de suspicion dont parle Obama. La phrase d’Obama, qui pourrait étonner certains venant d’Obama, évoque plutôt une paranoïa persistante du côté US, cette paranoïa si naturelle qu’elle n’a nul besoin du souvenir de la Guerre froide pour se faire sentir, et qui s’alimente plutôt à une complexité psychologique dont les USA n’ont besoin de personne pour l’entretenir dans leur propre chef... Dans tous les cas, cette phrase et ce qu’elle évoque éclairent d’une lumière moins amicale l’“isolationnisme-cool” dont nous parle Stephen M. Walt, la lumière du désenchantement découragé devant ce qui est effectivement, bien plus qu’un repli tactique des USA, une position de plus en plus forcée devant son propre déclin et l’effondrement de sa propre puissance.

Dans ce cas, il est alors remarquable de voir, devant la perspective du possible échec de la tentative Russie-USA de cette conférence sur la Syrie, un pays comme l’Arabie envisager de se tourner vers l’Iran et, au-delà et par simple enchaînement, en partie vers la Russie, pour trouver une issue de stabilisation à un désordre qui échappe de plus en plus à tout contrôle des acteurs extérieurs. Si elle s’affirmait, cette dynamique ne laisserait ni la Jordanie, ni l’Égypte insensibles, certes... Dans cette interprétation, on note également une considération bien peu amène pour la Turquie dont les manœuvres effrénées de déstabilisation depuis près de deux ans conduisent à l’impasse du désordre sur son propre territoire, chose également reprochée par Obama à Erdogan. (Les USA sont notamment inquiets des grandioses projets turcs de rassemblement d’un Kurdistan, avec ses parties syrienne et irakienne, à cause des menaces que ce projet fait peser non seulement sur l’Irak, mais sur la Turquie elle-même. Mais Erdogan oppose à ces craintes une assurance sans faille de lui-même et de sa politique.)

Le constat est donc que, devant l’évolution de la situation en Syrie, le camp constitué par le bloc BAO commence à céder à des tendances de délitement dans tous les sens tandis que la Russie évolue d’une position centrale d’une possible médiation qui s’avère de moins en moins possible, vers une position d’organisatrice d’un nouveau rassemblement au Moyen-Orient à partir de ses liens avec l’Iran, la Syrie, puis avec l’Irak, le Hezbollah et, éventuellement, d’autres acteurs qui deviendraient des transfuges du camp BAO. Tout se passe comme si le désordre commençait à épuiser ceux qui ont contribué à le créer, avec un éparpillement de ce rassemblement hétéroclite, dont la Russie sortirait nécessairement comme acteur extérieur central au Moyen-Orient. Cela serait une rétribution logique, et juste si l’on veut, du rôle qu’elle a tenu jusqu’ici.

Il ne s’agit pour l’instant de rien d’autre que d’une perspective, et le désordre lui-même est loin d’avoir dit son dernier mot, et sans doute aura-t-il toujours son mot à dire dans le contexte de la séquence actuelle. Mais la tendance générale se dessine de plus en plus clairement, et elle s’affirme à partir du caractère d’insupportabilité du processus d’autodestruction du Système, qui bouscule ou emporte tous ceux qui ont misé dessus (sur le Système), avec certains cherchant d’ores et déjà à sortir leur épingle du jeu. Quoi qu’il en soit, il existe aujourd’hui la possibilité d’un intéressant renversement de situation qui donnerait au “printemps arabe“ une alluré inattendue ; cette possibilité, si elle est nécessairement caractérisée par le désordre évident au Moyen-Orient, le serait surtout, dans ce cas, par la hiérarchie des influences extérieures, avec la Russie revenant en force dans cette région et n’étant pas loin d’être en position de supplanter des USA de plus en plus amers, impuissants de leur incompréhension de la situation, bien plus fatigués que cool finalement. Dans ce cadre, il est possible que l’Israélien Netanyahou parle à Poutine de bien autre chose que de S-300, les Israéliens pouvant estimer eux aussi que leur choix exclusif du “parrain” américaniste devient discutable.

Effectivement, à côté de ces événements qui on leurs significations diverses et parfois surprenantes, on distingue l’apparition d’un phénomène d’épuisement psychologique, se traduisant par une dérive des politiques vers des orientations complètement imprévues. Cet épuisement psychologique est un facteur central de la crise d’effondrement du Système, comme nous ne cessons de le souligner, jusqu’à ses racines historiques fondamentales. Ce n’est qu’un paradoxe apparent si cet épuisement frappe les acteurs périphériques de la crise syrienne, plus que les acteurs directs, parce que ces acteurs périphériques sont directement connectés à la crise d’effondrement du Système. La position de force de la Russie, elle, tient évidemment à sa politique principielle, effectivement appuyée sur le respect et la défense des principes structurants, seul moyen d’échapper à cet épuisement causé par les forces déstructurantes et dissolvantes du Système.

jeudi, 09 mai 2013

Jean Aziz et le face à face Iran – Arabie Saoudite au Liban et en Syrie

Jean Aziz et le face à face Iran – Arabie Saoudite au Liban et en Syrie

La thèse que je défends sur ce blog est que la crise syrienne a dès le départ donné lieu à une immixtion de forces étrangères à ce pays ; des forces qui ont engagé très tôt une action violente, parfois très professionnelle, contre l’appareil policier et militaire du régime.

Ces forces étrangères, non contentes d’armer militairement et d’outiller dans la guerre médiatique des citoyens syriens, qu’ils appartiennent à la mouvance des Frères Musulmans, du wahabbisme ou tout simplement à celle de ceux qui pensent que leur avenir personnel ou celui de leur clan pourrait être plus radieux sans Bachar al-Assad, ont fait venir des mercenaires de Turquie, de Jordanie, et même de Tunisie, de Tchétchénie et d’Europe (je ne parle pas là de Syriens résidant en Europe).

Il va sans dire que ceux qui espéraient une démocratisation de la vie politique en Syrie en sont pour leurs frais.

Jean Aziz, qu’on a déjà croisé sur ce blog, grossit peut-être un peu le trait, mais oui, nous assistons en Syrie à une guerre entre l’Iran et le Hezbollah d’une part, et l’Arabie Saoudite, le Qatar, la Turquie et les Etats Unis d’autre part.

Et c’est l’axe turco-arabo-occidental qui a pris l’initiative de cette guerre et a fait en sorte qu’elle perdure faute de possibilité de règlement politique qu’il s’est ingénié à empêcher, exactement comme en Libye.

Sauf que l’enjeu stratégique est nettement plus important en Syrie qu’en Libye et que si les Américains jouent là avec la sécurité de leur entité sioniste adorée, les monarques jouent peut-être leurs têtes !

Pourtant, dans un monde rationnel, cette crise aurait été réglée depuis longtemps ou n’aurait jamais eu lieu.

Mais un monde rationnel serait un monde où les Etats Unis au lieu de chercher la confrontation avec l’Iran, le Hezbollah et la Syrie, chercheraient à avoir des relations normales avec ces pays avec lesquels ils ne devraient avoir à priori pas de conflit aigu.

Oui, j’écris ces pays car je ne compte pas le Hezbollah qui n’existerait pas si les Etats Unis ne s’entêtaient pas à soutenir inconditionnellement une entité sioniste qui ne pourra jamais avoir un statut normal dans la région.

Même si, pour les pétromonarchies d’Arabie et du Qatar, tout l’enjeu d’une défaite de l’axe Syrie – Hezbollah – Iran est la possibilité de pouvoir enfin normaliser leurs relations avec l’entité sioniste et donc d’enterrer définitivement les droits du peuple palestinien.

L’objectif est illusoire certes et les monarques comme le Grand Turc devraient méditer ce propos de Kant :

Est illusion le leurre qui subsiste même quand on sait que l’objet supposé n’existe pas.

L'Iran contre la diplomatie saoudienne au Liban

par Jean Aziz,  

Al-Monitor Lebanon Pulse, 29 avril 2013 traduit de l’anglais par Djazaïri

Trois semaines de développements de la situation au Liban ont suffi pour effacer le sentiment qu’une percée dans les relations entre l’Arabie Saoudite et l’Iran était proche, du moins au Liban. Ce sentiment avait pris corps le 6 avril quand le parlement libanais a désigné, dans un consensus presque total, le député de Beyrouth Tammam Salam pour former le nouveau cabinet.

Au début, il y avait certains signes qu’une percée dans la relation entre l’Arabie Saoudite et l’Iran était en vue. L’ambassadeur Saoudien à Beyrouth, Ali Awad Asiri, avait clairement fait une ouverture en direction du Hezbollah. A un point tel que certains avaient dit que l’Arabie Saoudite avait entamé des contacts directs avec la plus puissante organisation chiite du Liban par l’intermédiaire d’un officiel des services de sécurité libanais qui jouit de la confiance du secrétaire général du Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah en personne. On a même dit que l’adjoint de Nasrallah, le Cheikh Naim Qassem devait se rendre en Arabie Saoudite à la tête d’une mission du Hezbollah avec la mission de discuter des relations entre la banlieue sud de Beyrouth et Riyad. La délégation devait aussi aborder le problème de la formation d’un nouveau gouvernement [au Liban] et l’acceptation d’une nouvelle loi pour les élections législatives pour faire en sorte que les élections interviennent avant la fin du mandat de l’assemblée actuelle le 20 juin et éviter ainsi au Liban d’aller vers l’inconnu.

Cette impression optimiste a vite disparu et il est devenu évident que la stratégie de la tension entre les axes saoudien et iranien reste d’actualité  jusqu’à nouvel ordre.

Il semble que les deux parties pratiquent un jeu de dupe pour améliorer leurs positions et leurs capacités en préparation d’une attaque surprise contre l’autre camp.

Sous couvert d’ouverture en direction du Hezbollah à Beyrouth, l’axe saoudien a l’œil rivé sur une bataille régionale pour renforcer le siège du régime syrien et renverser le président Bachar al-Assad. Au moment où les Saoudiens se préparaient à attaquer la capitale syrienne, ils avaient jugé prudent de ne pas ouvrir plus d’un front à la fois. Ils ont donc fait une trêve avec le Hezbollah et montré de la bonne volonté à l’égard de ce dernier, tandis que le nœud coulant arabo-turco-occidental se resserrait autour du cou d’Assad.

Image

Jean Aziz prend la pose entre Michel Aoun (à droite sur la photo) et Hassan Nasrallah

De leur côté, l’Iran et le Hezbollah ne se sont pas laissés berner par la manoeuvre saoudienne. Quelques jours après avoir commencé à tester les réactions de l’autre camp, l’Arabie Saoudite a commencé son attaque : les alliés libanais de Riyad ont durci leurs positions en formant un nouveau gouvernement et en définissant une loi électorale, ce qui a fait prendre conscience à l’axe du Hezbollah [le Hezbollah et ses alliés au Liban] de la manœuvre, ce qui a amené cet axe à changer de tactique. Le Hezbollah a alors contre attaqué sur presque tous les fronts.

Il semble que l’Arabie Saoudite avait misé sur une évolution favorable de la situation militaire en Syrie quand  cette évolution a en fait été favorable au camp iranien. Un facteur sur le terrain a inversé la donne : en deux semaines, les forces pro-régime ont avancé dans toutes les régions autour de Damas et de Homs. Ce développement a placé les 370 kilomètres de frontière syro-libanaise sous le contrôle du régime syrien et de ses alliés au Liban. Ce qui a piégé et isolé une partie significative des Sunnites – qui sont traditionnellement soutenus par l’Arabie Saoudite et sont près d’un demi-million à Akkar et à Tripoli – par l’interposition de l’armée syrienne et de ses alliés libanais.

Mais la riposte contre l’Arabie Saoudite au Liban a d’autres manifestations: la visite du Hezbollah à Riyad dont on parlait n’a jamais eu lieu et on a appris que Nasrallah est allé à Téhéran dernièrement. Malgré de nombreuses conjectures sur les objectifs de cette visite et son timing, le Hezbollah a ostensiblement gardé le silence sur ce sujet. Le parti ne l’a ni confirmée, ni infirmée. Cependant, des photos de Nasrallah rencontrant le Guide Suprême Iranien Ali Khamenei ont été publiées sur les réseaux sociaux. Des cercles proches du Hezbollah affirment que la photo était tirée d’archives, mais la photo n’a pourtant pas l’air bien ancienne.

Une autre manifestation de la contre attaque a été l’annonce par Israël de la destruction au dessus de la mer au large d’Haïfa d’un drone venu du Liban. Mais à la différence d’incidents similaires, comme quand Israël avait détruit le drone Ayyoub le 9 octobre 2012, le Hezbollah a promptement démenti avoir un rapport quelconque avec cette affaire. Certains ont interprété ce démenti comme étant causé par l’échec du drone «Ayyoub 2» à pénétrer en profodeur en territoire israélien. Mais le drone avait peut-être simplement comme objectif de survoler les champs gaziers israéliens en Méditerranée. Dans ce cas, le drone a réussi à envoyer le message à Israël, ce qui explique aussi le démenti du Hezbollah.

Ces deux derniers jours, ce cercles proches du parti ont traité cette affaire d’une manière évasive en demandant: Et si toute cette affaire se résumait à un gamin du sud Liban qui jouait avec un avion télécommandé amenant les Israéliens à suspecter le Hezbollah de leur faire la guerre ?

Certains à Beyrouth pensent que la contre attaque iranienne contre les avancées de l’Arabie saoudite, qui se sont traduites par la démission de l’ancien premier ministre Libanais Najib Mikati se déploie bien au-delà de la scène libanaise pour toucher le Bahreïn et même l’Irak. On a parlé de découvertes de caches d’armes pour l’opposition bahreïnie à Manama ; et les troupes du premier ministre Irakien Nouri al-Maliki sont entrée à Hawija et menacent de faire la même chose à Anbar.

Toutes choses qui confirment une fois encore que tout accord entre les Libanais doit se faire sous des auspices internationaux, c’est-à-dire au minimum une entente entre Washington et Téhéran. Mais une telle entente ne pourra sans doute pas intervenir tant que ne se seront pas produits certains événements, que ce soient les élections présidentielles en Iran en juin prochain ou les résultats des discussions d’Almaty sur le nucléaire (si elles reprennent).

Entre temps, la situation libanaise va déboucher soit sur la prolongation de la crise par la prolongation du mandate du parlement et le report de la formation d’un nouveau gouvernement, soit sur l’explosion de la situation!

La plupart des organisations libanaises et des parties étrangères préfèrent la première option.

Jean Aziz est un collaborateur d’ Al-Monitor’s Lebanon Pulse. Il est éditorialiste au journal libanais Al-Akhbar et anime une émission de débat politique sur OTV, une chaîne de télévision libanaise.

Ajoutons que ce chrétien a d’abord appartenu aux Forces Libanaises, un mouvement d’extrême droite avant de rejoindre le général Michel Aoun sur une position nationaliste, modérément antisyrienne (ou modérement prosyrienne), favorable à l’entente interconfessionnelle et hostile à l’entité sioniste. C’est pourquoi on dit qu’il est proche du Hezbollah. Il l’est à peu près à la façon de Michel Aoun.

http://mounadil.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/jean-aziz-et-le-face-a-face-iran-arabie-saoudite-au-liban-et-en-syrie/

Stealing Syria’s Oil: The EU Al-Qaeda Oil Consortium

syroil177061743.jpg

Stealing Syria’s Oil: The EU Al-Qaeda Oil Consortium

Global Research

The decision of the European Union to lift the embargo on Syrian government’s energy exports by importing oil from the ‘armed opposition’ is another flagrant violation of international law. It violates the UN General Assembly declaration of 1962 on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources and is yet another violation of the 1981 UN declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States. But it is much more than a technical violation of the law. It marks the decent of civilization into barbarism.

London and Paris, have more than Washington, been at the forefront of aggression against Syria. In spite of the fact that it has now been confirmed by most media sources that the Syrian ‘opposition’ is Al-Qaeda, London and Paris persist  in their insane drive to arm the terrorists, using the spurious argument that if they don’t arm the ‘moderates’ the ‘extremists’ will take over the country. However, in the words of the New York Times, ‘nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of’. [1] The fact that the Syrian ‘rebels’ are in fact Al- Qaeda has even  been admitted by the war-mongering French daily  Le Monde.[2]

So, Paris and London are pushing for further arming of Al-Qaeda and the legalization of oil trading with the jihadi terrorists. In plain language this means that the loose, terrorist network known to the world as Al-Qaeda will soon become one of the EU’s partners in the oil business. A new absurd chapter in the Era of Terror is about to be enacted.

International law and its violators.

The 1962 UN Resolution 1803 on the Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Resources states:

‘Violation of the rights of peoples and nations to sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources is contrary to the spirit and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and hinders the development of international co-operation and the maintenance of peace’[3]

Japhat Al-Nusra and other Al-Qaeda affiliated groups do not in any way represent the Syrian people, nor do they constitute a sovereign state according to the categories of international law.  The ‘armed opposition’ IS Al-Qaeda. Therefore, the European Union’s decision to officially buy oil from terrorist gangs currently occupying territories in the Syrian Arab Republic constitutes a heinous crime and makes a further mockery of the basic principles governing the relations between states.

The 1981 UN document explicitly condemns:

‘the increasing threat to international peace and security owing to frequent recourse to the threat or use of force, aggression ,intimidation, military intervention and occupation, escalation of military presence and all other forms of intervention or interference, direct or indirect, overt or covert, threatening the sovereignty and political independence of other States, with the aim of overthrowing their Governments’,

The declaration goes on to categorically condemn the deployment of ‘armed bands’ and ‘mercenaries’ by states for the use of overthrowing the governments of other sovereign states:

‘Conscious of the fact that such policies endanger the political independence of States, freedom of peoples and permanent sovereignty over their natural resources, adversely affecting thereby the maintenance of international peace and security,

Conscious also of the imperative need for any threat of aggression, any recruitment, any use of armed bands, in particular mercenaries, against sovereign States to be completely ended, so as to enable the peoples of all States to determine their own political, economic and social systems without external interference or control’ [4]

Western governments, who for many years have been openly and shamelessly violating all known and agreed principles of international law, arming terrorist gangs who murder and maim civilians, funding common criminals who traffic drugs and recruit child-soldiers, have now descended to a new low by purchasing oil and gas from these same terrorist gangs, natural resources which are legally the property of the Syrian Arab Republic and its citizens.

EU governments colluding with terrorists

Europe’s descent into absolute moral turpitude and lawlessness is further reflected in the fact that EU authorities are doing nothing to prevent brainwashed Muslim youths from traveling to Syria in order to fight NATO’s war. Yet, the officials of EU states readily admit that hundreds if not thousands of jihadis from Britain, Ireland, Spain, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and other states are now joining the ranks of the so-called ‘Syrian rebels’.  But they also admit that their only concern is that these terrorists might be a threat to European security if they ever return. The fact that these terrorists are putting bombs in busy market squares; cars; universities; schools; hospitals and mosques throughout Syria, and that US State Department’s own reports confirm this, doesn’t seem to bother the EU’s governments. Their only concern is that they might eventually bite the hand that feeds. [5] The EU ‘anti-terror’ chief Gilles de Kerchove tells the BBC:

“Not all of them are radical when they leave, but most likely many of them will be radicalized there, will be trained

“And as we’ve seen this might lead to a serious threat when they get back.”[6]

We know from Israeli intelligence sources that most of the terrorists are being trained in US/NATO military bases in Turkey and Jordon.[7]

So, why doesn’t the EU’s ‘anti-terror’ chief seem to know about this? This is the man responsible for protecting Europe from terrorism?  As I reported before, France’s ‘anti-terror’ magistrate actually admitted on French state radio in January 11th  that the French government was on the same side as Al-Qaeda in Syria:

“There are many young jihadists who have gone to the Turkish border in order to enter Syria to fight Bachar’s regime, but the only difference is that there France is not the enemy. Therefore we don’t look on that in the same way. To see young men who are at the moment fighting Bachar Al-Assad, they will be perhaps dangerous in the future but for the moment they are fighting Bachar Al-Assad and France is on their side; they will not attack us’’.[8]

The cynical double standard which states that all territories outside the EU are barbaric and therefore outside the realm of international law has now become a policy that goes unnoticed by Europe’s brainwashed masses.  Euro-Atlantic powers are not only behaving like criminals but are now openly displaying their criminality.  One should also note that the French government has now decided to call the Syrian president by his first name. Calling a state official by his first name is a sign of deep disrespect in French etiquette. Since the Sarkozy regime, French diplomacy has been dragged through the mud, with France’s diplomatic corps now behaving like a cross between spoilt brats and fascist thugs.

Syria’s Oil Geopolitics

The quest for sources of cheap energy is one of the geopolitical contexts driving the war in Syria. Christof Lehmann has written that the discovery of the Iranian Pars gas field in 2007 and Teheran’s plan to pipe the gas to the Eastern Mediterranean by constructing a pipeline through Iraq and Syria holds the potential of turning Iran into a global economic power, giving Teheran enormous leverage over the EU’s Middle East policy. This development would pose a threat to the Zionist entity. It would pose an existential threat to the despotic emirates of the Gulf, who depend on the power of the petro-dollar for their survival.[9]

That is one of the reasons why NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council are using Al-Qaeda terrorists to break the Shite-led alliance of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. As Italian geographer Manlio Dinucci has reported, contrary to received opinion, Syria actually has massive energy reserves.

Dinucci writes:

‘The U.S. / NATO strategy focuses on helping rebels to seize the oil fields with a twofold purpose: to deprive the Syrian state of revenue from exports, already strongly decreased as a result of the EU embargo, and to ensure that the largest deposits pass in the future, through the “rebels” under the control of the big Western oil companies. [10]

The first implementation of the ‘humanitarian intervention’ ideology was during the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999. Since then, the truncated entity called Kosovo has become Europe’s number one criminal state, run by a convicted organ and drug trafficking mass murderer called Hacim Al Thaci, a protégé  of Brussels and Washington. This is the kind of narco-mafia anti-state NATO has installed in Libya since the Blitzkrieg against that country in 2011 and it is the type of criminal regime that will rule over Syrians if NATO succeeds in bombing that country.

One can read hundreds of articles in the mainstream press about the criminality of the Kosovar regime and articles describing the chaos in post-Gaddafi Libya have not been rare. But the same media outlets will systematically ignore the fact that they were the ones cheering on the CIA’s Kossovo Liberation Army during the destruction of Yugoslavia. The same prestitutes are now pushing for more arming of the terrorists in Syria and for military intervention by NATO.

The closing of the European mind

The pontificators of European integration and Europe’s role in the world like to pepper their speeches with pompous references to the ‘rule of law’ and the universality of ‘European values’.

This specious rhetoric is unceasingly drummed into European students throughout our universities and institutions of higher learning and it is repeated ad nauseum by the mass media. The people now using Al-Qaeda terrorism to further their interests in the Middle East teach courses in prestigious European universities on ‘international relations’.

It is no wonder ordinary people are incapable of seeing and understanding what is happening before their very eyes. The sheer scale and complexity of the global institutional networks built upon an empire of lies, self-righteousness and deceit is simply too overwhelming for the unschooled intellect to comprehend. Something in our order-seeking minds rejects reality when its horror surpasses our horizons of tolerance and intelligibility. As a result, the mind recoils, filters out the real, preferring instead to see in our masters the expression of complex, contradictory and arcane policies, whose moral content is consigned to the studies of ‘experts’ and ‘specialists’, who are themselves the products and propagandists of the same corrupt institutions.

There are now so many academic institutions, conferences; foundations; think tanks; policy institutes and university courses proclaiming the virtues of ‘humanitarian intervention’ that it has acquired the status of a dogma. The repetition and reproduction of this dogma by the scholastics of neo-liberal academia has turned that which critical reason would normally scoff at into an apriori principle of ‘global governance’.

In chapter 22 of his seminal work on international law De Juri Belli ac Pacis, (On the Law of War and Peace), the great 17th century Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius wrote:

‘Some wars were founded upon real motives and others only upon colorful pretexts. This distinction was first noticed by Polybius, who calls the pretexts, profaseis and the real causes, aitias. Thus Alexander made war upon Darius, under the pretense of avenging the former wrongs done by the Persians to the Greeks. But the real motive of that bold and enterprising hero was the easy acquisition of wealth and dominion, which the expeditions of Xenophon and Agesilaus had opened to his view.’ [13]

Little has changed since the days of Alexander the Great. Wars are still fought for pillage and plunder and the furtherance of empire. Polybius’s vocabulary of ‘profaseis’ and ‘aitias’ will be useful here. Since the start of the Syrian nightmare in 2011, the ‘profaseis’ propagated by corporate media agencies calling for military intervention in Syria has been the desire to ‘protect civilians’ from a ‘brutal regime’.  Only the naïve and ignorant could now defend such nonsense as the same media agencies have finally admitted that the ‘opposition’ is in fact Al-Qaeda, a fact the alternative media have been pointing out since the beginning of the violence in Deraa in March 2011.

NATO’s ‘aitias’ in this conflict is clear: break up and destroy an independent sovereign state; rob and pillage all of its resources; rape and terrorize its citizens into submission by unleashing drugged and brain-washed death squads on the population; constantly blame all of this on the ‘regime’, then finish the country off with an intensive aerial bombing campaign before installing a crime syndicate to run the country. Finally, call that holocaust freedom. Call that holocaust democracy. It’s a tried and trusted formula which is now being deployed all over the world in NATO’s megalomaniacal drive for global supremacy.

Grotius again:

‘Others make -use of pretexts, which though plausible at first sight, will not bear the examination and test of moral rectitude, and, when stripped of their disguise, such pretexts will be found fraught with injustice. In such hostilities, says Livy, it is not a trial of right, but some object of secret and unruly ambition, which acts as the chief spring. Most powers, it is said by Plutarch, employ the relative situations of peace and war, as a current specie, for the purchase of whatever they deem expedient.’

 In the war-ravaged 17th century Europe of Hugo Grotius, to establish the distinction between profaseis and aitias or the pretexts and real reasons for war was not considered heretical in the domain of rigorous juridical discourse. Today, those who make such distinctions are dismissed as ‘paranoid conspiracy theorists’.  In an interview entitled LA PENSÉE CRITIQUE COMME DISSOLVANT DE LA DOXA,(Critical Thought as a solvent of Doxa)French sociologist Loic Wacquant argues that ‘never before have false thought and false science been so prolix and ubiquitous.’[14]

In this age of technological lawlessness, the basic precepts of international and domestic law have been dismantled. With the promulgation of the Patriot Act and now the National Defense Authorization Act, the United States has regressed to the kind of juridical tyranny that preceded the drafting of the Petition of Right in the England of 1628, a document denouncing imprisonment without trial, torture and martial law and providing the legal and moral groundwork for the English Revolution of 1640.

Conclusion

It behooves us all to reflect upon the current war in the Levant.  What we are witnessing is the destruction of the Westphalian state system and a return to the kind of chaos of the 17th century’s Thirty Years War, except this time it is festering on the borders of Europe where the principle of bellum se ipsum alet, war will feed itself, is being acted out by private military corporations, drug gangs, terrorist networks and international crime syndicates linked directly and indirectly to the ideological state apparatuses of the Atlantic powers.

And so, the KLA have been training the ‘Syrian Free Army’, while Libya’s Islamic Fighting Group has also joined the ‘holy war’ in Syria. Like the Thirty Years War, the armed gangs and mercenaries are funding themselves by pillaging the local economies and selling their booty as contraband. Whole factories in Syria have been dismantled and stolen by mercenaries in the service of Turkey and Qatar, while the drug trade is now booming like never before. When one country is destroyed and reduced to despotic fiefdoms and emirates, Western corporations move in with their private military companies and proceed to pillage the country’s resources, unhindered by the rules and regulations of the Sovereign State. The terrorist hordes then move on to the next country on NATO’s hit list. This is NATO’s strategy of chaos, a form of liquid warfare that is spreading rapidly throughout the Southern Hemisphere.

Given the criminality of Western oil companies in the past, it is perhaps not entirely surprising that they would now, in the form of the EU, be openly buying oil from terrorist organizations. What is surprising, however, is the morbid insouciance of Europe’s populations.  How could there be so many ‘respectable’ people in our media and academic institutions prepared to collaborate with these mobsters? Why have there been few if any significant demonstrations against NATO? How is it possible that the powers that be should be allowed to get away with such unmitigated criminality?

The Roman poet Horace wrote- neglecta solent incendia sumere vires -a neglected fire always gathers in strength. Since the destruction of  the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan by the Western-backed Mujahedeen terrorists in the 1979, sovereign states have fallen prey to mercenaries and terrorist gangs backed by Western imperialism, while civil liberties have been curtailed in America and Europe in the name of the ‘War on Terrorism’.

The fire has since spread to the former Yugoslavia; Rwanda; Côte d’Ivoire; Sudan; Somalia; Iraq; DRC; Chechnya,Libya and now Syria. If people don’t wake up and mobilize against the criminals planning these wars, the flames of destruction will eventually come home in the form of martial law, and a fascist, panopticon police state which will be deemed necessary during the prosecution of a Third World War against Iran, Russia and China. If this fire of terrorism is not put out in Syria, it will continue into the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Russian Federation and Eastern China until all possible resistance to NATO’s drive for ‘full spectrum dominance’ is eliminated and a tyrannical, corporate hyper-state rules over the planet.

World wars have happened in the past and given the scelerate Will-to-Power of our current rulers, there is no reason to believe that a world war will not happen again. Many in the West, inured to televised violence and indifferent to distant wars, have a tendency to believe that politics is a domain that does not affect them. But in the words of the French politician Charles de Montalembert  ‘Vous avez beau ne pas vous occuper de politique, la politique s’occupe de vous tout de même.’[It is easy for you not to be concerned about politics, but politics, however, is concerned about you] In the light of current events the statement merits reflection.

Notes

[1]http://www.globalresearch.ca/time-to-end-western-support-for-terrorists-in-syria-opposition-is-entirely-run-by-al-qaeda/5333204

[2] http://www.globalresearch.ca/frances-media-admits-that-the-syrian-opposition-is-al-qaida-then-justifies-french-government-support-to-the-terrorists/5331289

[3] http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/9D85892AC6D7287E8525636800596092

 [4] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/NaturalResources.aspx

[5]http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/36/a36r103.htm

[6] http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/12/201759.htm

[7] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22275456

[8] http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-nato-s-next-humanitarian-war/?print=1

[9] http://nsnbc.me/2012/12/28/the-dynamics-of-the-crisis-in-syria-conflict-versus-conflict-resolution-part-5/

[10]http://www.globalresearch.ca/oil-and-pipeline-geopolitics-the-us-nato-race-for-syrias-black-gold/5330216

[11] http://www.franceinter.fr/emission-le-79-marc-trevidic-et-jean-pierre-filiu

[12] http://nsnbc.me/2012/12/28/the-dynamics-of-the-crisis-in-syria-conflict-versus-conflict-resolution-part-5/

[13] http://www.constitution.org/gro/djbp_222.htm

[14][http://www.homme-moderne.org/societe/socio/wacquant/pensecri.html

samedi, 04 mai 2013

Die Krise in Griechenland und verborgene Ölkriege

Die Krise in Griechenland und verborgene Ölkriege

F. William Engdahl

In der Griechenlandkrise und der jüngsten Krise in Zypern gibt es einen höchst bedeutsamen Faktor, über den jedoch nicht geredet wird: Beide Länder sitzen auf riesigen unerschlossenen Erdgas- und auch Erdölreserven.

 

Genauso wie großen Gasvorkommen, die in Syrien, im Libanon und in Israel gefunden wurden, sind die kürzlich entdeckten, noch nicht erschlossenen Gasreserven eine wesentliche, wenn nicht sogar die entscheidende Motivation für den NATO-geführten Krieg in Syrien. Dort soll Baschar al-Assad vertrieben und durch eine den USA wohlgesonnene Marionette der Muslimbruderschaft oder, falls das nicht gelingen sollte, durch internes Chaos wie in Libyen ersetzt werden. Bereits wenige Monate vor den von Washington unterstützten Aufständen, die »Arabischer Frühling« genannt wurden, zeichnete sich ab, dass neu entdeckte Erdgas- und Erdölfelder im östlichen Mittelmeer ein neues »Großes Spiel« um die Herrschaft über diese riesigen Energiereserven auslösen würden.

Mehr: http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/europa/f-william-engdahl/die-krise-in-griechenland-und-verborgene-oelkriege.html/

Grossraum: International Conference of Global Revolutionary Alliance

Grossraum: International Conference of Global Revolutionary Alliance

jeudi, 02 mai 2013

Vers une dislocation géopolitique mondiale

LA FIN D’UN MONDE OCCIDENTALO-CENTRISTE

Vers une dislocation géopolitique mondiale

Franck Biancheri
Ex: http://metamag.fr
La crise, parce qu’elle n’a pas été anticipée par les dirigeants de la planète, a acquis sa propre vitesse de développement. En 2009, les efforts financiers, sans précédent historique, des États-Unis, de l’Europe, de la Chine, du Japon et d’autres pays n’auront permis que deux choses : anesthésier les corps sociaux des différents pays afin de retarder une violente réaction politique et sociale et sauver les grands établissements financiers sans les réformer.
 
Tout cela s’est effectué au prix d’un endettement insupportable des États, de la transformation d’une partie très importante (autour de 30 %) de l’économie mondiale en « économie-zombie » (c’est-à-dire ne survivant que grâce aux aides publiques directes ou indirectes ou bien grâce à la manipulation des règles comptables) et d’une méfiance croissante des opinions publiques occidentales vis-à-vis de l’ensemble des classes dirigeantes suspectées à juste titre de n’être que les représentants des intérêts financiers les plus puissants.
 
 
Parallèlement à ces phénomènes très visibles, et in fine de court ou moyen terme, la crise incarne d’autres tendances séculaires modifiant profondément l’ordre du monde que nous connaissons comme en particulier cette (re)montée en puissance de la Chine et de l’Inde, et la fin d’un monde occidentalo-centré. La décennie qui s’ouvre va être le théâtre de l’interaction de ces deux « temps » de la crise qui, tout en étant bien entendu corrélés, ne sont pas identiques. Les tendances séculaires peuvent être considérées, à l’échelle d’une décennie, comme des données, c’est-à-dire comme des phénomènes auxquels on peut se préparer sans pouvoir réellement en affecter le déroulement alors que les autres phénomènes (dont les durées varient entre 2 à 5 ans en moyenne) peuvent au contraire être directement affectés par les décisions humaines (celles des dirigeants et/ou celles des peuples).
 
 
La première partie de la décennie qui s’ouvre va donc être essentiellement marquée, d’une part, par l’émergence grandissante de tendances séculaires marquant la fin de l’occidentalo-centrisme et, d’autre part, par les conséquences de la crise financière et surtout des réponses qui y ont été apportées en 2009. Réponses qui ont conduit au surendettement des États et en particulier au surendettement du pilier de l’ordre mondial de ces dernières décennies qu’étaient États-Unis. La Chine étant le vecteur privilégié des tendances séculaires en action et les États-Unis étant à la fois le pays au coeur de la crise financière et de ses conséquences [1], on peut affirmer que ce sont les rapports sino-américains qui vont déterminer le rythme et l’ampleur des chocs que nous allons connaître d’ici le milieu des années 2010-2020.
 
Parallèlement, les autres acteurs (puissances nouvelles, anciennes ou réinventées) vont bien entendu agir et réagir au cours des prochaines années, soit en fonction de l’évolution du rapport USA-Chine et de ses conséquences, soit en fonction de leurs propres anticipations sur le monde des décennies à venir. C’est très probablement de ce groupe que peuvent naître les initiatives et les idées les plus fécondes pour éviter que la deuxième partie de la décennie ne se transforme en une descente aux enfers pour la plus grande partie de la planète et pour permettre que, d’ici 2020, un nouvel ordre du monde pérenne soit déjà en train de prendre forme.
 
Au vu de ce qui se passe depuis le début avéré de la crise, le duo USA-Chine a en effet très peu de chance d’éviter une confrontation stérile. Ni les dirigeants chinois, ni les élites américaines ne paraissent en mesure de faire autre chose que défendre/promouvoir leurs propres intérêts directs. Leur conflit mutuel, et ses conséquences intérieures pour les deux pays, va également capter toute leur attention, leur laissant peu de place pour penser l’avenir du monde. Cela dit, rien n’assure bien entendu que les contributions des autres acteurs seront en mesure de détourner le monde d’une logique de jeu à somme nulle et donc de conflits entre blocs comme celle qui va s’imposer rapidement dans la relation USA-Chine. C’est d’ailleurs pour cette raison qu’il y a bien deux chroniques du futur dans ce livre. La principale différence entre les deux tient à ce facteur, les divergences d’évolution induites apparaissant de plus en plus au cours de la seconde moitié de la décennie.
 
Regardons d’abord plus en détail les évolutions probables des principaux acteurs géopolitiques de la décennie 2010-2020 ainsi que celles du cadre général de leurs interactions. Ces évolutions probables seront un enchaînement des évènements qui va aboutir à la décomposition du système international actuel, notamment à travers l’effondrement ou la paralysie des principales institutions internationales et des nœuds stratégiques du système financier et monétaire mondial et l’amorce d’un processus de restructuration structurelle des grands acteurs globaux comme les États-Unis, l’UE, la Russie, l’Asie et l’Amérique latine, oscillant entre début de dislocation pour certains et poursuite de réorganisation pour d’autres.
 

                                             Franck Biancheri
 
Cet article est tiré du livre "Crise mondiale: En route vers le monde d’après" de Franck Biancheri, Directeur des Etudes de LEAP(Laboratoire Européen d’Anticipation Politique) , Editions Anticipolis

La démocratie peut-elle être installée par des armées étrangères ?

qulph.jpg

Irak, Afghanistan, Libye, Syrie…

La démocratie peut-elle être installée par des armées étrangères ?

Rony Brauman*

Ex: http://metamag.fr/
En Syrie, comme en Libye, ces événements se situent dans le monde arabe et aux abords de la Méditerranée. Ces points communs renforcent le contraste entre le volontarisme de l’intervention étrangère en Libye et la prudence qui peut paraître excessive face à la situation en Syrie. Mais il convient de se placer au-delà d’une démarche purement morale qui récuserait ces différences de traitement, car le propre de la politique internationale consiste à tenir compte de la singularité des circonstances et des événements.
 
Le cas Libyen

En Libye, l’extrême faiblesse diplomatique et militaire du régime a rendu l’intervention possible. Kadhafi, isolé, ne bénéficiait d’aucun appui au Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU, contrairement à la Syrie qui est soutenue par la Russie et la Chine. Le régime libyen était également très faible sur le plan militaire : chaque intervention de son armée au Tchad s’était soldée par une défaite, son aviation était presque inexistante, ses blindés en mauvais état et ses troupes divisées.
 
Par ailleurs, des dirigeants européens voyaient dans l’intervention en Libye l’occasion de créer dans leur pays un sentiment d’union nationale. Mise à part la période d’enlisement constatée par les militaires eux-mêmes, une seule bavure importante de l’Otan a eu lieu, ce qui est très peu dans une guerre de sept mois. Cette guerre, menée avec un savoir-faire technique notable, a rassemblé la quasi-totalité de la classe politique française, des opinions et des éditorialistes. Les conditions favorables étaient donc réunies pour qu’adviennent une victoire militaire et un résultat politiquement acceptable. La défaite de Kadhafi était certaine, mais le doute subsistait quant à ce qui allait suivre son exécution et la défaite du régime. J’en parle d’autant plus librement que j’étais l’un des rares opposants à cette intervention.
 

Rony Brauman et BHL : Guerre juste ou juste une guerre ? 
 
Les conditions dans lesquelles la guerre a été déclenchée restent à éclaircir mais tout laisse à penser que Nicolas Sarkozy et Claude Guéant l’ont très vite voulue. Les manifestations ont commencé le 15 février à Benghazi du fait de l’emprisonnement d’un avocat, militant des droits de l’homme, avant de s’étendre rapidement dans l’est du pays, les premiers affrontements se produisant le 17 février à Benghazi (7 morts). On ignorait tout, en France et en Angleterre, de ceux qui allaient diriger ce soulèvement. Or il n’a fallu que trois semaines entre le premier jour du soulèvement et la reconnaissance du Conseil national de transition (CNT) comme instance légitime, alors que la composition de ce dernier était inconnue, et il n’a fallu qu’une semaine de plus pour l’entrée en guerre. 
 
Le CNT a été d’emblée reconnu par la France dès le 10 mars, sous l’influence avérée de Bernard-Henri Lévy, et décrété seul représentant légitime du peuple libyen. En moins de trois semaines, cette nouvelle instance remplaçait les représentants de l’État libyen au Conseil des droits de l’homme et au Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU, alors que Kadhafi se trouvait encore en place et que la Libye faisait partie du Conseil de sécurité au moment de la guerre. Il n’existe pas, à ma connaissance, de précédent à cette situation et cette procédure inédite est passée inaperçue, comme si elle allait de soi. Il est vrai qu’elle se justifiait par l’accumulation d’allégations alarmantes : usage d’avions contre des manifestants, déploiements de milliers de mercenaires dopés au Viagra, déjà coupables de milliers de morts et de viols, colonnes de chars marchant sur Benghazi pour exterminer les insurgés et leurs complices... S’il est avéré que la répression avait fait dès le début mars plusieurs dizaines de morts et que des chars avaient pénétré dans Benghazi (d’où ils avaient été repoussés par les insurgés), le reste des allégations reste à prouver. Cette précipitation en dit long sur la légèreté dont a fait preuve l’ensemble de la classe politique et de la classe « éditocratique » françaises. 
 
Aujourd’hui, le pays se morcelle, les milices surarmées se multiplient et n’entendent pas abandonner le pouvoir qu’elles ont réussi à prendre, d’autant moins que le CNT ne représente personne, même en Cyrénaïque dont il est issu. J’ajoute que, selon le CNT, le bilan humain de cette guerre se monte à 30 000 morts, chiffre présenté par les nouvelles « autorités » comme un minimum. Si elle a été menée dans le but d’épargner des vies, le résultat est catastrophique et l’on comprend que ces chiffres aient été escamotés par les tenants de l’intervention.
 
« Deux poids deux mesures ? »

Face à la situation syrienne, l’approche des dirigeants occidentaux semble beaucoup plus élaborée ; la situation politique locale est prise en compte, alors même qu’elle a été délibérément ignorée en Libye. Ils ont à l’esprit les distances qui séparent l’opposition extérieure de l’opposition intérieure, ce qui oppose les groupes d’insurgés dans les différentes régions et, à l’intérieur de ces régions, les divisions entre les diverses composantes de l’opposition syrienne. Les diplomaties sont prêtes à travailler avec certaines d’entre elles, d’autres semblent plus menaçantes pour l’unité syrienne et pour l’établissement d’un état de droit. On peut dire que la lucidité, le réalisme comme méthode (et non pas comme principe) ont trouvé toute leur place dans la situation syrienne et si certains parlent de « deux poids, deux mesures » je ne suis pas mécontent que la réaction soit mieux mesurée et réfléchie en Syrie.
 
                                                     L'ambassade de France à Tripoli dévastée par un attentat
 
D’autres situations ont pu faire l’objet de réactions de type « deux poids, deux mesures ». Ainsi, quand l’Irak a envahi le Koweït, une coalition internationale s’est dressée. Mais quand les États-Unis ont envahi l’Irak, malgré une opposition presque unanime, on n’a pas imaginé qu’une coalition internationale pouvait se constituer pour leur faire la guerre. Outre le rapport de force militaire en faveur des États-Unis, personne n’a émis l’idée qu’il serait souhaitable d’arrêter les États-Unis plutôt que de les laisser dégrader une situation déjà très complexe au Proche-Orient. 
De la même manière, personne n’a souhaité engager une action militaire contre Israël envahissant le Liban en 2006 ou « matraquant » Gaza en 2009 ; personne aujourd’hui ne souhaite s’attaquer à Israël, lorsque ce pays envisage sérieusement une attaque sur l’Iran avec des conséquences qui pourraient être catastrophiques selon de nombreux experts stratégiques israéliens eux-mêmes, y compris d’anciens patrons du Mossad ou d’anciens chefs d’État-major.
 
Malgré toutes les critiques que je peux formuler vis-à-vis de la politique israélienne, je ne prônerais certainement pas une attaque militaire contre l’Iran, non pas parce qu’il devrait être de toute éternité exempt de toute mesure de rétorsion, mais parce que je suis convaincu que les résultats seraient pire que le mal que l’on veut traiter. Dans ce genre d’affaires comme en pharmacologie, on n’est jamais certain de trouver d’emblée la solution positive. En médecine comme en politique, un bon traitement est le résultat d’un bon calcul ; personne ne peut savoir d’avance ce qui va se passer. C’est pourquoi je défends l’idée de « deux poids, deux mesures », car c’est bien en fonction des conséquences plus ou moins prévisibles des décisions qu’il faut se déterminer.
 
Ingérence et recours à la guerre : quelle légitimité ?

L’ingérence et le recours à la guerre sont-ils forcément légitimes pour défendre les droits de l’homme ? Lorsqu’on pose comme objectif le rétablissement d’une situation favorable aux droits de l’homme, par l’interposition d’un bouclier qui viendrait protéger des civils contre les menées agressives de forces armées, on est apparemment précis, mais en réalité on est dans le vague le plus complet. 
 
« Protéger les populations », comme on le dit maintenant à la suite de la résolution de 2005 du Conseil de sécurité, c’est ni plus ni moins établir un gouvernement, car c’est précisément à l’instance qui gouverne le territoire qu’il revient de protéger la population. Ou alors l’alternative serait la fragmentation du pays en autant de groupes de populations qu’il existe de menaces et l’on assisterait non seulement à la guerre de tous contre tous mais au morcellement généralisé de tous les pays dans lesquels des violations sérieuses et répétées des droits de l’homme se produisent. S’ingérer pour protéger des populations afin de défendre leurs droits fondamentaux, c’est la recette pour le chaos, c’est l’invitation à entrer dans un grand nombre de conflits, car il y a un grand nombre de pays où les droits de l’homme sont violés. 
 
Faut-il pour autant condamner toute intervention armée, tout usage de la violence, dans le domaine international, autrement que pour assurer la défense de son propre territoire ? Ma position est plus nuancée. La guerre de défense garde toute sa légitimité et nul ne condamnerait un pays pour avoir voulu défendre ses frontières contre une agression extérieure, y compris des pays qui viennent défendre le pays envahi contre l’agresseur extérieur.
 
Reste à déterminer dans quelles conditions des interventions extérieures comme au Sierra Leone, au Kosovo, au Timor, en Côte d’Ivoire, en Afghanistan, en Irak ou en Libye... peuvent être un recours légitime. De saint Augustin et saint Thomas jusqu’à la résolution du Conseil de sécurité de septembre 2005 instituant la « responsabilité de protéger », les cinq critères de la guerre dite juste sont restés remarquablement stables : ce sont l’autorité légitime, la cause légitime, la proportionnalité des moyens, l’usage de la guerre comme dernier recours et enfin des chances raisonnables de succès. Le contenu de ces critères se comprend différemment selon les époques (pour saint Thomas, l’autorité légitime était l’Eglise et la cause légitime la défense des chrétiens) mais, si évolutifs qu’ils soient, ils conservent un sens immédiatement intelligible et figurent à peu près sous cette forme dans le document des Nations Unies (l’autorité légitime étant aujourd’hui le Conseil de sécurité et la cause légitime la défense de la paix et la prévention de crimes contre l’humanité). Je laisserai de côté les trois premiers, d’ordre juridique, pour mettre en exergue les deux derniers que je qualifie d’éthico-politiques.
 
On peut analyser les « chances raisonnables de succès » au vu de la série assez longue d’interventions qui se sont produites depuis la chute du mur de Berlin, de la première guerre d’Irak jusqu’à la guerre en Libye. Certaines de ces interventions peuvent être considérées comme des « succès raisonnables », même si le terme « succès » peut sembler déplacé, car ces guerres provoquent toujours des destructions et des souffrances, des déplacements de population aux effets durables. Des succès raisonnables ont été remportés, lors de la première guerre d’Irak, lorsque le mandat était extrêmement clair : il s’agissait de faire sortir du territoire koweitien les troupes irakiennes qui s’y trouvaient. L’objectif était facile à cerner et le résultat simple à constater, dès que les troupes irakiennes furent rentrées chez elles. Un mandat limité, précis, observable sur le terrain est donc une condition. 
 
En Sierra Leone, il s’agissait de défendre le régime en place contre une offensive de la guérilla du RUF . Ce régime mis en place par les Nations Unies, renforcé par une élection et défendu par la communauté internationale, était mis en danger par une guérilla très violente venue menacer la capitale et dont les exactions étaient connues de tous. Les forces spéciales britanniques sont intervenues et, en un mois, ont battu la guérilla après une intervention très meurtrière, considérée comme réussie parce que la menace contre le gouvernement légal a été levée. Au terme de cette victoire, les SAS britanniques sont rentrées chez eux et le conflit était terminé. Ce n’était pas une guerre des droits de l’homme. Si on s’était intéressé au bilan des droits de l’homme, on aurait constaté qu’un certain nombre des composantes qui formaient le gouvernement sierra-léonais de l’époque s’était rendu coupable d’exactions comparables à celles du RUF. Pour les instances internationales, il s’agissait d’abord de la protection du gouvernement et de la stabilité du pays.
De la même façon en Côte d’Ivoire, l’installation d’Alassane Ouattara dans le palais présidentiel et l’éviction de Laurent Gbagbo pouvaient parfaitement être défendues. L’objectif était clair. Il s’agissait de destituer Gbagbo qui se cramponnait au pouvoir après des élections qui venaient de donner la victoire à son concurrent, selon les observateurs chargés de la régularité du vote. Il est avéré qu’Alassane Ouattara s’est rendu coupable d’exactions, au même titre que Gbagbo peut-être, même s’il demeure difficile de déterminer avec précision les auteurs de ces massacres dans ce genre de situation. Les violations des droits de l’homme se partagent entre les deux camps. Ce n’est pas sur ce point que l’intervention militaire a été menée, mais sur l’objectif précis de la mise en place du nouveau gouvernement reconnu par les Nations Unies et élu par le peuple ivoirien.
 
On pourrait continuer sur le Kosovo. Les alliés ont misé sur l’UCK, l’Armée de libération du Kosovo, qui était connue, et pas nécessairement de façon honorable. Cependant, le territoire était limité et se prêtait à un contrôle militaire réel. Le Kosovo est aujourd’hui une garnison de l’Otan. Jusqu’à peu, des soldats américains gardaient encore ses frontières et le pays vit sous perfusion européenne ; il ne vit pas très bien, mais un certain calme règne. Ce n’est pas sur la question des droits de l’homme que l’on s’est déterminé. Je précise que j’étais pour ma part engagé du côté bosniaque et que j’ai pris parti pour le cosmopolitisme de la Bosnie multiethnique, mais je rappelle au passage une vérité factuelle bien peu connue. Les termes de « purification ethnique » – qui ont pris force de formulation juridique aujourd’hui –, apparaissent dans un mémorandum de l’Académie des sciences de Belgrade en 1986-1987 pour désigner une situation que les nationalistes serbes redoutaient au Kosovo. C’était un vieil enjeu pour eux et ils soutenaient que les Serbes du Kosovo étaient menacés d’être « ethniquement purifiés » par les Albanais yougoslaves du Kosovo, le berceau historique de la Serbie. De fil en aiguille, sur un mode militant très émotionnel et fusionnel, on a fait un renversement de programme dans un renversement de termes, et l’on a prêté aux nationalistes serbes le projet de la purification ethnique comme programme central. Le paradoxe ultime de cette situation, c’est que la prophétie des nationalistes serbes du Kosovo s’est réalisée avec l’aide de ceux qui entendaient défendre le pluralisme, le cosmopolitisme et le multi-ethnisme. 
 
Reste que c’est bien avec des objectifs politiques que l’intervention a été conduite au Kosovo, celui d’empêcher que l’on ne redessine des frontières en fonction de la race et par la force sur le territoire européen. C’est la leçon des guerres en Yougoslavie et c’est la raison pour laquelle – tout en étant non interventionniste en général –, je considère que les interventions armées en Bosnie puis au Kosovo ont eu des justifications sérieuses et que leurs résultats qui ne sont pas enthousiasmants, mais pas désastreux non plus. Cependant, dès lors que l’on déplace la question du mode de la responsabilité politique vers celui des droits de l’homme, on est dans l’hubris, dans la démesure, dans le no limit. On n’en finit pas de filer des paradoxes troublants dès lors qu’on installe le débat comme l’ont fait Bernard Kouchner, Bernard-Henri Lévy ou André Glucksmann, tous ces interventionnistes prêts à toutes les guerres pour les droits de l’homme. Pour terminer, un mot sur le critère du « dernier recours », pour rappeler que c’est au contraire une guerre de recours immédiat qui a été conduite en Libye, toute offre de médiation – il y en a eu plusieurs – ayant été systématiquement écartée.
 
Ma réponse à la question qui est posée initialement est donc négative : la force permet de renverser un régime, dictatorial ou non, mais elle allume des incendies qu’elle est impuissante à éteindre et elle ne permet certainement pas d’installer la démocratie.
 
*Rony Brauman, ancien président de Médecins sans frontières, professeur associé à Sciences Po, auteur notamment de "Penser dans l’urgence. Parcours critique d’un humanitaire" (Seuil) et de "Humanitaire, diplomatie et droits de l’homme" (éditions du Cygne).
 
Article paru dans : politique-autrement.org
Les illustrations sont de la rédaction

lundi, 29 avril 2013

Algerije: Geschiedenis, Geopolitiek en Actuele Destabilisering

Robert Steuckers voor Mediagroep Syrië

Algerije: Geschiedenis, Geopolitiek en Actuele Destabilisering

 

Samenvatting infoavond Algerije met Robert Steuckers – 24 april 2013

 

080730feature1photo-650_429

In 2009 werd Bouteflika bij presidentsverkiezingen met ruim 90% wederom herkozen als president van Algerije. Na zijn overwinning beloofde hij de komende vijf jaar 150 miljard dollar (112,8 miljard euro) te investeren in de economie en drie miljoen nieuwe banen te creëren. Algerije kampt met een hoge werkloosheid, woningnood en corruptie.

 

.

 

  • Algerije: oeroude geschiedenis.
  • Deel van het Romeinse Rijk.
  • Reservoir aan tarwe, olijven.
  • Berbers wonen in bergen langs de kust = stammen. Bondgenoten van Rome tegen Carthago.
  • Jugurtha: Numidische koning verloor een oorlog tegen Rome na een bloedige opstand.

 

  • Marokkaanse legioenen – Karavlakken
  • Christelijke gewelddadige sekte = Donatisten/Circoncelliones. Sterke invloed in de Noord-Afrikaanse kerk en ten slotte zelfdestructief toen de islam in de 7e eeuw Noord-Afrika veroverde.
  • Rijk land voor een bepaald aantal mensen.
  • Recrutering Eerste en Tweede Wereldoorlog door de Fransen = geld voor familie.

 

  • Oppervlakkige islamisering: verovering van Spanje vanaf 711.
  • Enkele stammen werden verjoodst: La Kahina
  • Verschillende dynastieën (Berbers) en opstanden (onstabiel).
  • Leger van Arabië: Beni Hilal (1048).
  • Oppervlakkige Germanisering door Vandalen: zeemacht.

 

  • Nesten van piraten (Rabat, Algiers) gedurende eeuwen in Noord-Afrika = nieuwe rijkdom door plunderingen. Mensen uit Europa worden slaven.
  • Toledo: drie eeuwen islamitisch (Moorse tijd: 712-1085).
  • Bezetting door Spanje van delen van Marokko tegen piraterij.
  • 16e eeuw: Algerije wordt een Turkse provincie.
  • Verovering van Algerije: 1830-1871 door Fransen die zorgden voor een moderne administratie.

 

  • Sahara: verovering in 1903.
  • 1947: opstand van Abdel Khader: vanuit het westen en de bergen tegen Frankrijk.
  • Bevolking vergast door Frankrijk: rook in de grotten in het noorden van Algerije.
  • Een miljoen Fransen en vele Europeanen bevolken Algerije en Noord-Afrika.
  • Oran bevolkt door Spanjaarden.

 

  • Geen kolonie voor Leopold I.
  • Ophitsen van Arabieren tegen Berbers door de Fransen.
  • Steden langs de kust ontwikkelen zich: arme bevolking.
  • Frans nationaliteit aan Algerijnse joden, vroegere ‘dhimmi’.
  • Krimoorlog.

 

  • Anti-semitische rellen in Algerije zoals in Rusland. Linkse krachten lokten deze uit.
  • Turken hitsen Salafisten/Senoessisten op tegen Italianen in Libië (Ataturk – 1914). Senoessisten bewapend door de Turken en de Duitsers; bondgenoten van Toeareg-stammen.
  • Spaanse griep na W.O.I.: 100.000den doden.
  • Economische bloei: wijngaarden, citrusvruchten, industriële gewassen.
  • Modern Algerijns nationalisme: Messali Hadj (familie van Ottomaanse origine) zat een tijdje in de gevangenis. Bouwde een ondergrondse beweging voor onafhankelijkheid.

 

  • Programma = lekenstaat naar het voorbeeld van Atatürk.
  • Mobilisatie van stammen voor het Franse leger.
  • Algerijnse oorlog was tegen Fransen en tussen Algerijnen. De orde werd gehandhaafd door Algerijnse troepen: ‘messalisten’ <> ‘frontisten’: 10.000 doden.
  • Abassi Madani: bommen in Radio Algiers (FLN).
  • 1989: steunt FIS (fundamentalisten): oproep jihad tegen Algerijnse regering.

 

  • AIS = leger FIS <> andere salafisten, gesteund door de regering.
  • 2003: Einde strijd. Madani gaat in ballingschap naar Saudi-Arabië en later Qatar.
  • 1962: Frankrijk wint de oorlog tegen Algerije: veel gesneuvelden.
  • Kasbah: oncontroleerbare gesloten wijken. Hier werden opstandelingen uitgeschakeld.
  • Ahmed Ben Bella: eerste president (Marokkaan). Richtte het FLN op.

 

  • Boumedienne: tweede president en Eerste minister tot 1978 (rebellenleider).
  • Arabisering is een ideaal naar voorbeeld van Syrië / Egypte.
  • Onderwijzers worden gezocht bij moslimbroeders in Egyte. Geheime salafisering / islamisering / linkse trotskistische elementen.
  • Ben Bella: banneling in Frankrijk / Zwitserland.
  • Boumedienne: bondgenoten zijn Chaouia Berbers. Voert geen religieuze politiek, eigen sociaal systeem en nationalisatie van de olie.

 

  • Algerijnse diplomatie: verzoening tussen Irak en Iran (1995).
  • Olieprijs zakt met 2/3e van de waarde: opstand, ontstaan FIS, die alle verkiezingen winnen.
  • Bendjedid wordt verdreven.
  • Burgeroorlog: jaren ’90.
  • Heden: Leger staat klaar met Russische tanks: geen Tunesië of Libië.

 

  • Marokko is belangrijk in de strategie van de VS.
  • Olie: Nigeria, Kameroen. Algerije: ook prooi van Arabische Lente.
  • Militaire actie in Mali.
  • Qatar: Aqmi islamisten betalen tegen Algerijnse overheid.
  • 2012: Vier Amerikaanse NGO’s opgericht in Algerije.

 

  • Maart 2012: Abd al-Kader: “Arabische Liga is niet Arabisch en geen Liga”.
  • B. H. Levy: “Algerije is geen Arabisch land en geen moslimland. Het is een joods, Frans land”.
  • Doel: wahabitisch liberaal systeem installeren naar het voorbeeld van Qatar. Controle over de Sahel en politiek tegen Europese en Chinese invloed.
  • Joodse stammen zouden een staat van Likud (Israël) krijgen.

mardi, 23 avril 2013

Nessuno tocchi la Siria

Establish a multipolar world order

Establish a multipolar world order

 
Ex: http://www.geopolitica.ru/
 
 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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