La Teoría del Corazón Continental de Mackinder y la contención de Rusia

Geopolítica Imperial: La Teoría del Corazón Continental de Mackinder y la contención de Rusia

por Niall Bradley*

Ex: http://paginatransversal.wordpress.com

“Lo que ha ocurrido en Crimea es una respuesta al modo en que colapsó la democracia en Ucrania. Y hay una única razón para esto: la política antirrusa de EE.UU. y algunos países europeos. Ellos buscan cercar a Rusia para debilitarlo y eventualmente destruirlo… Existe una cierta élite transnacional que durante 300 años ha anhelado este sueño.”

Lo que ha estado ocurriendo recientemente en Ucrania tiene muy poco sentido si no se ve en un amplio contexto histórico y geopolítico; así que en la búsqueda de un firme entendimiento de los eventos que se están desarrollando, he estado consultando libros de historia. En primer lugar es necesario decir que Ucrania ha sido históricamente parte de Rusia. Se constituyó como “una nación independiente” sólo en nombre a partir de 1991, pero ha sido completamente dependiente de la ayuda externa desde entonces. Y la mayoría de esta “ayuda” no ha sido, al menos, en su mejor interés.

La respuesta corta a por qué EE.UU. ha puesto en acción su descabellado plan para derrocar a Yanukoych recientemente en noviembre, es que el verdadero objetivo es Rusia, quien se interpone constantemente en los planes de dominación mundial de la élite bancaria, cuyo imperio se centra en los EE.UU. La respuesta larga es algo más compleja, pero en el proceso de trabajar sobre ella hemos descubierto sorprendentes precedentes históricos para todo lo que está ocurriendo en la actualidad, y hasta en los mismos fundamentos políticos se vislumbra una respuesta de por qué hacen lo que hacen.

Desde la desastrosa invasión de Napoleón a Rusia en 1812 (y quizá desde antes, si alguien pudiera resolverlo porque el Presidente de Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, se refirió a “300 años”), han existido esfuerzos sostenidos por parte de los poderes Occidentales por “contener a Rusia”. ¿De dónde proviene este deseo? Bien, en la actual narrativa Occidental en relación a la “agresiva incorporación de Crimea” por parte de Rusia, proviene de la necesidad de “contener el intento de Putin de recrear el Imperio Soviético”, y “evitar que la Rusia de Putin actúe como la Alemania Nazi”.

En el centro de esta narrativa está toda la retórica sobre que la Unión Soviética fue un “Imperio Malvado” del cual Ucrania y otras Repúblicas ex-soviéticas, Asia Central y ex-estados miembros del Pacto de Varsovia en Europa del Este, como Polonia, se liberaron para unirse al Libre Mercado Mundial alrededor de 1990, cuando “el Imperio Soviético colapsó”. Y todo esto, por supuesto, está basado en la narrativa Occidental de que el Comunismo Soviético fue “la raíz de todos los males”, y que tenía que ser erradicado de donde fuera que él se instalara o propagara (o se sospechara que se propagaba) tras la Segunda Guerra Mundial.

De hecho, podemos ir más lejos, pero antes de hacerlo, vamos a considerar en primer lugar la participación del FMI durante el último cuarto de siglo en Europa del Este. El FMI no está apareciendo en escena sólo recientemente con la “muy necesitada inyección de dinero” a la economía ucraniana. Los economistas occidentales, los académicos, banqueros e industriales, han estado, efectivamente, operando desde el terreno en las economías de Europa del Este desde que ellas “recuperaron su libertad al independizarse de Rusia”. Lea este reporte del parlamento ucraniano para hacerse una idea del daño que sufrió Ucrania durante los 90 – su población se redujo en un número mayor a los muertos durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial.

Los préstamos del FMI, generalmente, no están destinados a incrementar las arcas de los países que se suscriben a su “asistencia”; más bien están orientados al pago de los intereses devengados por las deudas de las naciones. A cambio, los suscriptores a estos préstamos mortales reciben “consejos” que deben seguir si quieren el dinero – entregado a cuentagotas – para seguir adelante con respecto a sus deudores y así evitar que sus deudas crezcan aún más. Dichos consejos – “condicionamientos estructurales” en términos técnicos – esencialmente se reducen a: “Vender absolutamente todo… a nosotros”.

Así que no fue el “espontáneo caos del momento” lo que provocó las extendidas calamidades económicas en Europa del Este en los 90. El desastre resultante fue consecuencia directa de la política monetaria y económica impuesta por Occidente sobre la región. Así se pudo observar la miseria extrema de millones de polacos repentinamente impedidos para comprar alimentos que estaban siendo exportados con el único fin de pagar las deudas contraídas – deudas que implicaban indefectiblemente un intercambio por las verdaderas riquezas de esos países, en especial sus recursos naturales y las industrias nacionales.

Rusia también obtuvo su parte de esta “terapia de shock”. Échele un vistazo al capítulo 11 de La Doctrina del Shock de Naomi Klein para ver la auténtica historia de horror de lo que pasó allí (“La Hoguera de una Democracia Joven: Rusia elige la opción Pinochet”). El Pueblo ruso sin embargo no sucumbió al genocidio económico. Para el año 1993, se dieron cuenta de que la única “libertad y democracia” que iban a obtener era, de hecho, una forma extrema de “terapia de shock económica” de la derecha. Ocuparon edificios gubernamentales en Moscú en un esfuerzo por detener el saqueo de su país y restaurar el orden. En medio de un tenso punto muerto, he aquí que “francotiradores desconocidos” aparecieron de la nada y comenzaron a disparar a la gente a la cabeza. Yetsin pensó que las balas estaban viniendo de una facción del ejército atrincherada en la Casa Blanca de Moscú y ordenó a fuerzas leales a él atacar el edificio. Cientos de personas resultaron muertas y, junto con ellas, murió la primera (y última) incursión rusa en la Democracia Liberal Occidental ®.

Así es como la “Mafia de Estado” de la oligarquía “cercana a Yeltsin” apareció. Fueron enteramente criaturas nacidas de los Intereses Financieros de Occidente. No había billonarios en Rusia antes de 1991. Y a través de todo esto, los medios de comunicación occidentales cantaron alabanzas a Rusia puesto que había implementado las “difíciles pero necesarias reformas” que redujo el Estado del bienestar, la base industrial y la población en general. Rusia entonces fue “libre y liberal” y todo fue maravilloso. ¡Ay de nosotros ahora que Putin ha dado la vuelta a la tortilla y Rusia está en posición nuevamente de frustrar la propagación de la Libertad y la Democracia ®! Rusia es una vez más “autoritaria y antidemocrática”, es decir, lisa y llanamente “pura maldad”.

Cuanto buscamos en retrospectiva a través de la historia, encontramos una serie de abruptos desplazamientos de la actitud de Occidente en relación a Rusia, donde esta nación pasa de ser “amiga” a “enemiga” casi de la noche a la mañana. Lo vemos claramente al final de la Segunda Guerra Mundial cuando la Unión Soviética de Stalin pasó de ser “nuestro increíble aliado” a el “nuevo Hitler”, incluso cuando la esfera de influencia de Europa del Este y el Oeste fue discutida a fondo y acordada por las potencias aliadas mientras que duró la guerra (ver La Controversia de Zion de Douglas Reed).

Previo a la Primera Guerra Mundial, Rusia fue “nuestro aliado” a partir de la coalición del “Triple Entente” conformada junto a Gran Bretaña y Francia; para el final de la guerra, se transformó en la “amenaza bolchevique”. Y comprensiblemente Rusia ahora es vehementemente antiimperialista y anticapitalista. Pero menos conocido es el hecho de que los bolcheviques también fueron enteramente criaturas nacidas de los Intereses Financieros Occidentales (ver Wall Street y la Revolución Bolchevique de Anthony Sutton).

A lo largo de la historia del siglo XX, todas o casi todas las acciones de Rusia fueron defensivas en naturaleza. Ahora bien, no pretendo subestimar ninguno de los delitos de sus líderes – de los cuales hay varios, a los países vecinos y a los propios – sino que, en términos de “imperialismo comparado” por decirlo de algún modo, no recuerdo a las milicias rusas a 13.000 Km. de distancia causando “conmoción y terror” y aniquilando en el proceso a millones de personas de otras naciones – personas que, por cierto, no tenían ninguna conexión con el pueblo ruso.

Mackinder y la Teoría del Corazón Continental

Antes del Imperio Norteamericano existió el Imperio Británico, y antes de Zbigniew Brzezinski existió Halford Mackinder. Este gurú académico de Oxford devenido en político fue ostensiblemente un “geógrafo”, aunque también el poseedor de una cierta “diligencia” que lo llevó a ser un hacedor de reyes de Gran Bretaña, en nombre de los Estados de Europa del Este y en detrimento de los imperios caídos de Europa después de la Primera Guerra Mundial. En 1904 Mackinder envió un artículo a la Sociedad Geográfica Real titulado “El pivote geográfico de la historia”, en el cual formulaba la “Teoría del Corazón Continental”, que él mismo, tiempo después, reduciría a esto:

“Quien domine Europa del Este controlará el Corazón Continental; quien domine el Corazón Continental controlará la Isla Mundial; quien domine la Isla Mundial controlará el mundo”. Mackinder, Ideales democráticos y realidad, p.194.

Podrías estar preguntándote ¿qué diablos significan esos términos arcaicos? “Europa del Este” es suficientemente obvio: los Balcanes, Ucrania, Belarús, Polonia, la Rusia “Europea” y los estados Bálticos. El “Corazón Continental” se extiende desde el río Volga hasta el Yangtze y desde el Himalaya hasta el Océano Ártico. La “Isla Mundial”… se lo imagina… es toda la masa de tierra contigua de Europa, Asia, Oriente Medio y África – así que, básicamente, todo el mundo salvo América y Australia. Échele una mirada a su mapa mundial.

Etiquetando a América como la “Isla de la periferia”, y a las islas británicas como las “Islas Exteriores”, Mackinder estaba remarcando el hecho de que eran periféricos al “centro”, la “zona de pivote”, que sencillamente pasa a ser Rusia. Aquí es donde la contribución como geógrafo de Mackinder finaliza, y su contribución como sirviente del imperio comienza. Él entendió hace 100 años que era (y es) una quimera para los administradores de imperios como los actuales de EE.UU. y la Unión Europea (la Alianza del Atlántico) obtener completa dominación sobre la “Isla Mundial” a través de los medios convencionales, simplemente porque las poblaciones y los recursos combinados de la vasta, interconectada y mutuamente dependiente masa de territorios opacarían sus “Islas Periféricas” como Gran Bretaña y EE.UU. Así que ¿qué hacer?

Mientras su propaganda constantemente proyecta “el permanente peligro de Rusia” (y a la vez de otros poderes de Eurasia, pero mayormente de Rusia) como una amenaza global que está presta a romper la contención ceñida sobre ella y tomar el control de la “Isla Mundial” y luego de las “Islas de la periferias”, el verdadero propósito de su “Gran Juego” es “contrarrestar esos factores físicos y tecnológicos que favorecieron la formación de grandes imperios continentales en la masa terrestre de Eurasia” [1].

En otras palabras, dándose cuenta de que fueron naturalmente excluidos del centro de la acción por su posición marginal en las “Islas de la periferia”, ellos se figuraban que la única esperanza de poder establecer un imperio global era organizar periódicamente “escaramuzas destructivas”, manipulando a los países del Corazón Continental poniéndolos unos contra otros, de modo tal que antes de que cualquiera de éstos pueda recuperarse del shock y volverse lo suficientemente fuerte económica y militarmente, se apresurarán a volver a cero la relación entre los pueblos, intentando de este modo que la situación sea favorable para mantener y avanzar en la hegemonía Anglo-Americana.

A propósito, Mackinder estuvo directamente involucrado en el nuevo trazado del mapa de Europa del Este como lo conocemos hoy en día. Participando en la Conferencia de Paz de París al final de la Primera Guerra Mundial a favor de la Oficina de Relaciones Exteriores Británica, directamente supervisó la disolución de cuatro imperios eurasiáticos (el alemán, el austro-húngaro, el otomano y el ruso) en arbitrarios pequeños estados “con el fin de cerrar las puertas de las tierras centrales de Eurasia a los enemigos de Gran Bretaña y mantener un status quo internacional favorable a los intereses de la nación Anglosajona” [2]. Esta es exactamente la misma “lógica” que se sigue en la actualidad.

Por supuesto, esta “lógica” precede a la Teoría del Corazón Continental de Mackinder y nuevas formulaciones han sido “inventadas” desde entonces, pero la mente en la cual surgen tales ideas sigue siendo tan estéril y ajena a la percepción humana normal como siempre. William Engdahl sugiere en La Guerra del Siglo: La política Anglo-Americana del petróleo y el Nuevo Orden Mundial que la teoría del Corazón Continental fue simplemente la más clara explicación del concepto de “balance de poder” que fue “venerado” por la élite británica en el siglo XIX:

La diplomacia británica cultivó [la] doctrina cínica [de balance de poder], la cual dictaba que Gran Bretaña nunca debería mantener relaciones sentimentales o morales con otras naciones como respetables socios soberanos, sino más bien debería obrar únicamente en favor de sus propios “intereses”. Las alianzas estratégicas británicas fueron dictadas estrictamente por lo que ellos determinaron en un período dado que podría servir mejor a sus propios “intereses”.

Esta forma paramoralista y psicopática de ver el mundo nos muestra a las claras el lenguaje dominante de la “diplomacia” y las relaciones internacionales – “el Gran Juego”, “el Gran Tablero de Ajedrez”, “el balance de poder”, “los intereses especiales”, etc… Esto no significa que todos los países y todas las alianzas mundiales perciben el mundo en estos términos. Ellos ciertamente tienen que responder a veces como si estuvieran envueltos en un juego de ajedrez geopolítico, pero esto suele deberse a que “el Juego”, como tal, es impuesto a ellos por la dominación de Occidente. Tome nota, por ejemplo, de Putin menospreciando la jerga diplomática y describiendo su asombro en relación a los juegos mentales de occidente en una conferencia de prensa tras el golpe de Estado armado en Kiev en febrero:

“La lengua de los diplomáticos, como sabemos, está allí para ocultar sus pensamientos. [...] A veces siento que en algún lugar cruzando el charco, en Norteamérica, hay gente sentada en un laboratorio conduciendo experimentos, como con ratas, sin en realidad entender las consecuencias de lo que ellos están haciendo. ¿Por qué necesitan hacer esto? ¿Quién puede explicarlo? No hay ninguna explicación en absoluto para esto”.

Lo que nos permite ver la “Teoría del Corazón Continental” – y similares formulaciones como la “Teoría del Juego” – ideada por la mente psicopática, es un sentido del complejo insular eterno de las élites de Occidente. Esto puede verse claramente cuando acusan a Eurasia o a otros de todas las cosas que ellos mismos hacen, y de poseer “el mal” que ellos mismos padecen: ese insaciable impulso por dominar absolutamente todo. El hecho mismo de que existan ciertas personas en este planeta quienes ven el mundo de este modo megalomaníaco, es lo que da lugar a este “Gran Juego” y el metódico esfuerzo por dominar y controlar el planeta entero. Sí, es psicopático, y es conducido por la codicia ciega y por sea cual sea la forma en que sople el viento en ese momento, pero también hay un método para su locura. Si pudieran, colonizarían otros mundos también.

Pero no hace falta que me crea a mí…

El mundo esta dividido casi en su totalidad, y lo que queda está siendo dividido, conquistado y colonizado. Pienso en esas estrellas que vemos sobre nuestras cabezas cada noche, esos vastos mundos a los que nunca podremos llegar. Anexaría los planetas si pudiera, con frecuencia pienso en ello. Siento tristeza al verlos tan claros y aún tan lejos. Cecil Rhodes

Mientras tanto, quizá el lector quiera escuchar nuestra entrevista a Eric Wallberg en el <SOTT Talk Radio del último domingo. Autor de Imperialismo posmoderno: Geopolítica y el Gran Juego, pienso que Wallberg ha hecho un buen trabajo dándole sentido a la “geopolítica” y sobre cómo este imperio mundial tomó forma en los últimos 150 años más o menos.

Notas

1. “Geopolítica, Federalismo, y Defensa Imperial: Halford Mackinder y Europa del Este, 1919-20″, artículo presentado en “Europa Central y del Este en la política mundial después de Versalles: Hacia una Nueva Historia Internacional”, Universidad de Oxford, Facultad de Historia, 4-5 de Octubre del 2013

2. Ibid.

* Niall Bradley es editor de Sott.net desde 2009.

Fuente: El Espía Digital

Alemania y China edifican la nueva ruta de la seda a través de Rusia: ¿la troika del siglo XXI?

por Alfredo Jalife-Rahme

Ex: http://paginatransversal.wordpress.com

A diferencia de Alemania y Rusia, la prensa china ha otorgado mucho vuelo a la “nueva ruta de la seda”: un proyecto geoeconómico de primer orden de Pekín que lo conecta geoeconómicamente con Berlín y Moscú, pero que, a mi juicio, tiene un transcendental trasfondo geopolítico (emsnews, 30/3/14). Durante su visita al emblemático puerto alemán de Duisburgo –el mayor puerto interno del mundo en la región siderúrgica y comercial del Ruhr, además de ser la encrucijada de transporte y logística de Europa–, el mandarín chino Xi Jinping exhortó a construir el cinturón económico de la ruta de seda.

Mientras Estados Unidos (EEUU) realiza cuentas alegres con los dos brazos de sus ominosas tenazas geopolíticas/geoeconómicas –tanto de la Asociación Transpacífico (ATP) como de la Asociación Trasatlántica de Comercio e Inversión (TTIP, por sus siglas en inglés), los cuales supuestamente captarían las dos terceras partes del comercio global–, las tres grandes geoeconomías de la proyectada “nueva ruta de la seda” conectarían a la hoy segunda geoeconomía global, China –a punto de desbancar a EEUU–, Alemania (primera en Europa y la cuarta a escala global) y Rusia (octava economía global).

La osadía geoeconómica/geopolítica del mandarín chino puede acelerar los planes de guerra de EEUU y Gran Bretaña, ya que ha sido un axioma inmutable de la geopolítica anglosajona desde sir Halford Mackinder (creador conceptual de la OTAN), en el intermezzo de las dos guerras mundiales a inicios del siglo XX: impedir a cualquier precio una alianza entre Alemania y Rusia en Europa. Hoy China y Alemania están conectadas por la red ferroviaria internacional Chongqing/Xinjiang/Europa.

Según Xinhua (28 y 30/3/14), la red ferroviaria “Yu Nueva Europa”, bautizada como la “nueva ruta de la seda”, se ha convertido en la “más importante ruta de comercio del mundo (¡supersic!) al conectar la relevante metrópoli sur-occidental de Chongqing (China) con Duisburgo”, que entró en operación en 2011 y recorta cinco semanas de transporte marítimo a sólo dos –lo cual fue seguido en 2013 por la conexión ferroviaria de cargo de Chengdu (capital de Sechuan y santuario de los legendarios Pandas)/Lodz (Polonia) que atraviesa Kazajistán, Rusia y Bielorrusia: mercados emergentes donde pasa la ruta de carga, que toma 12 días de transportación (http://www.alfredojalife.com/?p=1075 ).

Se vaticina que China se convertiría en el mayor socio comercial de Alemania en los próximos cinco años, cuando los principales socios de Berlín, tanto Francia como EU, “carecen de un poderoso potencial de crecimiento”.

En medio de las sanciones de Oc­cidente a Rusia, la prensa iraní destaca el acercamiento de China con Alemania, publica una entrevista con el investigador estadunidense-alemán William Engdahl, muy versado en geopolítica de los energéticos, las finanzas y los alimentos, además de ser catedrático de universidades en China y Alemania (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/04/06/ 357386/china-uses-economy-to-avert-cold-war/). A juicio del entrevistador iraní, el presidente chino, Xi Jingping, dio un golpe maestro de “diplomacia económica” para contrarrestar el “esfuerzo de la facción neoconservadora de Washington para propiciar una nueva confrontación entre la OTAN y Rusia”.

Para Engdahl, la proclama de Xi en Duisburgo comporta “implicaciones asombrosas de crecimiento económico en Eurasia”. Resulta y resalta que Alemania y China representan “dos locomotoras económicas” a cada lado de la ruta de la seda y rememora que el término de “ruta de la seda” describe “la antigua ruta comercial y cultural entre China, Asia Central y el Sur de Asia, Europa y Medio Oriente, que fue creada durante la dinastía Han, 200 años aC”.

Tanto la “ruta de la seda económica” como la “ruta de la separada seda marítima (sic)” fueron mencionadas por Xi durante la tercera sesión plenaria del Partido Comunista chino. Para Xi la ruta euroasiática representa una “prioridad estratégica”, ya que “China necesita encontrar nuevos mercados de exportación y preservar los existentes, así como disminuir las brechas de desarrollo entre las áreas costeras bien desarrolladas como Shanghai y la parte menos desarrollada al interior del país”, lo cual servirá para “preservar la estabilidad al interior de China y en su vecindad”.

La provincia efervescente de Xinjiang (China) se encuentra a lo largo de la ruta de la seda, donde prevalecen los islámicos uigures: centroasiáticos de origen mongol.

Engdahl destaca que “el camino del corredor de la nueva infraestructura pasa por Rusia (¡supersic!)”, por lo que “no existe alternativa económica” y hace inevitable la profundización de la cooperación entre Alemania y Rusia y, por ende, de China con los dos. A Engdahl no se le pasa por alto que una semana antes de su periplo por varios países de Europa, Xi recibió en Pekín al príncipe heredero de Arabia Saudita, Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, a quien invitó unirse en la construcción del cinturón económico tanto de la ruta eurosiática de la seda y como de la “ruta marítima de la seda” del siglo XXI que promuevan la “conectividad del transporte y la cultural”.

Llama la atención que Xi siempre acompañe la cuestión cultural en sus intercambios comerciales, como dejó entrever en su histórica visita a Yucatán: el “espíritu de Chichen Itzá”. El mandarín chino no deja nada al azar y, al unísono de su primer ministro, ha realizado visitas a varios países centroasiáticos a lo largo de la ruta de la seda: Turkmenistán, Kazajistán, Uzbekistán y Kirguizistán.

La elusiva estabilidad en Asia Central será fundamental para el éxito de la nueva ruta de la seda que comporta una propuesta visionaria y muy ambiciosa de cinco puntos del Xi: 1) la cooperación económica conjunta (¡supersic!); 2) el fortalecimiento de las conexiones de ruta para construir un gran corredor de transporte del Pacífico al mar Báltico y de Asia central al océano Índico (¡supersic!); 3) la facilitación comercial mediante la eliminación de barreras comerciales; 4) el fortalecimiento de la cooperación monetaria (¡supersic!), lo cual, a mi juicio, desplazaría gradualmente al dólar e impulsaría al renminbi chino, la rupia de India y al euro “alemán”, y 5) el estrechamiento de las relaciones de sus poblaciones: 30 mil (¡supersic!) miembros del Consejo de Cooperación de Shanghai estudiarán en las universidades chinas en los próximos 10 años.

Detrás de la decisión de China de enfocarse en dirección de su “occidente”, se encuentra un componente mayúsculo de seguridad, a juicio de Engdahl, cuando China es “muy vulnerable a la interrupción del estrecho de Malaca, donde pasa 85 por ciento de sus importaciones que incluyen 80 por ciento de sus necesidades energéticas”.

Con la mirífica “nueva ruta de la seda”, en sus componentes terrestre y marítimo, China intenta dar la vuelta al virtual bloqueo del estrecho de Malaca.

¿Dejará la dupla anglosajona, muy versada en balcanizaciones y desestabilizaciones, prosperar el eje euroasiático tripartita Berlín-Moscú-Pekín, que puede definir el nuevo orden multipolar?

www.alfredojalife.com

Twitter: @AlfredoJalife

Facebook: AlfredoJalife

US Presence in Eurasia and Its Impact on Security and Military Arrangements of This Region

Seyyedeh Motahhareh Hosseini

Asghar Shokri Moqaddam

 

Ex: http://www.geopolitica.ru

 

The Eurasian region has been gaining in importance due to a variety of reasons. These reasons can be divided into the three main categories of economics, military – security (including strategic and geopolitical), and the international environment.

Introduction

Four major components delineate the overall security approach that the United States has adopted in its international relations. They include recognition of the enemy and the risk posed by “others” (including the former Soviet Union, Communism, Muslims, China, and so forth), geopolitics, strategy, and realism.[1] These components have been highlighted by a great number of experts in international relations.[2] They construct a framework for the United States’ international relations in which such principles as the definitive existence of the enemy and the need to confront it on the basis of the formulated laws of the United States and the West, in general, create the bedrock for the establishment of relations with other countries.[3] At the present time, the United States, in particular, and the West, in general, are moving their strategic focus toward the main heartland of the earth, or Eurasia. However, in its core, this sensitive region is host to two major perceived enemies of the United States, i.e. China and Russia, as well as smaller enemies, including India and the World of Islam.

Eurasia accounts for more than 70% of the population, gross national product (GNP), and economic exchanges of the world.[4] This region also contains what is being described in economic and security arguments as the new Silk Road. It is also home to different routes used for economic exchanges, transfers of energy, and the establishment of security, as well as promoting cultural and tourism exchanges, especially with Asia tourism as its main axis.[5] In view of the specific conditions that currently govern this region, it is expected in less than 10 years from now to become the main focus of international politics and take the center stage in future political conquests by the West.

US Presence in the Region: Reasons and Tools

The Eurasian region has been gaining in importance due to a variety of reasons. These reasons can be divided into the three main categories of economics, military – security (including strategic and geopolitical), and the international environment. Here is a list of the reasons behind this and the tools being used to promote the US presence in Eurasia:

1.      BRICS: The group of countries known as BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) is considered to be one of the most securitized areas of political economics in the world, as its member states are collectively expected to account for 20% of the economic output of the world during the next 20 years. Three of the countries that constitute the BRICS group, i.e. India, China, and Russia, are located in Eurasia.[6]

2.      Oil reserves: The United States has started to boost its domestic oil and gas production. As a result, it will have no need to import exogenous oil in the future and, as a result, future fluctuations in global energy prices will not be able to have a rapid and direct impact on the US economy.[7] As a result, the United States will have a winning trump card in its hand and will certainly use it against the European Union and China.

3.      NATO: Continued expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) into Eurasia will further increase the influence of the United States in the heartland of the world and, thus, pave the way for an increased military presence of the United States and the European Union in this region.

4.      Islamism: After Samuel Huntington and a number of other Western thinkers offered their theories in the 1980s about the ideological threats posed to Western civilization by Islam and other Eastern rites and religions, especially the Chinese Shinto[8], the West, in general, and Europe, in particular, started to pay more attention to this part of the world. As a result, the Western countries have been waging military conflicts in the Middle East while getting engaged in an economic confrontation with the countries of East Asia. The popular uprisings in the Arab world have led to the establishment of national states in many Islamic and Arab countries in the Middle East and triggered new waves of the institutionalism of political Islam. Therefore, at the moment, the modern and secular states in Eurasia are not solely faced with the liberal-democratic model of the West, but see in front of them a complete set of various models of governance. The political developments that followed the Arab Spring and, finally, the crisis in Syria have shown that instrumental use of religious radicalism can work as a double-edged sword that may even target the national interests of the European countries as well. This is why the West has been making revisions in its previous plans to use fundamentalism against China in the Eurasian region.

5.      Russia: The ability that Russia has for knocking major international equations off balance, especially in continental Europe, has caused that country to be perceived by the West as a major threat against the new international order.

Military and Security Issues in Eurasia

The United States implements its supervision over various countries in the world through an integrated network of military bases and their related facilities that are scattered all across the globe. The United States is currently running 737 bases in which its Air Force, naval forces, and the US Army, as well as Washington’s intelligence and espionage activities, are managed throughout the world.[9] On the whole, a total of 255,065 US military personnel are currently deployed to various countries. In Eurasia, the United States is running operational bases in the Middle East, Central Asia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Japan. Most of these bases are used for the purpose of espionage activities and collecting intelligence. The largest portion of the US’ military forces outside the United States is stationed in Washington’s military bases in Southeast Asia. In Central Asia, about 1,000 people are now posted at the US airbase in Manas(Kyrgyzstan), and 38 people are manning the US’Krtsanisi base in Georgia.

As put by the secretary of the World Peace Council (WPC), in Central Asia, the raison d’être for the establishment of the United States’ military bases is not to use them simply to achieve Washington’s military goals or directly intervene in other countries. These bases, on the other hand, have always been used to promote the economic and political goals of the capitalistic system that rules the United States of America, he added. The American companies, as well as the US administration, have shown keen interest in the establishment of a safe corridor for the transfer of oil from US-controlled reserves in order to guarantee that they will be taken advantage of in the long run. They have shown this interest by embarking on the construction of oil and natural gas transfer pipelines which are supposed to carry oil and gas resources of the Caspian Sea and Central Asia through Afghanistan and Pakistan onwards to the Arabian Sea. This region (Central Asia and Caspian Sea) is home to more than 6% of the proven oil reserves of the world, as well as about 40% of global natural gas resources.[10]

The distribution of the US military bases in the region is such that they have practically surrounded the Middle East region. Situated at the center of that siege is the Islamic Republic of Iran as the heartland of the Middle East. This deployment of forces is currently moving toward the mainland of Russia and China. If the existing US military bases in Eastern Asia were added to the above list, we would see that the US military has actually laid siege to an entire region, that is, Eurasia, which contains all the modern energy transfer and economic routes. The US Navy has also been used to support this siege.

Global Defense Expenses

The highest level of defense expenses in the world can be seen in the North America region, which accountsfor 42% of the total defense expenses in the world. Russia and Eurasia collectively account for only 4.4% of the world’s defense expenses.

Graphical representation of global defense expenses sorted by regions in 2013 (the military balance, 2013)[11]

North America 42%

Europe 17.6%

Russia and Eurasia 4.4%

Asia & Australia 19.9%

Top Countries of the World in Terms of the Number of Military Staff

In terms of the number of military personnel, China, the United States, India, North Korea, Russia, South Korea, Pakistan, Turkey, and Vietnam are the top nine countries of this ranking in the world. Also, in terms of the total number of military personnel, China ranks the first with a wide margin as compared to the next eight countries on the list. China is followed by the United States and India, which have almost similar numbers of military personnel and respectively rank the second and third in this regard.

According to figures released by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the United States is credited for having the world’s largest military budget, which accounts for about 48% of the total money spent on military affairs in the world. According to the latest figures, the total annual military budget of the United States stands at $711 billion.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has announced that the United States, China, Russia, Britain, Japan, India, France, Germany, Italy, and Saudi Arabia are the world’s ten top countries in terms of the volume of their military budgets. However, the United States is still far ahead of the other countries in terms of military spending, as its military budget is four times higher than that of China and more than total military budgets of the next nine countries that succeed the United States on this list. Of course, the United States has been trying to reduce its military budget in recent years as a direct result of the budget deficit that has hit the country during the past few years. On the other hand, major European military powers such as Italy, France, and Britain have been also reducing their military budgets as well. On the contrary, however, the military spending in China has moved in an opposite direction to major global trends between 2011 and 2012. As a result, it has increased about 8% during that period and has risen more than 47% since 2008. The military budget of China saw an increase of 10.7% in 2013 to hit $119 billion. The country’s military budget had already seen an 11% increase in 2012 as well.[12]

New Military and Security Arrangements in Eurasia

A.     Underlying Advantages of Big Regional Armies

The sharp increase in the military budgets of China, Russia, and other Asian countries is not only due to an economic factor, but it is also an outcome of their threat perception of their immediate neighbors. Another important factor that has prompted these countries to increase their military spending is the presence of superpowers, in addition to NATO forces, in their surrounding environment.

It should be noted that NATO and American forces rely more on naval and air forces, which are in turn backed by marine and land bases. Also, according to a prominent theory of international relations, one of the main reasons behind the rise of the Western powers since the 1400s has been the expansion of their naval forces and the subsequent rise in their power and ability to conquer new colonies. This was firstly true about the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Britain, followed by the United States, which greatly expanded its military might following the end of World War I. As a result, marine geopolitics has played a great role in the expansionist efforts of these governments. Therefore, in order to compare the military and strategic powers of different countries, especially with a futuristic approach, most analyses focus on the historical background of these countries and the tools that they use to enforce their maritime power.

It should be noted that during the recent wars it has waged in the region, the United States has scored military victories through the efficient use of its powerful Air Force, which enjoys strong logistical support, as well as the behind-the-scenes support of its advanced intelligence and espionage facilities and equipment. It was due to this heavy reliance on the Air Force that the US Army did not have to deploy infantry forces to engage in land wars. The US Air Force, for its part, is supported by the country’s naval ships and destroyers, which are positioned in free waters, as well as in common territorial waters and air bases. It also has the advantage of using advanced and heavy military equipment in its operations. It is well known that the American military is quite capable of scoring rapid victories in wars, but is not similarly capable of winning in peace, meaning that it is not capable of maintaining the territories it has conquered.

At the same time, the Russian and Chinese armies are more focused on land forces and, therefore, enjoy powerful infantry forces, as well as special equipment that has been engineered to perform well in land wars on both large and small scales (including guerrilla warfare). The main advantage of the Russian army is its extensive use of missile technology, which has posed a serious challenge to the military might of rival countries by producing some of the most modern air defense weapons. The main advantage of the US military is the use of integrated intelligence and reconnaissance systems which provide the ground for better management of the war theater. More than anything else, China is known for the great number of its military forces. As a result, and due to the renovation of the Chinese army and its equipment in recent decades, the country has been rising as a serious military force at the global level during the past years.

B.     Reliance on the Navy

The Eurasian regional powers’ increased attention to the seas has been quite evident. There has been remarkable competition and differences between Japan and China over adjacent seas and disputed islands. Such competition and disputes have also existed between Japan and Russia, Russia and China, and among the Southeast Asian Tigers (which include South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia). Military experts and analysts of geopolitical issues are of the opinion that the extensive military activities by the powerful Chinese Navy in the South China Sea, as well as in the East China Sea, which contains the islands that are disputed with Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, have prompted the United States to send more naval forces to this restive part of the world. The new tug of war between the two military superpowers of the world, i.e. the United States and China, has turned the Southeast Asian waters into a live and permanent exhibition of both countries’ naval forces.

During the past two decades, China has taken great strides to strengthen its national army, especially its naval forces, so that the Chinese Navy is now among the most powerful naval forces in the world.

Many analysts are now concerned that the US effort to establish its domination over the entire Southeast Asia region and the rivalry that exists in this regard between Washington and Beijing will finally lead to escalation of the situation in that region and even end in all-out naval warfare.

C.     Regional Powers and Role of Regionalism

Modern international relations are more and more moving toward regionalism. The main outcome of this trend in Eurasia has been the increasing importance of regional powers. Apart from Russia and China, which have been established as dominant powers in this region, the roles played by such countries as India, Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey should not be easily ignored. The promotion of regionalism in Eurasia will be characterized with a dominant role for Russia as the main regional hegemonic power, which will also play a very important role in the formation of regional alliances. Iran will also play a prominent security and anti-security role, especially through the challenge that it poses to this regional hegemonic power, as well as to other regional and transregional hegemonic powers.

The regional role played by China has gone well beyond a purely economic role and has taken on serious security and military aspects, especially following the establishment of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). On the whole, regional countries will move toward the conclusion of a collective regional security treaty[13], which was previously hoped to be negotiated within the framework of the SCO. However, this organization has been already challenged by Russia and Turkey. Russia is of the opinion that a “collective security treaty” should be aimed to serve as a counterbalance to NATO. Unlike the SCO, which is characterized by the dominant role of China and is being managed according to this pattern, such a proposed security treaty would be based on the regional influence of Russia.[14]

In the meantime, the political activities of another major regional power, namely, Turkey, should not be ignored. Using various means, Turkey is trying to increase its influence on the geopolitical arrangement of Eurasia. Following the rise of the idea of Neo-Ottomanism, Turkey has been trying to organize its regional and transregional plans and strengthen them by encouraging the signing of pacts among various states.[15] The establishment of the Organization of the Eurasian Law Enforcement Agencies with Military Status in 2013, which has Turkey, Kyrgyzstan, the Azerbaijani Republic, and Mongolia as its members; the establishment of the Cooperation Council of Turkic Speaking States in 2009, whose members are the Azerbaijani Republic, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkey; as well as the introduction of the Eurasia Army, which includes the military forces of the Azerbaijani Republic, Turkey, Kyrgyzstan, and Mongolia, and which is supposed to replace the Association of the European and Mediterranean Police Forces and Gendarmeries with Military Status, are among the major efforts made by Turkey in this regard.[16]

On the whole, Eurasia will experience a remarkable spurt in the military and security fields during the next decade. A collection of economic, military, and security forces have come together in this region, which is also seeing an increasing presence of the superpowers as well. The rise of the Eastern powers has also drawn more attention to the revival of the cultural and historical identities of the countries located in this region and, therefore, this region is expected to become a focus for international attention in the near future. Islamism, Orientalism, traditionalism, Indigenism, fundamentalism, native nationalism, and emerging identities, in addition to the continued growth of the middle class in the Eurasian countries, have given, and will continue to give, birth to powerful social and political currents. From the military and security viewpoints, under the influence of these issues and historical events, and as a result of the experiences gained in the past few decades, major regional powers such as the governments of Russia and China, as well as other regional powers like India, Turkey, and Iran, will be playing a more prominent role compared to the past and this will increase the need for the establishment of new regional security treaties.

---

[1]Dalby, Simon. American security discourse: the persistence of geopolitics. Political Geography Quarterly, Volume 9, Issue 2, April 1990, p. 171-188

[2]Acharya, Amitav, The Relevance of Regions, ASEAN, and Western IR’s false universalisms, August 10, 2011, www.theory-talks.org/2011/08/theory-talk-42.html; Grovogui, Siba.IR as Theology, Reading Kant Badly, and the Incapacity of Western Political Theory to Travel very far in Non-Western Contexts. August 29, 2013. www.theory-talks.org/2013/08/theory-talk-57.html

[3]Xuetong, Yan. Chinese Realism, the Tsinghua School of International Relations, and the Impossibility of Harmony. November 28, 2012. www.theory-talks.org/2012/11/theory-talk-51.html

[4] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. (1997) Geostrategy for Eurasia, 76 Foreign Affairs. p. 50

[5]Hosseini, S. M., New Silk Roads, Policy Paper; Institute for Humanities Research affiliated with Academic Center for Education, Culture and Research; 2011

[6]  Jerry Cohen, Benjamin. Currency Wars and Reviving the ‘Political’ in International Political Economy. 5.9.2008. www.theotytalk.org

[7]Sieminski, Adam . International Energy Outlook . EIA, July 25, 2013

[8] Huntington, Samuel, Clash of Civilizations Theory: Huntington and His Critics, translated by MojtabaAmiriVahid, Tehran, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2005

[9]Dismantling the Empire: America's Last Best Hope (American Empire Project), Metropolitan Books, 2010

[10]www.yjc.ir/fa/news/4291513; Dufour, Jules. The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases, The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel. Global Research, December 24, 2013. www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases/5564

[11] The Military Balance, 2013

[12]http://new.irib.ir/print.aspx?newsid=29339

[13]Allison, Roy. Regionalism, Regional Structures and Security Management in Central Asia.International Affairs. Volume 80, Issue 3, May 2004. pp 463-483

[14]http://persian.ruvr.ru/_print/124421072.html

[15]Hosseini S. M. et al, European Union in Foreign Policy of Turkey under Justice and Development Party; Central Eurasia Research Center, Fall and Winter 2012-2013, pp. 21-38

[16]www.trtpersian.com/trtworld/fa/newsDetail.aspx?HaberKodu=25c349cd-c386-43ee-9c76-149c87318f44

Author: Salman Rafi Sheikh

US is Losing its Geo-Political Edge in Asia!

Ex: http://journal-neo.org

The US  ambitious “pivot” to Asia is not working the way it would have wanted it to. Not only is is facing strong competition and resistance from potential ‘enemy’ states, but its own so-called ‘allies’ have also started to become a source of trouble rather than comfort. In his latest visit to Asia, President Obama failed to secure the US’ vital objectives which were otherwise of crucial significance for strengthening his ties with its erstwhile ‘allies’ in South and East Asia, especially in the wake of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and geo-political upheavals in Europe (Ukraine crisis) and the Middle East. Timing of the tour, in the wake of these crucial geo-political circumstances, was therefore of critical significance. And the tour, if it had been ‘successful’, would have helped the US in tightening geo-strategic circle around China and Russia. The US’ “Asia Pivot”, which is supposed to run parallel to the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, stumbled across a number of serious setbacks when President Obama failed to secure certain vital deals with its ‘key’ allies in South-East Asia.

Apart from issuing statements of solidarity, the visit did not bring forth any meaningful advance for the US. President Obama had hoped to use his visit to sign a trade agreement with Japan which would otherwise have been a critical step towards the strengthening of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but the agreement really had no chance because of a stiff resistance from within Japan, and the local government’s failure to convince its public of the ‘utility’ of such an agreement.

This fact is a sound enough indication of the fact that people are gradually becoming aware of the way the US exploits inter-state disputes to further its own hegemonic agenda. This fact became clear when President Obama had to mention, in his attempts to elicit a positive response from Japan on finalizing the trade agreement, Japan’s confrontation with China over a clump of Islands in East China. This is not the first time the US has deliberately tried to intensify inter-state tensions in the region. For example, during Hagel’s last trip to Japan and China, he drew a direct, but yet unnatural, parallel between Crimea’s legal annexation with Russia’s case in Crimea and China’s territorial disputes with its neighbours in the East and the South China Sea. His attempts were aimed at paving the way for President’s visit to Japan by provoking an artificial environment of hostility between China and Japan.

However, the net result of this tour of President Obama, and that of earlier tours, has been an alliance clearly on a weaker footing than it was earlier and very much vulnerable to geo-political frailties. Announcing the failure to finalize and sign the agreement, Akira Amari, a Japanese state minister in charge of the trade talks for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s administration, said in Tokyo that “several issues” between the US and Japan were still unresolved.“We made significant progress, but our positions are still far apart,” Amari told reporters.

It would be a mistake to interpret these “several issues” as merely economical. The disagreement has a lot to do with Japan’s resurgence in the Pacific, and attempts to reduce dependence on the US. It must be taken into account that Abe’s government in Japan has increased the Japanese military budget for the first time in a decade, established a US-style national security council, re-oriented military strategy to the country’s southern island chain opposite the Chinese mainland, and begun to revive the Japan’s military power, which has a real problem for the US; for, it will not only reduce Japan’s dependence over the US, but also cause a serious cut in the US’ military presence in the region. It is for this reason that the US, previewing Japan’s reluctance to host a huge number of the US forces in future, has been attempting to secure new deals with weaker states, such as the Philippines, to increase its military presence there

Thus the original purpose of this agreement is to keep Japan dependent upon the US for both economic and military agendas. As a former US national security adviser, Tom Donilon, wrote in Washington Post, the Trans-Pacific agreement is actually meant to solidify the US leadership in Asia and to put the US “at the center of a project” that would “govern the global economy for the next century.” But, contrary to the US ambitions, Abe’s government is trying to exploit the opportunity to remilitarize and mount its own diplomatic offensive in South East Asia.

The US failure to achieve its objectives in Asia becomes more even more obvious when we look at the fast expanding military power of China, which did not push the regional allied states. In other words, China’s growing power, both economic and military, is itself fast becoming a factor pushing the US to its limits in Asia. Although the US naval supremacy is, generally speaking, still intact in the Pacific, China’s aggressive military expansion over the past two decades — its defense budget grew more than 12 percent this year alone — calls into question the long-term balance of powers in the Pacific. In last year alone, China commissioned 17 new warships, more than any other state in the whole world. It also aims to have four aircraft carriers by 2020 and has already developed a considerable fleet of nuclear submarines. In the next few decades, China’s ability to project naval power will extend deep into the South Pacific and Indian Oceans.

Do the East Asian states still consider China as an ‘enemy’ state, while the relations between them continue to stay far from what one could call  ”friendly”? If this is not true, then why the US’ ‘democratic’ allies facing more and more obstacles in signing local military and economic agreements? The underline cause must be the growing trade relations between some of local states and China. For example, an annual trade between India and China reached a record $ 74 billion in 2011, when China became India’s largest trading partner. Similarly, by 2015, bilateral trading between China and the ASEAN, will doubled, growing from $231 billion to $500 billion, that would make China the ASEAN’s biggest trading partner. And, as far as trade relations between China and Japan are concerned, they have been directly trading their currencies, the Yen and the Yuan, on the inter-bank foreign exchange markets in Tokyo and Shanghai in a bid to strengthen bilateral trade and investment between the world’s second- and third-largest economies. Both countries are skipping the dollar in transactions, intend to reduce their dependence on the US dollar and on the US monetary authorities’ influence on the Asian economy. In other words, Japan, an ‘ally’ of the US has directly been aiding China’s goal of undercutting the US influence in the region.

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

China’s Presence in Latin America

Nil NIKANDROV
Strategic-Culture.org

China’s Presence in Latin America: Strategy of Gradual Squeezing US Out

The United States keeps on getting mired in the quagmire of Ukraine’s crisis. Meanwhile China is intensifying diplomatic efforts in Latin America. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has just wound up his Latin America trip. He has visited Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil. China’s top leader Xi Jinping is to tour the region in July.

Beijing boasts the relations of strategic partnership with Havana, Caracas, Buenos Aires and Brasilia. That’s what Wang Yi talked about while meeting Raul Castro, Nicolas Maduro, Cristina Fernandez and Dilma Rousseff. Without any exaggeration he was greeted with outspread arms. In recent years, China has significantly strengthened its presence in the region. Many of the states situated to the south of Rio Grande see dynamic trade and investments coming from China as an important contribution into reduction of dependence on the United States with its annoying incessant rebukes and off-handed interference telling everybody what to do. Latin Americans want close cooperation with the Celestial Empire, the state which boasts rapid progress and looking confidently into the future to become a world leader in the multipolar world. 

According to plans, the Chairman Xi Jinping’s visit to Brazil will coincide with the announcement of establishing the joint ministerial-level forum with the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), a platform for promoting their comprehensive cooperative partnership, which features equality, mutual benefit and common development, so as to better safeguard their common interests and promote world and regional peace, stability and development. The initiative is unanimously approved by CELAC member-states. The idea of close friendship with China is attractive. The state is nearing a super power status and is involved in hundreds of joint energy, infrastructure, communications, agriculture, science and high-tech projects. The leaders of China, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Costa Rica and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines will be present at the ceremony devoted to the Forum’s establishment. By the end of 2014 the first ministerial China-CELAC working meeting is scheduled to take place. 

The Wan Yi’s visit was mainly focused on practical issues. The special development zone in Mariel, a Cuban port, which is being built with financial support from China, was an issue of special importance. That megaproject under construction 45 km west of Havana is to become a pillar of Cuban development due to the geographic location of the port, remodeled to equip the terminal to receive deeper-draft ships. The project will also attract investment in biotechnology, the pharmaceutical industry, renewable energy, agribusiness, tourism and real estate. Attracting foreign investments is an important contribution into the modernization of the whole country. In Venezuela the parties discussed the diversification of oil and gas sector and the expansion of the welfare program aimed at providing social housing. In Brazil the communications protection of the host country and the states of UNASUR (the Union of South America Nations), especially from interference of US NSA and CIA, was added to the agenda. The Brazil-US relationship has greatly deteriorated following the revelations of Edward Snowden. Washington has never clearly said it was sorry for spying on the country’s leadership, including President Dilma Rousseff. The news about the United States activities made many Brazilians see the reality as it is putting an end to fantasies about equal partnership. 

Many media reported that during his trip Wan Yi discussed the agenda of the sixth summit of BRICS countries with his Brazilian counterpart Brazilian Foreign Minister Luiz Alberto Figueiredo Machado. The group leaders’ meeting is to take place in the Brazilian city of Fortaleza on July 15-17. An announcement of launching a joint development bank with authorized capital stock of $50 billion is expected with great hope. But any signs of constructive steps taken by BRICS are an irritant for the United States. President Obama has failed to establish good relations with the group and Washington has no leverage to influence the organization’s activities. 

The recent example is the United Nations General Assembly’s vote on Crimea in March with four out of five BRICS members abstaining. Every BRICS member has its own reasons not to trust the Obama’s administration expecting it to resort to pressure instead of engaging in a dialogue of equals. 

China has never had any illusions on the account of the North American “partners”. The Asia pivot announced by the United States is seen in China as an attempt to cut it off from the world. South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Malaysia and some other countries are sided with the USA. The recent news from the “anti-China” front is the planned agreement between the United States and the Philippines on US military installations to be deployed in this country for the initial term of 10 years. Of course, China takes appropriate measures in response to boost its defensive potential. 

China believes in the expediency of BRICS expansion to counter the West’s financial dominance implemented with the help of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The group set before itself some strategic goals like gradual distancing for the dollar and creating safe cushions against financial turmoil. China supports the Russia’s approach based on the BRICS “transformation from a dialogue forum into a full-fledged mechanism of strategic interaction.” 

As of December 2013, China was the Latin American third largest trade partner. The trade turnover is on the rise in 2014. China has become the leading consumer of the continent’s minerals causing Washington’s concern. It imports oil, iron, copper, soya and consumer goods. The China’s clout grew significantly as a result of the establishment of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA) in 2004. The organization is a brainchild of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez created to counter the US-led free trade zone concept. 

The US has lost its financial might struggling for world leadership and involved in overseas wars. To large extent China has taken its place… In 2013 the total amount of China’s investments almost reached $17 billion. It has become the leading trade partner of many states in the region, including Brazil. Only in the period of 2005-2011 Latin America received over 75 billion dollars from Chinese banks. Mainly the money was spent on transport, telecommunications, mine industry and energy projects. 

One of the reasons China gives money to Latin American states is to prevent pro-US politicians coming to power. Beijing is interested in preserving social peace in the countries led by left-wing governments. This issue was constantly kept in focus during the Wang Yi’s Latin American tour. Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and some other states are getting more threatened by subversive activities of American special services. The financial support they get from China becomes an important factor of regional stability. 

Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture Foundation on-line journal www.strategic-culture.org.

Author: Ulson Gunnar

A US & Filipino Front Vs. China

Ex: http://journal-neo.org

The reversal of longstanding policy preventing the US from using Filipino territory for military bases signifies and escalation in tensions between the United States and China, as well as exposes the true nature of the US “pivot” toward Asia. 

The Guardian in its article, “Philippines agrees to 10-year pact allowing US military presence,” states that, “the United States and the Philippines have reached a 10-year pact that would allow a larger US military presence in this south-east Asian nation as it grapples with increasingly tense territorial disputes with China, White House officials said on Sunday.” The article would go on to claim that the move seeks to “deter China’s increasingly assertive stance in disputed territories” but that it could “encourage China to intensify its massive military buildup.”  

For many geopolitical analysts, the move comes as no surprise. The “pivot” toward Asia, while promoted as America’s attempt to reengage in the region diplomatically, was in fact nothing more than an attempt for the US to reassert itself as a hegemonic power against a rising China. The encirclement of China with a bloc of pro-Western Southeast Asian regimes has been the cornerstone of US policy in Asia for decades. 

 

Containing China: America’s Ongoing Project 

As early as 1997, US policy makers were articulating a means of containing China’s rise. One such policy maker, Robert Kagan, stated in his 1997 op-ed, “What China Knows That We Don’t: The Case for a New Strategy of Containment,” that, “the choice we face is not between containment and engagement, but between an ineffective, unconscious, and therefore dangerous containment — which is what we have now — and a conscious and consistent containment that effectively deters and ultimately does change China.”

 

Kagan and other US policy makers’ desire to “change China,” includes the political reordering of the country within through covert subversion and the fueling of violent separate movements along its peripheries, as well as the military encirclement of China abroad. The recent pact between the Philippines and the US, giving American military might a new foothold in the Pacific, represents one of many attempts to encircle China. 

 

To understand this encirclement deeper, one must read through the 2006 US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute’s report titled, “String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China’s Rising Power Across the Asian Littoral.” The 36 page report details the geopolitical and strategic background within which this latest pact between the Philippines and the US was signed.

 

The report states specifically that, “the United States should expect countries like Pakistan, Myanmar, Cambodia, and Vietnam to welcome overtures from China. Even America’s staunchest regional allies—Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines, for example—increasingly find it in their self-interest to improve ties with China. The United States also should expect occasional expressions of reticence over U.S. military presence throughout the region. This will not necessarily indicate a diminished friendship with America; rather it is a symptom of the perception that a peaceful region does not require U.S. military presence.”  

 

The report continues by stating (emphasis added), “this perception is a fallacy, however, since security is illusory. The United States can accommodate military sensitivities with a less visible presence or reduced footprint, but America cannot afford to abandon its military commitments in Asia. In the event China chose to pursue a more aggressive course, by seeking hegemony along the “String of Pearls,” the challenge to the United States could not be ignored. In the interim, even as nations delicately balance their relationships with United States and China in pursuit of their own self-interest, America needs to keep her alliances in good stead while encouraging China’s further participation in the international system as a responsible stakeholder.”

 

The incremental creep of US military forces back into the Philippines after they withdrew decades ago, signifies America keeping “her alliances in good stead.” Of course, this “international system” or “order,” the report refers to was described by Robert Kagan in his 1997 piece as serving “the needs of the United States and its allies, which constructed it.” In other words, this “system” or “order” within which the US would like China to submit, is a euphemism for US hegemony. 

 

US-Philippines Military Pact is an Empty, Unnecessary Provocation 

 

While the US and the government in Manila will attempt to sell the recent military pact as a means of maintaining peace and stability throughout the region, it is in fact going to do precisely the opposite. It is an adversarial policy aimed at pressuring and provoking Beijing, and in particular to undermine the perceived strength of China both at home and across the region. 

 

While analysts believe China will increase its military budget to counter the move, Beijing will likely only do so to a point. The threat to China and its interests by these new US forces is negligible. The US has neither the resources nor the political will to wage any war, anywhere, let alone with a nuclear-armed China and its billion plus population. Should China expend a disproportionate amount of resources toward its military, it may do so at the expense of domestic socioeconomic development, and give the US an opportunity to sow the seeds of dissent across its population. Subversion, unlike an external military threat, is still a cause for concern in Beijing. 

 

For the Philippines, its population must ask the sitting government what benefit such a pact extends to their nation’s prosperity and future. Allowing the island nation to be used as a proxy belligerent in America’s quest for hegemony is done so at the expense of its political ties and future with an increasingly influential China, its budget that will be surely redirected from domestic develop and toward a military build-up, and all the consequences of hosting American troops that made it necessary to prohibit them years ago in the first place.  

Over the next 10 years, the US will be using the Philippines to provoke and harass Chinese ambitions in the Pacific. Within these 10 years, irrevocable damage may be done between the Philippines and China, between their cultures and economies. As the US has done elsewhere, when it has achieved its goals, it will discard Manila and any responsibility for what it has done. For the sake of slaking intentionally drummed up nationalist fervor across the Philippines today, the Filipino people may end up paying for years well into the future. 

Ulson Gunnar is a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

City of London’s Imperialist Designs on Russia

by Dean Henderson ⋅

Ex: http://deanhenderson.wordpress.com

Yesterday the EU and US imposed additional sanctions on Russia, while 150 US troops landed in neighboring Estonia for military exercises.  Two months after Ukraine’s democratically-elected President Viktor Yanukovych fled the country amidst the MI6/CIA/Mossad-orchestrated putsch in Kiev(http://deanhenderson.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/ukraine-falls-under-fascist-bankster-thumb/), the West continues to ramp up its aggression against Russia, despite repeated attempts at diplomacy by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

So what else is new?

The Rothschild-led City of London bankers have held grand imperialist designs on Russia’s rich natural resources for two centuries, always to be stymied by the odd nationalist czar or Stalinist.  Putin thwarted their latest attempts when he jailed Israeli dual citizen Mikail Khodorkovsky and re-nationalized much of Russia’s energy sector.  It is no coincidence that one Russian official sanctioned yesterday was Igor Sechin – president of Russian oil giant Rosneft, of which BP still owns a 20 % share.

(Excerpted from Chapter 17: Caspian Sea Oil Grab: Big Oil & Their Bankers…)

Unholy Alliance

While the international banking syndicates had always dealt with the Soviet Union, access to its vast oil resources remained limited until Ronald Reagan entered the White House in 1980, determined to splinter the Soviet Union into little pieces and open the country’s oilfields to the Four Horsemen.  His point man in doing so was CIA Director Bill Casey, whose Roman Catholic Knights of Malta connections were thoroughly exploited.

The Vatican’s secretive Opus Dei “saintly Mafia” was behind the ascent of Polish Cardinal Karol Wojtyla to the Papacy.  Wojtyla became Pope John Paul II and launched an Opus Dei/Vatican offensive to roll back Latin American liberation theology movements and East European communism.  Fascism came naturally to Karol Wojtyla.  During the 1940’s he was a chemical salesman for Nazi combine I. G. Farben.  Wojtyla sold the Nazis the cyanide they used at their Auschwitz death camps.  One of his best friends was Dr. Wolf Szmuness, mastermind of the 1978 Center for Disease Control Hepatitis B study in the US, through which the AIDS virus was introduced into the gay population. [722]

In 1982 Reagan met with Pope John Paul II.  Prior to the meeting Reagan signed NSD-32, authorizing a wide range of economic, diplomatic and covert activities to “neutralize the USSR’s hold on Eastern Europe”.  At the meeting the two agreed to launch a clandestine program to tear Eastern Europe away from the Soviets.  Poland, the Pope’s country of origin, would be the key.  Catholic priests, the AFL-CIO, the National Endowment for Democracy, the Vatican Bank and CIA would all be deployed.

The Vatican is the world’s largest owner of equities, using Swiss affiliate Banco di Roma per la Svizzera to conduct its more discretionary business.  Italian fascist Benito Mussolini gave the Vatican generous tax exemptions which it still enjoys.  Banco Ambrosiano’s P-2 leader Robert Calvi’s Grand Oriente Freemason’s supported reconciliation with the Vatican.  Relations between the Vatican and the Freemasons were strained in the 11th century when the Greek Orthodox split from the Roman Catholics. Knights Templar and the Knights Hospitaler of St. John factions emerged.  The latter was the Catholic faction. They changed their name to the Knights of Malta, after the island where they found refuge after their Crusades defeat, with help from the Vatican.  Malta is a nexus of CIA/MI6/Mossad intrigues.

In the 13th century Pope Clement V, backed by France’s King Philip, charged the Protestant Knights Templars with heresy, citing their penchant for drug running, arms peddling, gambling and prostitution rings.  These activities are what made the Templars “filthy rich”.  Pope Clement made an example of Templar leader Jaques de Molay, whom he burned at the stake on Friday the 13th. [723]  The Templars took their loot and fled to Scotland to found Scottish Rite Freemasonry.  They bankrolled the House of Windsor, which controls Britain and presides at the apex of Freemasonry around the world.  Masonic Lodge members enroll their children in the de Molay Society, which is named in honor of the toasted Templar pirate.

Calvi’s attempt to reconcile protestant and Catholic secret societies was a success. He became paymaster to the Polish Solidarity movement, while Nixon Treasury Secretary David Kennedy’s dirty Continental Illinois Bank served as conduit for CIA funds sent by Bank of Cicero asset Bishop Paul Marcinkus to fund Solidarity. [724]  The Vatican teamed up with Europe’s Black Nobility, the Bilderbergers and CIA to launch the top-secret JASON Society and armed South American dictators to quash liberation theology.  In 1978 when Pope John Paul II took power, the Vatican issued a commemorative stamp featuring an Egyptian pyramid and the Roshaniya all-seeing eye. [725]  The Vatican and the Illuminati Brotherhood were reunited.

Reagan’s meetings with Pope John Paul II were an affirmation of this powerful new alliance, which would now focus on bringing the Soviet Union to its knees.  Even before Reagan met with the Pope the CIA had groomed an informant at the Polish Ministry of Defense- Colonel Ryszard Kuklinski.  Kuklinski reported to the Vatican and helped organize the Polish Solidarity Movement, led by the wealthy Radziwill family who had funded JFK assassins via Permindex.  Most Solidarity leaders were old-money aristocrats.

The precursor to Solidarity was the National Alliance of Solidarists, a Russian/Eastern European fascist hit squad funded by RD/Shell’s Sir Henry Deterding and German Vickers Arms Corporation President Sir Basil Zacharoff.  Sir Auckland Geddes of Rio Tinto Zinc, which bankrolled Francisco Franco’s fascist coup in Spain, also contributed to the Solidarists.  Geddes’ nephew- Ford Irvine Geddes- was chairman of the Inchcape’s Peninsular & Orient Navigation Company from 1971-1972. [726]

The Solidarist’s US headquarters was the Tolstoy Foundation, which is housed in the same building as Julius Klein Associates, which ran guns to the murderous Haganah and Stern Gang Zionist death squads who stole Palestinian lands to found Israel. Klein was an M16 Permindex insider who helped plan the JFK hit.

The Solidarists stepchild, the Solidarity Movement, was touted in the Western media as a great Polish liberating force.  With boatloads of CIA help, Solidarity toppled the Communist government in Warsaw. Their straw man Lech Walesa became President of Poland.  In 1995 Walesa was defeated by former Communist leader Aleksander Kwasniewski.  Walesa was rewarded for his boot licking with a job at Pepsico.

CIA Director Casey demanded a constant focus on Eastern Europe at CIA.  Casey met often with Philadelphia Roman Catholic Cardinal John Krol to discuss the Solidarity Movement.  He utilized his Knights of Malta connections, leaning heavily on Brother Vernon Walters, whose spook resume read like a James Bond novel.  Walter’s latest incarnation was Reagan Ambassador at Large to Vatican Secretary of State Agostino Cardinal Casaroli. [727]  By 1991 Walters was US Ambassador to the UN, where he successfully beat the drums of war against Iraq.  He was in Fiji that same year, just prior to the overthrow of that left-leaning government.

Other Knights of Malta members involved in the Eastern European destabilization effort were Reagan NSA and Robert Vesco lieutenant Richard Allen, Reagan NSA Judge William Clark, Reagan Ambassador to the Vatican William Wilson and Zbigniew Brzezinski.  Other prominent Knights of Malta members include Prescott Bush, Nixon Treasury Secretary William Simon, Nixon coup-plotter Alexander Haig, contra supporter J. Peter Grace and Venezuelan Rockefeller lieutenant Gustavo Cisneros.

The Reagan team had a five-part strategy in its efforts to destroy the Soviet Union.  First, it would pursue the JASON Society’s Star Wars concept in an attempt to engage the Soviets in a space-based arms race which they knew Moscow could not afford.  Second, the CIA would launch covert operations in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary in attempts to overthrow those Soviet-allied governments.  While Walesa emerged in Poland, poet Vaclev Havel became CIA white knight in Czechoslovakia.  Like Walesa, Havel became unpopular and was soon tossed out of his puppet presidency.

A component of the CIA destabilization program was to buy weapons from these East European nations to arm CIA-sponsored rebels in Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Angola and Mozambique, using BCCI and later BNL as conduits.  The US also wanted to get their hands on the high-tech Soviet arsenal.  Poland secretly sold the US an array of advanced Soviet weaponry worth $200 million.  Romania did the same. Both countries saw their foreign debts reduced significantly. [728]

The third component of the Reagan strategy was to make financial aid to the Warsaw Pact contingent on economic privatization.  Fourth, the US would blanket East European and Soviet airwaves with pro-Western propaganda, using fronts like Radio Liberty, Radio Free Europe and the Voice of America.  The CIA financed local newspapers and magazines.

The Company got help inside the Soviet Union from its Mossad buddies in an effort spearheaded by media mogul and Mossad paymaster Robert Maxwell.  When Maxwell threatened to reveal a meeting between KGB head Vladimir Kryuchkov and Mossad brass aboard his private yacht at which a coup against Mikhail Gorbachev was discussed, Mossad ordered a hit on Maxwell.  On November 4, 1991 as he sailed around the Canary Islands Maxwell was assassinated by Israeli commandos.  The mass exodus of Russian Jews to Israeli-occupied settlements in Palestine was part of the secret deal between Mossad and Kryuchkov, who is still serving time in a Moscow prison for his treasonous role in the Gorbachev coup. [729]

But it was the fifth and final component of Reagan’s strategy that had the Four Horsemen salivating.  Reagan’s spooks initiated an economic warfare campaign against the Soviet Union, which included a freeze on technology transfers, counterfeiting of the Russian ruble and the sponsoring of separatist Islamist groups in the Soviet Central Asian Caucasus. The jihadis who were instructed to target a key transcontinental natural gas pipeline which the Soviets were building.  The Soviets had more natural gas than any country on earth and saw the completion of this pipeline as their cash cow for the 21st century. [730]  Big Oil wanted to milk that cow.

It’s the Oil, Stupid

When the Soviet Union’s last President Mikhail Gorbachev announced his perestroika and glasnost campaigns to privatize his country’s economy, he was aiding the Illuminati in destroying his country.  Was Gorbachev duped, an unwitting accomplice, a CIA deep-cover agent or a mind-controlled Operation Presidio Temple of Set victim?  Whatever the case, he played a key role in dismantling the Soviet Union.

The Soviets controlled not only the vast resources of their own nation, but Third World resources in Soviet-allied Comecon nations.  Part of perestroika was to cease Soviet aid to these developing nations to ease the growing Soviet debt burden which, like the US debt, accrued largely from decades of Cold War military spending.  The two superpowers’ debt was held by the same international banks, which now used this debt lever to pick a winner and to open Russian and Third World resource pools to their corporate tentacles. [731]

When the Berlin Wall fell and Gorbachev was overthrown in favor of IMF crony Boris Yeltsin, the Four Horsemen rushed to Moscow to begin making oil deals.  Oil and natural gas had always been the Soviet’s main export and it remained so for the new Russia.  In 1991, the country earned $13 billion in hard currency from oil exports.  In 1992 Yeltsin announced that Russia’s world leading 9.2 billion barrel/day oil sector would be privatized.

Sixty percent of Russia’s Siberian reserves had never been tapped. [732]  In 1993 the World Bank announced a $610 billion loan to modernize Russia’s oil industry- by far the largest loan in the bank’s history.  World Bank subsidiary International Finance Corporation bought stock in several Russian oil companies and made an additional loan to the Bronfman’s Conoco for its purchase of Siberian Polar Lights Company. [733]

The main vehicle for international banker control over Russian oil was Lukoil, initially 20%-owned by BP Amoco and Credit Suisse First Boston, where Clinton Yugoslav envoy and Dayton Peace Accords architect Richard Holbrooke worked.  Bush Sr. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, who orchestrated the BNL cover-up, was now CS First Boston’s Chief Financial Officer.  A handful of Zionist Russian oligarchs, collectively known as the Russian Mafia, owned the rest of Lukoil, which served as the Saudi ARAMCO of Russia for the Four Horsemen, a partner to Big Oil in projects throughout the country which involved truly staggering amounts of capital.

These included Sakhalin Islands projects known as Sakhalin I, a $15 billion Exxon Mobil venture; and Sakhalin II, a $10 billion deal led by Royal Dutch/Shell which included Mitsubishi, Mitsui and Marathon Oil as partners.  Siberian developments were even larger.  RD/Shell is a 24.5% partner in Uganskneftegasin, which controls a huge Siberian natural gas field.  At Priobskoye, BP Amoco operates a $53 billion project. At Timan Pechora on the Arctic Ocean a consortium made up of Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco, BP Amoco and Norsk Hydo runs a $48 billion venture.

In November 2001 Exxon Mobil announced plans to invest another $12 billion in an oil and gas project in the Russian Far East.  RD/Shell announced a $8.5 billion investment in its Sakhalin Islands concessions.  BP Amoco made similar proclamations. [734]  In 1994 Lukoil pumped 416 million barrels of oil, making it fourth largest producer in the world after RD/Shell, Exxon Mobil and part-owner BP Amoco.  Its fifteen billion barrels in crude reserves rank second in the world to Royal Dutch/ Shell. [735]

The Soviet Caucasus, with encouragement from Langley, soon split from Russia.  The map of Central Asia was re-written as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine and Georgia all declared their independence.  The pipeline Reagan ordered targeted carried Soviet natural gas east to the North Pacific port of Vladivostok and west to the Black Sea port of Novorrossiysk from the world’s richest known natural gas fields lying beneath and abutting the shoreline of the Caspian Sea, which lies in the heart of Caucasus.

The Four Horsemen coveted this resource more than any in the world.  They wanted to build their own private pipelines once they got their hands on the Caspian Sea natural gas fields, which also contain an estimated 200 billion barrels of crude oil.  Oil industry privatizations were quickly announced in the new Central Asian Republics which had, by virtue of their independence, taken control of the vast Caspian Sea oil and gas reserves.  By 1991 Chevron was holding talks with Kazakhstan. [736]

The Central Asian Republics became the largest recipients of USAID aid, as well as ExIm Bank, OPIC and CCC loans.  Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan were especially favored. These countries control the shoreline of the Caspian Sea, along with Russia and Iran.  In 1994 Kazakhstan received $311 million in US aid and another $85 million to help dismantle Soviet-era nuclear weapons.  President Clinton met with Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev. They signed an array of agreements ranging from disarmament deals to space research cooperation.  Kazakhstan, with an estimated 17.6 billion barrels of oil reserves, had been a strategic part of the Soviet nuclear weapons grid and was home to the Soviet space program.

The two leaders also signed an agreement providing investment protection for US multinationals.  The Free Trade Institute and US Chamber of Commerce sent officials to train Kazakhs in the finer arts of global capitalism.  The Four Horsemen moved in swiftly. Chevron Texaco laid claim to the biggest prize- the $20 billion Tenghiz oilfield- then grabbed another gusher at Korolev.  Exxon Mobil signed a deal to develop an offshore concession in the Caspian. [737]  Tengizchevroil is 45%-owned by Chevron Texaco and 25%-owned by Exxon Mobil. [738]  President George W. Bush’s NSA and later Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice, an expert on Central Asia, sat on the board at Chevron alongside George Schultz from 1989-1992. She even had an oil tanker named after her.

Across the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan was receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in US aid.  BP Amoco led a consortium of seven oil giants who spent an initial $8 billion to develop three concessions off the coast of the capital Baku- historic base camp of Big Oil in the region. [739]  BP Amoco and Pennzoil- recently acquired by Royal Dutch/Shell- took control of the Azerbaijan Oil Company, whose board of directors included former Bush Sr. Secretary of State James Baker.

In 1991 Air America super spook Richard Secord showed up in Baku under the cover of MEGA Oil. [740]  Secord & Company did military training, sold Israeli arms, passed “brown bags filled with cash” and shipped in over 2,000 Islamist fighters from Afghanistan with help from Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.  Afghan heroin began flooding into Baku.  Russian economist Alexandre Datskevitch said of 184 heroin labs that police discovered in Moscow in 1991, “Every one of them was run by Azeris, who use the proceeds to buy arms for Azerbaijan’s war against Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh”. [741]

A Turkish intelligence source claims that Exxon and Mobil were behind the 1993 coup against elected Armenian President Abulfaz Elchibey.  Secord’s Islamists helped. Osama bin Laden set up an NGO in Baku as a base for attacking the Russians in Chechnya and Dagestan.  A more pliant President Heidar Aliyev was installed. In 1996, at the behest of Amoco’s president, he was invited to the White House to meet President Clinton- whose NSA Sandy Berger held $90,000 worth of Amoco stock. [742]

Armenian separatists backed by the CIA took over the strategic Armenian regions of Nagorno-Karabakh and Nakhnichevan which border Turkey and Iran.  When Turkish President Turgut Ozal mentioned intervention in Nakhnichevan to back the Azerbaijani seizure, Turkish Premier Suleyman Demirel quickly played down the statement from the key US ally.  These two regions are critical to Big Oil plans to build a pipeline from the Caspian Sea across Turkey to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorrossiysk.  The same route is utilized by Turkey’s Gray Wolves mafia in their Central Asia to Europe heroin endeavors.  When Gray Wolf Mehmet Ali Agca tried to assassinate Pope John Paul II in 1981, the CIA used its Gladio strategy, trying to pin it on Bulgaria’s Communist Lukashenko government.

Lukoil owns 26% of the Russian Black Sea port at Novorrossiysk.  Its president Vayit Alekperov wanted to build the Caspian pipeline through Grozny in Chechnya, while the Four Horsemen preferred the route through Turkey.  CIA support for Armenian separatists and Chechen Islamist rebels ensured chaos in Grozny. Alekperov finally agreed to the Turkish route.

In 2003 the Defense Department proposed a $3.8 million military training grant for Azerbaijan.  Later they admitted it was to protect US access to oil.  As author Michael Klare put it, “Slowly but surely, the US military is being converted into a global oil-protection service”. [743]

Turkmenistan, which borders the Caspian Sea on the southeast, is a virtual gas republic, containing massive deposits of natural gas.  It also has vast reserves of oil, copper, coal, tungsten, zinc, uranium and gold.  The biggest gas field is at Dauletabad in the southeast of the country, near the Afghan border.  The Unocal-led Centgas set about building a pipeline which would connect the oil fields around Chardzhan to the Siberian oilfields further north.  More crucial to Centgas was a gas pipeline from Dauletabad across Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. [744] Advisers to the project included Henry Kissinger. Unocal is now part of Chevron.

With the Four Horsemen firmly in charge of Caspian Sea reserves, the Caspian Pipeline Consortium was born.  Chevron Texaco took a 15% stake with the other three Horsemen and Lukoil splitting the rest.  Pipeline security was provided by the Israeli firm Magal Security Systems, which is connected to Mossad.  Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan have especially cozy relations with Israel via Special Ambassador Yusef Maiman, who is president of the Israeli Mehrav Group.  Mehrav is involved in a project in Turkey to divert water from the upper Tigres and Euphrates Rivers to the southeast part of Turkey and away from Iraq. [745]  The Caspian pipeline was built by Bechtel in partnership with GE and Wilbros Group.  The pipeline quietly began moving oil and gas in November 2001, just two months after 911.

Bechtel also built the oilfield infrastructure at Tengiz for Chevron Texaco.  In 1995 Bechtel led a USAID-funded consortium to restructure the energy sectors of eleven Central and Eastern European nations in line with IMF mandates.  Bechtel received a massive contract to upgrade Russia’s many ailing aluminum smelters in tandem with Pechiney.  Lukoil contracted with New Jersey-based ABB Lummus Crest (formed when engineering giants Asea Braun Boveri and Lummis Crest merged) to build a $1.3 billion refinery at the Novorrossysk port and to do a $700 million upgrade on its refinery at Perm.

The Bush Jr. Administration now planned a series of additional Caspian Sea pipelines to compliment the Tenghiz-Black Sea route.  A Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline was built by a Four Horsemen consortium led by BP Amoco.  The law firm representing the BP-led consortium is James Baker’s family law firm- Baker Botts.  The BP Amoco pipeline runs the length of the country of Georgia through its capital Tblisi.

In February 2002 the US announced plans to send 200 military advisers and attack helicopters to Georgia to “root our terrorism”. [746]  The deployment was a smokescreen for pipeline protection.  In September 2002 Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivaniov accused Georgia of harboring Chechen rebels.  In October 2003 Georgian President Eduard Schevardnadze was forced to step down in a bloodless revolution.  According to a December 11, 2003 article on the World Socialist Party website, CIA sponsored the coup.

In September 2004 hundreds of Russian school children were killed when Chechen separatists seized their school building.  Russian President Vladimir Putin said of the incident, “Certain political circles in the West want to weaken Russia, just like the Romans wanted to weaken Carthage.”  He accused “foreign intelligence services” of complicity in the attacks.  His adviser Aslanbek Aslakhanov went further, stating on Russian Channel 2 News, “The men had their conversations not within Russia, but with other countries.  They were led on a leash.  Our self-styled friends have been working for several decades to dismember Russia… (they are the) puppeteers and are financing terror.”  Russia’s KM News ran the headline, “School Seizure was Planned in Washington and London”. [747]

Lukoil epitomizes the corruption so rampant in Russia since the Soviet collapse.  Bribery is the norm. Lukoil has given luxury jets to the mayor of Moscow, the head of Gazprom (the state-owned natural gas monopoly) and Kazakhstan President Nazarbayev.  In the mid-1990’s Lukoil announced that it would sell another 15 % stake to foreign stockholders through its largest owner and financial adviser CS First Boston and the Bank of New York. [748]  In 2002 they announced plans to sell off another big stake.

According to Kurt Wulff of the oil investment firm McDep Associates, the Four Horsemen, romping in their new Far East pastures, saw asset increases from 1988-1994 as follows: Exxon Mobil- 54%, Chevron Texaco- 74%, Royal Dutch/Shell- 52% and BP Amoco- 54%.  The Horsemen had more than doubled their collective assets in six short years.  This quantum leap in Anglo-American global power had everything to do with the takeover of the old Soviet oil patch and the subsequent impoverishment of its birthright owners.

[722] Behold a Pale Horse. William Cooper. Light Technology Publishing. Sedona, AZ. 1991.

[723] The Robot’s Rebellion: The Story of the Spiritual Renaissance. David Icke. Gateway Books. Bath, UK. 1994. p.94

[724] Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. R.T. Naylor. The Linden Press/Simon & Schuster. New York. 1987. p.78

[725] Ibid. p.165

[726] Dope Inc.: The Book that Drove Kissinger Crazy. The Editors of Executive Intelligence Review. Washington, DC. 1992

[727] “The Unholy Alliance”. Carl Bernstein. Time. 2-24-92. p.28

[728] “US Obtained Soviet Arsenal from Poland”. Eugene Register-Guard. 2-13-94

[729] The Other Side Of Deception. Victor Ostravsky. HarperCollins Publishers. New York. 1994.

[730] Bernstein. p.28

[731] “The Dismantling of the Soviet Union”. Peter Symon. Philippine Currents. November/December 1991.

[732] “Drilling for a Miracle”. Fred Coleman. US News & World Report. 12-7-92. p.54

[733] Evening Edition. National Public Radio. 6-18-93

[734] “Exxon’s Russian Oil Deal Makes Other Firms Feel Lucky”. Wall Street Journal. 12-13-01

[735] “The Seven Sisters Have a Baby Brother”. Paul Klebnikov. Forbes. 1-22-96. p.70

[736] Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. Ahmed Rashid. Yale University Publishing. New Haven, CT. 2001. p.145

[737] “Christopher Promises Aid to Oil-Rich Kazakhstan”. AP. Northwest Arkansas Morning News. 10-24-93

[738] 10K Filings to SEC. Exxon Mobil and Chevron Corporations. 3-28-01

[739] “The Quietly Determined American”. Paul Klebnikov. Forbes. 10-24-94. p.48

[740] Azerbaijan Diary: A Rogue Reporter’s Adventures in a Oil-Rich, War-Torn, Post- Soviet Republic. Thomas Goltz. M.E. Sharpe. Armonk, NY. 1999. p.272

[741] “al-Qaeda, US Oil Companies and Central Asia”. Peter Dale Scott. Nexus. May-June, 2006. p.11-15

[742] See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA’s War on Terrorism. Robert Baer. Crown. New York. 2002. p.243-244

[743] Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America’s Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum. Michael T. Klare. Metropolitan/Henry Holt. 2004. p.6-7

[744] Escobar. Part I

[745] “The Roving Eye: Pipelineistan, Part II: The Games Nations Play”. Pepe Escobar. Asia Times Online. 1-26-02

[746] “Wolf Blitzer Reports”. CNN. 2-27-02

[747] “Paranotes: Russian School Seige Conspiracy”. Al Hidell. Paranoia. Issue 37. Winter 2005.

[748] Klebnikov. 1-22-96. p.72

Dean Henderson is the author of five books: Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network, The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries, Das Kartell der Federal Reserve, Stickin’ it to the Matrix & The Federal Reserve Cartel.  You can subscribe free to his weekly Left Hook column @ www.deanhenderson.wordpress.com

INDES : ELECTIONS 2014

INDES : ELECTIONS 2014 [3]

 

Les musulmans courtisés

Michel Lhomme
Ex: http://metamag.fr

Narendra Modi, candidat du Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP : Parti du peuple Indien) au poste de premier ministre de l'Inde et probable vainqueur du scrutin en cours a déclaré qu'il ferait appel à ses « frères » musulmans comme à tout autre citoyen du pays. Il a précisé que les questions litigieuses du temple de Ram et de la réforme du Code civil seraient traités dans le cadre constitutionnel. Un projet prévoit en effet un code civil universel qui s'opposerait en droit au code « coutumier » musulman ou tribal. 

 

Narendra Modi a notamment souligné qu'il considérait tous les Indiens comme un seul peuple et qu’il en est de sa responsabilité en tant que futur chef d'Etat de parler à tous les segments religieux de la société, y compris les musulmans. Pour appuyer cette déclaration, il a fait allusion à son travail en tant que ministre en chef du Gujarat qui possède une forte population musulmane et des militants hindouistes déterminés. On se rappelle les émeutes communautaires de 2002. 

En Inde, les élections sont toujours l'occasion de surenchères religieuses dans les campagnes électorales et l'appui total du BJP au temple de Ram a renforcé l'exaltation des militants hindouistes sur le terrain. Narendra Modi se devait de calmer le jeu. Face à un journaliste engagé du BJP qui l'interrogeait sur les raisons d'un tel rapprochement, Modi a même dû taper sur la table : « Vous ne me ferez pas glisser sur ce genre de terrains. Je rencontrerai tous mes compatriotes. Ils sont mes frères. Vous pouvez voter avec la couleur que vous voulez mais Modi n'a pas de  couleur », allusion à la bataille entre la couleur safran du BJP et le vert des partis musulmans. Il a ajouté: « Même si je perds les élections, qu'il en soit ainsi, je n'ai pas de problème. Mais le pays a été détruit par la mentalité d'entre vous, et je n'aurai jamais cet état d'esprit ! » Est-ce un tournant dans la campagne ? 

La communauté musulmane a attaqué le programme du BJP et de son candidat sur les questions du temple de Ram et du Code civil. Cela a même été ces dernières semaines le point de discorde entre ce parti et la communauté musulmane. Narendra Modi est bien obligé s'il veut gouverner l'Inde de rassurer et de garantir le respect de la Constitution. En politique professionnel, il s'est dissocié de l'influence du RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) qui lui colle à la peau. Le RSS est l'armée de réserve radicale, le mentor idéologique de l'hindouisme identitaire dont le BJP constitue la façade publique. Le candidat toujours en tête des sondages est bien obligé de composer au centre. « Je dois diriger le gouvernement. Un gouvernement fonctionne selon la Constitution. Je crois que le gouvernement ne dispose que d'une religion, l'Inde, l'Inde en premier. Un gouvernement ne dispose que d'un livre saint, notre Constitution. Un gouvernement ne dispose que d'une sorte de dévotion, la Nation. Un gouvernement ne dispose que d'un style de fonctionnement, le « Sabka Saath, Sabka vikas »  ( la coopération de tous, le développement de tous ) ».  Le mandat du futur premier ministre indien est de cinq ans. Or, les cinq premières années de l'Inde vont être décisives car toute la région est en reconfiguration stratégique. C'est pour cela que nous avons décidé de couvrir les élections indiennes avec attention. Pour l’Europe, entre eurasisme et eurosibérie, n’y a t-il pas un autre axe Paris-Berlin, Moscou-Delhi ?

Will Japan and Russia Escape the New Cold War?

TRENIN, Dmitri

Ex: http://valdaiclub.com

 

Related News

• Gang of Two: Russia and Japan Make a Play for the Pacific
• Russian-Japanese relations: What lies ahead?
• Japan and Russia shouldn't miss the opportunity to have a better relationship

As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was visiting Beijing last week, it was announced that the visit to Moscow by Japan's foreign minister Fumio Kishida was being postponed. The announcement, of course, came amid the rising tensions in Ukraine and the continuing fundamental deterioration of the West's relations with Russia. Japan, after all, is a loyal ally of the United States.

Yet, both Tokyo and Moscow have gone to some lengths to limit the damage. The joint announcement was couched in most polite phrases. The Russian foreign ministry spokesman, Alexander Lukashevich, allowed no criticism in his public comments on the postponement decision. Clearly, with the threats of economic sanctions against Russia still on the table in Washington and in EU capitals, even after the recent Geneva agreement on Ukraine, Moscow looks to Tokyo to make up for the likely losses in Europe and North America.

Japan's Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, for his part, has not yet given up on Russia. As a geopolitical thinker, he needs Russia in an effort to balance China's rise. As a pragmatist, he thinks of going beyond simply importing energy from Russia, and seeks a stake in Russia's energy projects. As a strategist, he does not want Moscow to step up too much the technological level of its arms transfers to China's People's Liberation Army, by delivering, in particular, the S-400 air defense systems. Ideally, Shinzo Abe would also want to become the prime minister to finally resolve the almost 70-year-old territorial issue between Tokyo and Moscow.

None of this is going to be easy, but none of this is totally impossible either-provided the Japanese do their part by becoming what Germany, until recently, has been to Russia: a major technological partner, a leading investor, and a gateway to the wider region. Doing this will be exceedingly difficult, of course, in the current environment of intensifying U.S.-Russian rivalry. However, Abe may have a few useful arguments to offer to President Barack Obama when he comes to Tokyo.

Why should the US-Russian rivalry be allowed to strengthen Beijing? Who benefits when the United States is less comfortable and Japan feels less safe? In this new cold period in Russian-Western relations, there are already a few protected areas of collaboration, like non-proliferation. Why not a vibrant Japan-Russia link too? After all, wasn't it the one missing piece, even a strategic oversight in the original U.S. "pivot to Asia" concept?

Dmitri Trenin is Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center.

This article was originally published on www.carnegie.ru

Une alliance pour l’endiguement du pouvoir mondialiste

CHINE, RUSSIE, EUROPE

Une alliance pour l’endiguement du pouvoir mondialiste

Auran Derien
Ex: http://metamag.fr

 

Trois situations apparaissent qui pourraient ouvrir un chemin aux  Européens. Il y a toujours des alternatives. Si l’on veut mettre en fonctionnement des systèmes de paiement sans dollar pour le commerce international, il n’y a rien d’impossible. Une civilisation cherche à naître, malgré le pouvoir actuel en place.

 

L’exemple chinois 

La Chine a déposé une plainte à l’OMC (Organisation Mondiale du Commerce) contre les pratiques mensongères étatsuniennes, l’humeur de ses dirigeants les incitant à modifier les tarifs douaniers sans aucune justification. La tournée européenne du président chinois a été l’occasion de formuler une proposition de partenariat bilatéral UE - Chine en quatre volets : paix, croissance, réformes et civilisation. Herman Van Rompuy, président du Conseil européen, n’a évidemment pas été à la hauteur dans sa réponse. Il a menti une fois de plus en affirmant que l’Europe allait sortir de la récession. Chacun sait que la Commission de Bruxelles fait régresser l’Europe par des destructions massives de son économie appelées réformes. destinées à abaisser les peuples au niveau des Tchandalas de l’Inde.

 

La Chine, elle, s’active. Elle achète moins de devises. Au mois de mars  le yuan avait baissé par rapport au dollar signifiant ainsi que le pays ne se laisserait pas faire dans le cadre de la guerre des monnaies. Il a été publié à la même époque que la croissance économique chinoise avait ralentie, mais que la Banque Centrale intervenait lorsque cela lui paraissait nécessaire sans s’adonner aux productions massives de monnaie à l’inverse des anglo-saxons. Elle fournit juste ce qu’il faut de liquidités pour continuer à investir (notamment dans les chemins de fer) et développer le commerce.

La Bundesbank, après la visite du Président Chinois fin mars, a annoncé la signature d’un mémoire qui prévoit la création à Francfort d’un centre de compensation pour les paiements en Yuan. L’Allemagne est le pays d’Europe dont le commerce avec la Chine est le plus important. Il est prévisible que cela sera un point de départ pour réduire l’usage de la monnaie américaine dans le commerce Europe-Chine. Cependant, il ne suffit pas d’oublier le dollar, il conviendrait aussi de larguer les banques qui en promeuvent l’usage. 

Du côté Russe

La Russie est partante pour diminuer le poids des anglo-saxons en cessant d’utiliser le dollar, en particulier dans le commerce des matières premières. Les deux personnages à l’origine de la nouvelle orientation russe sont Sergey Glaziev, conseiller économique de la Présidence et Igor Sechin, PDG de Rosneft, la principale entreprise pétrolière russe. Le Président de la banque publique VTB a affirmé que les entreprises à capitaux publics spécialisées dans la vente d’armes pouvaient démarrer la signature de contrats en roubles ou en monnaies de leurs acheteurs, sans passer par le dollar. La direction du Centre d’échanges de Saint-Pétersbourg a été confiée à Igor Sechin qui avait déclaré courageusement, en Octobre 2013 au Forum Mondial de l’Energie tenu en Corée, que le temps était venu de mettre en place des mécanisme d’échange pour le gaz naturel entre tous les pays concernés et que les transactions soient enregistrées en monnaies de chacun . Il est question par exemple de signer des accords de swap biens - pétrole entre l’Iran et la Russie. 

Il est fondamental maintenant que d’autres puissances suivent la Russie et la Chine dans cette politique d'émancipation. La Chine incite aussi les autres pays du BRICS (Brésil, Russie, Inde, Chine et Afrique du Sud) à éliminer le dollar de leurs transactions et donne l’exemple, en ouvrant deux centres de traitement du commerce en yuan, à Londres et maintenant Francfort.

Des Européens soumis aux Européens éveillés ?

Les Européens doivent secouer leur torpeur. L’Asie, mise en selle pour que les multinationales y produisent à bas prix des produits vendus en Europe aux prix européens, ne ruine pas directement l’Europe. Les responsables sont les hommes politiques mondialistes qui ont liquidé toute protection pour s’enrichir de ces trafics. Mais désormais la Chine, la Russie, l’Iran, le Vénézuela, le Brésil, l’Inde…et d’autres certainement ouvrent les yeux. L’Occident est entre les mains d’une finance mondialiste et il est fondamental de s’émanciper pour faire prospérer une autre civilisation.

 

Dès 2017, a affirmé le Boston Consulting Group à la fin du mois de février 2013, l’Asie (hors Japon) sera la région la plus riche du monde. Il sera essentiel que les banques spécialisées dans la gestion de fortune soient laissés de côté, même si la volonté de ces fanatiques consiste justement à convaincre les nouveaux riches de les laisser administrer leurs actifs. Rien de grand n’est jamais sorti de la finance anglo-saxonne, sinon de grandes guerres. Depuis le XVIIIème siècle, toutes les guerres ont eu des banquiers comme responsables en chef. Il faut enfin que cela cesse.

Dilema shakespeariano de Obama: ¿guerra fría contra Rusia o China?

por Alfredo Jalife-Rahme

Ex: http://paginatransversal.wordpress.com

Hoy el “nuevo muro” entre Washington y Moscú se recorrió de Berlín a Kiev: al borde de la balcanización entre la parte “occidental” (eurófila) de Ucrania y su parte “oriental” (rusófila), cuando la superestratégica Crimea ha retornado a la “madre patria” rusa.

Después de su sonoro fracaso en Crimea, con su política de asfixiante cerco a Rusia y su pretendido “cambio de régimen” con disfraz “democrático” en Moscú, Zbigniew Brzezinski comenta en Twitter (19/3/14): “Si Occidente apoya, Ucrania libre (sic) puede sobrevivir (sic). Si no lo hace, Putin puede desestabilizar toda Ucrania”.

El fulminante revire del zargeoestratégico global, Vlady Putin, tiene hoy a la parte “oriental” en jaque con su exquisito movimiento de ajedrez en Crimea, que colocó a la defensive a Zbigniew Brzezinski, ex asesor de Seguridad Nacional de Carter, íntimo de Obama y connotado rusófobo, quien tendió la letal trampa jihadista a la URSS en Afganistán que, por sus metástasis, derrumbó el Muro de Berlín y mutiló al imperio soviético.

Los ciudadanos de Estados Unidos y Gran Bretaña no desean más aventuras bélicas en Siria ni en Ucrania, cuando sus multimedia se olvidan de las bravatas atómicas de John McCain, quien goza la menor aceptación como senador, y explotan una amenaza de Dmitry Kiselyov, presentador de la televisión Rossiya-1, quien espetó que Rusia podría “convertir a Estados Unidos en ceniza radiactiva”(http://news.yahoo.com/state-tv-says-russia-could-turn-us-radioactive-212003397.html ).

Sí existen líneas rojas, no sólo de Estados Unidos, sino también de Rusia, lo cual es susceptible de desembocar en una guerra nuclear de “destrucción mutua asegurada” (MAD, por sus siglas en inglés), cuando las “cenizas radiactivas” serían “mutuas”.

Un editorial del rotativo chino Global Times (http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/849399/Putin-faces-war-of-attrition-with-West.aspx) comenta que las sanciones, de corte sado-masoquista, para lastimar la economía de Rusia, “señalarán el grado de determinación de Occidente para contener a Rusia”, cuando Putin”ha mostrado su dedicación para asegurar los intereses de Rusia, que han impresionado al mundo entero (sic)”.

El rotativo considera que Obama no ha tomado aún “una decisión final en la forma de contener a Rusia estratégicamente”, cuando “Putin despedazó las ofensivas (¡supersic!) de Occidente en el este de Europa, que empezaron al final de la guerra fría”.

Hoy “el límite estratégico entre Rusia y Occidente está siendo redefinido”: Rusia, “estrangulada durante un largo periodo, ha acumulado demasiada fuerza para lanzar una contraofensiva” y puede “enfrentar una guerra de desgaste con Occidente”.

El rotativo chino tampoco se hace ilusiones y sentencia que “la fuerza de Rusia es limitada (¡supersic!). Ni tiene la fuerza nacional de la anterior URSS ni la ayuda del Pacto de Varsovia. Si Occidente está determinado a emprender una confrontación prolongada (sic) con Moscú, Rusia sufrirá desafíos sin precedente”. Sin duda. Pero es mucho mejor que el “cambio de régimen” preprogramado de Estados Unidos en Moscú.

Su pronóstico es adverso: las”sanciones económicas desembocarán en una situación perder-perder. Occidente compartirá el peso de las pérdidas económicas, mientras Rusia estará sola” (¡supersic!), cuando “la estabilidad de Rusia no está garantizada”.

Por lo pronto, “Moscú le ha dado a Occidente y a sus seguidores una lección, obligándolo a reconsiderar el papel de Ucrania en Europa” y aconseja que “Putin debe dejar algún espacio para que Occidente se retire en una manera elegante, lo cual maximizará los intereses de Rusia”. De acuerdo.

El editorial chino arguye que”Occidente se percató que ha perdido la batalla por Crimea”, que “puede ser una victoria para Moscú o el inicio de una confrontación sin fin entre Rusia y Occidente”.

Juzga que a Putin le conviene”mantener el pleito en baja (sic) intensidad, que se acomode a los intereses de largo plazo de Rusia”.

El editorial no se jacta que el gran triunfador resultó China (a mi juicio, junto a Irán e India), lo cual expresa sin tapujos el investigador geoestratégico Artyom Lukin: “el triunfador en Ucrania… es China” (http://www.fpri.org/articles/2014/03/ukraine-and-winner-china ).

Juzga que las sanciones de Occidente contra Rusia “empujarán inevitablemente a Moscú a los brazos de Pekín”, lo cual “incrementará la probabilidad de que sus políticas se alineen frente a Occidente”, lo cual, a su vez, “reforzará las posiciones estratégicas de China en Asia”.

China “se sentirá más confiada en su rivalidad con Estados Unidos para su primacía en la región Asia/Pacífico, después de haber adquirido a Rusia como una zona estratégica segura en su espalda, así como un acceso privilegiado a su abundante energía, a su base de minerales y a sus tecnología militar avanzada”, a juicio de Artyom Lukin, en la visita de Putin a China en mayo “será muy visible cuando los eventos de Ucrania ayudarían a concretar el proyectado gasoducto de Rusia a China”.

No soslaya que los comentarios de la prensa oficial china son “simpáticos a Moscú”, al enfatizar la”determinación de Putin para proteger los intereses de Rusia y los ciudadanos rusófilos”, mientras los ciudadanos chinos expresan su admiración (¡supersic!) por Putin y su desafío a Occidente en portales como Weibo.

Artyom Lukin aduce que existe una”probabilidad cero (sic) para que Pekín apoye cualquier castigo político y económico en contra de Moscú”: algo así como una “neutralidad benevolente” de China con el Kremlin.

Cita a “algunos estrategas de Estados Unidos quienes lamentan que una presión excesiva (¡supersic!) de Occidente puede alterar el equilibrio geopolítico al empujar a Rusia más cerca de China”.

Artyom Lukin arguye que ahora Estados Unidos se encuentra en una posición delicada para confrontar a dos grandes potencias en Eurasia en forma simultánea y “tendrá que decidir cuál región es más importante a sus intereses: la Europa oriental post soviética (cuyo corazón es Ucrania) o Asia oriental”.

Considera que una batalla sin compromisos en Ucrania oriental de Estados Unidos contra Rusia, “en 10 o 15 años puede significar la pérdida de Asia oriental”.

Concluye en forma optimista que la “presente situación en Ucrania no resultará en una guerra, pero puede convertirse en un paso mayor hacia la transformación del orden internacional a una bipolaridad confrontativa” entre “Occidente, encabezado por Estados Unidos, frente al eje China/Rusia”, lo cual se subsume en mi tesis del “G-7 frente a los BRICS” (ver Bajo la Lupa, 16/3/14): el nuevo “muro de Kiev” de la bipolaridad metarregional.

Si no malinterpreto a Artyom Lukin, Rusia exhorta a Occidente a la cesión de “Ucrania oriental” a cambio de no arrojarse a los brazos de China y, por extensión, a los BRICS e Irán.

Mientras Michelle Obama llega con sus hijas a una visita de siete días a Pekín, por invitación de la esposa del <mandarín Xi, no hay que soslayar la búsqueda de Zbigniew Brzezinski de un acercamiento de Estados Unidos con China para castigar a Rusia, como sucedió con Nixon hace 43 años.

Entramos a la “teoría de juegos”, con tres rivales geoestratégicos, de característica no lineal hipercompleja.

Obama se encuentra ante el shakespeariano dilema geoestratégico de su vida: ¿quién será el máximo competidor geopolítico de Estados Unidos: Rusia o China, o los dos?

www.alfredojalife.com

Twitter: @AlfredoJalife

Facebook: AlfredoJalife

Énergies : vers un contrat russo-chinois de fourniture de gaz?

Énergies : vers un contrat russo-chinois de fourniture de gaz?

 

 

BRUXELLES (NOVOpress) - Les partisans de sanctions contre la Russie, notamment le Commissaire européen à l’énergie Günther Oettinger et une grande partie de « l’élite » bureaucratique européenne, se plaisent régulièrement à souligner la dépendance économique et financière de la Russie des importations européennes, et par conséquent sa vulnérabilité économique.

 

Lien de cause à effet auquel Günther Oettinger n’a peut-être pas réfléchi, l’UE ne dispose de réserves de gaz que pour quelques jours si la Russie impose un arrêt de livraison, comme l’indique une étude réalisée par Steffen Bukold (politologue allemand, spécialiste des questions énergétiques).

 

En outre, la Russie semble avoir déjà trouvé des alternatives au marché européen : il se pourrait qu’il y ait un contrat d’approvisionnement de 30 ans avec la Chine. L’analyste de Citigroup Ronald Smith pense qu’un tel accord russo-chinois sera mis en place cette année.

 

Sans transition rapide vers les sources d’énergies renouvelables, l’UE est toujours dépendante des livraisons de gaz russe. Si l’Union européenne poursuit sa politique hostile à l’égard de la Russie, une hausse des prix ou des pénuries d’approvisionnement pourraient frapper l’économie européenne massivement… Non sans raison, l’ancien chancelier allemand Helmut Schmidt a appelé les sanctions contre la Russie un “non-sens” (“dummes Zeug”).

 

http://fr.novopress.info/

The U.S. Empire Is Trying Desperately To Contain the Eurasian Alliance

The U.S. Empire Is Trying Desperately To Contain the Eurasian Alliance of Russia, China, Central Asian Nations, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan

By Jack D. Douglas

Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com

The U.S. and its puppets, especially the E.U. and Nato, have been trying to weaken the rebuilding Russian empire as much as possible to contain it, while maintaining the  U.S. Global Empire.

This has become a vital, crucial goal because of the rapid growth of Chinese power and the ever closer Alliance of Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Central Asia, Pakistan, etc.

The U.S. and E.U. are desperate to stop Russia from rebuilding its vast Central Asian states within the Russian Federation and this new Alliance, especially because of the vast Caspian Sea oil and gas. The E.U. is highly dependent on Russia for gas and on Russia, Iraq, Iran and the pro-Russian Caspian Sea powers, especially Kazakhstan. The Russian move into the Black Sea is another major step in that direction. Kazakhstan publicly supported the Russian move to reunite with the Crimea. Kazakhstan is the great prize, with 30% of its population  Russian and a vast border with Mother Russia. Russia is probably not at this time trying to reunite Kazakhstan with Russia, since that would involve many more problems, but simply to keep it as a close ally, as the Ukraine was until the violent overthrow of the Kiev government by the U.S. supported coup.

Russia, Iran, Iraq, and their Central Asian allies are close to a vast oligopoly on the oil and gas exports of the world, especially to the E.U., U.K., China, India, etc.

Saudi Arabia is desperate to break the growing Iran-Iraq-Syria-Hizbollahp-Russian-Central Asian power block. Right now it is trying desperately to build its own military forces to offset the U.S. withdrawal from the region, but that is absurd. In the long term, Saudi Arabia will align with Russia-China-Iran-Central Asia or be overthrown from within by those who will become reasonable.

China, now firmly in the Russian-Central Asia-Iran-Iraq block with gas lines from Russia, etc., is moving forcefully into all of the South China Sea to control oil and gas there. The U.S. is desperate to stop that, but China keeps moving out.

All of that puts the dying U.S. Empire on a collision course with the vast Russian-Chinese-Iranian-Central Asian Alliance. Pakistan has become very anti-U.S. because of the U.S. attacks in Pakistan and is allying more and more with China. Even India is working more and more closely with Iran and its allies to get the gas they need. Just yesterday the president of Iran spoke in Afghanistan calling for a great regional entente, working together more and more closely. That is the likely route for Iranian oil and gas to India.

Ultimately, the U.S. Empire must withdraw from its vast over-stretch to save itself financially and economically, politically and militarily.

The E.U. knows that, so Germany’s Prime Minister talks privately with Putin in German and Russian about the American Global Crisis. [She knows Russian and he knows German, so it's easy.] Germany, the E.U. and Russia are moving toward a long run understanding once the crippled U.S. implodes financially or withdraws to save itself. The CEO of Siemens, the giant and vital German technology corporation, has just visited with Putin in Russia and made public statements of strong plans to continue working with Russia very closely. Other German CEO’s have done the same, acting as informal reassurances from the Prime Minister that her public words going along with the U.S. more or less do not mean any kind of break with the close relations with Russia.

The Best of Jack D. Douglas

President Xi calls on China, Germany to build Silk Road economic belt

President Xi calls on China, Germany to build Silk Road economic belt

(Xinhua) - Ex: http://www.chinadaily.com

 

 

Chinese President Xi Jinping (center) visits Port of Duisburg of Germany March 29, 2014. [Photo/Xinhua]

 

DUSSELDORF, Germany - Chinese President Xi Jinping Saturday called on China and Germany to work together to build the Silk Road economic belt.

Xi made the remarks during a visit to Port of Duisburg, the world's biggest inland harbor and a transport and logistics hub of Europe.

 

 

The Chinese leader expressed the hope that Port of Duisburg will play a bigger role in the China-Germany and China-Europe cooperation.

Xi witnessed the arrival of a cargo train at the railway station in Duisburg from the southwestern Chinese city of Chongqing. The train had travelled all the distance along the Chongqing-Xinjiang-Europe international railway.

The Chinese president, accompanied by Vice German Chancellor and Minister of Economics and Energy Sigmar Gabriel, was warmly welcomed by Hannelore Kraft, premier of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, and Soren Link, mayor of the city of Duisburg.

Kraft and Link, in their speeches at the welcome ceremony, said the state and the city will grasp the opportunities that the initiative on the Silk Road economic belt brings to them, and step up the cooperation with China.

China's Xi Jinping urges US to show restraint over Ukrainian crisis

Ex: http://www.geopolitica.ru

China feels that all parties related to the situation in Ukraine should show restraint to avoid fomenting tension, the President of the People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinping, said in a statement. "China has taken an unbiased and fair stand on Ukraine’s issue. The situation in Ukraine is involved, so all parties should retain composure and show restraint, to prevent tension from making another upward spiral”, the Chinese leader said in a telephone conversation with his US counterpart Barack Obama.

Xi Jinping pointed out that the crisis should be settled politically and diplomatically. He said he hoped that all the parties interested would be able to reconcile their differences in a proper way, through contact and consultation, and would bend every effort to find a political solution to the problem.

President Xi said the situation in Ukraine is "highly complicated and sensitive," which "seems to be accidental, (but) has the elements of the inevitable."

He added that China believes Russia can "push for the political settlement of the issue so as to safeguard regional and world peace and stability" and he "supports proposals and mediation efforts of the international community that are conducive to the reduction of tension."

"China is open for support for any proposal or project that would help mitigate the situation in Ukraine, China is prepared to remain in contact with the United States and other parties interested”, the Chinese President said.

The Xinhua news agency said earlier in a comment that Ukraine is yet another example for one and all to see of how one big country has broken into pieces due to the unmannerly and egoistic conduct of the West.

West’s Muted Response on Terror Attack in China

Tony Cartalucci

West’s Muted Response on Terror Attack in China

Source: Simon Song

Ex: http://journal-neo.org

Saturday March 1, 2014′s horrific terror attack at China’s Kunming railroad station left 29 victims dead and over 100 wounded. The terrorist attack was the work of Uyghur separatists hailing from Western China’s Xinjiang province. The US would only condemn the attack as an act of terror after China accused Washington of applying double standards to its coverage and stance on the incident. 

 However, the US’ failure to initially condemn the attack as terrorism runs deeper than mere superficial double standards applied to a global competitor. The US is in fact driving the separatist movement in Xinjiang, encouraging violence and creating faux-human rights organizations to then condemn the predictable response of Chinese security forces. 

Indeed, first and foremost in backing the Xinjiang Uyghur separatists is the United States through the US State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED). For China, the Western region referred to as “Xinjiang/East Turkistan” has its own webpage on NED’s site covering the various fronts funded by the US which include: 

International Uyghur Human Rights and Democracy Foundation
$187,918
To advance the human rights of ethnic Uyghur women and children. The Foundation will maintain an English- and Uyghur-language website and advocate on the human rights situation of Uyghur women and children. 

International Uyghur PEN Club
$45,000
To promote freedom of expression for Uyghurs. The International Uyghur PEN Club will maintain a website providing information about banned writings and the work and status of persecuted poets, historians, journalists, and others. Uyghur PEN will also conduct international advocacy campaigns on behalf of imprisoned writers. 

Uyghur American Association
$280,000
To raise awareness of Uyghur human rights issues. UAA’s Uyghur Human Rights Project will research, document, and bring to international attention, independent and accurate information about human rights violations affecting the Turkic populations of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. 

World Uyghur Congress
$185,000
To enhance the ability of Uyghur prodemocracy groups and leaders to implement effective human rights and democracy campaigns. The World Uyghur Congress will organize a conference for pro-democracy Uyghur groups and leaders on interethnic issues and conduct advocacy work on Uyghur human rights.

All of these NED-funded organizations openly advocate separatism from China,  not even recognizing China’s authority over the region to begin with – referring to it instead as “Chinese occupation.”  

Of the recent terror attack, the US-funded World Uyghur Congress would even attempt to justify it by claiming Chinese authorities have left the separatists with little other choice. The US State Department’s “Radio Free Asia” report titled, “China’s Kunming Train Station Violence Leaves 33 Dead,” reported:

World Uyghur Congress spokesman Dilxat Raxit said in an emailed statement that there was “no justification for attacks on civilians” but added that discriminatory and repressive policies provoked “extreme measures” in response.

Just as the US has done in other nations it is fomenting political chaos and armed violence in such as Syria, it is attempting to steer clear of labeling the Xinjiang separatists as “terrorists” for as long as possible in order to sow the maximum amount of chaos at the cost of Chinese political stability.

All Part of the Plan 

The US’ support of the Xinjiang separatists is just one small cog in a much larger machine grinding toward the encirclement and containment of China, while maintaining American hegemony across the Asia Pacific, Central Asia, and beyond. The use of faux-human rights organizations to defend what is essentially a terrorist organization is a trick the US has repeated in Russia’s Caucasus region. 

This containment strategy is documented in the 2006 Strategic Studies Institute report “String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China’s Rising Power across the Asian Littoral” where it outlines China’s efforts to secure its oil lifeline from the Middle East to its shores in the South China Sea as well as means by which the US can maintain American hegemony throughout the Indian and Pacific Ocean. The premise is that, should Western foreign policy fail to entice China into participating in the “international system” as responsible stakeholders (fall in line,) an increasingly confrontational posture must be taken to contain the rising nation.

This includes funding, arming, and backing terrorists and proxy regimes from Africa, across the Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and even within China’s territory itself. Documented support of these movements not only include Xinjiang separatists, but also militants and separatists in Baluchistan, Pakistan where the West seeks to disrupt a newly christened Chinese port and pipeline, as well as the machete wielding supporters of Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar’s Rakhine state - yet another site the Chinese hope to establish a logistical hub.

US aspirations to contain China through a network of proxies dates back even further than the SSI 2006 report. In US policy scribe Robert Kagan’s 1997 piece in the Weekly Standard titled, “What China Knows That We Don’t: The Case for a New Strategy of Containment, he states (emphasis added):

The Chinese leadership views the world today in much the same way Kaiser Wilhelm II did a century ago: The present world order serves the needs of the United States and its allies, which constructed it. And it is poorly suited to the needs of a Chinese dictatorship trying to maintain power at home and increase its clout abroad. Chinese leaders chafe at the constraints on them and worry that they must change the rules of the international system before the international system changes them. 

In truth, the debate over whether we should or should not contain China is a bit silly. We are already containing China – not always consciously and not entirely successfully, but enough to annoy Chinese leaders and be an obstacle to their ambitions.

Kagan would continue (emphasis added):

We should hold the line instead and work for political change in Beijing. That means strengthening our military capabilities in the region, improving our security ties with friends and allies, and making clear that we will respond, with force if necessary, when China uses military intimidation or aggression to achieve its regional ambitions.

It is clear that the writings of Kagan are not just simply his own personal thoughts in 1997, but reflect a policy that has since then been implemented vis-à-vis China. It is also clear that “with force” does not necessarily mean the mobilization of America’s conventional military assets, but also includes covert and proxy forces as seen more recently in Libya and Syria.

The horrific attack in Kunming China is not an isolated incident. It is a tentacle of America’s containment policy manifested as terrorism toward China briefly breaking the surface of murky geopolitical waters. For the rest of the world increasingly influenced and dependent on the sustainable and stable rise of China on the world stage, it is essential to understand the true nature of events playing out within China and along its peripheries. Failing to do so leaves us vulnerable to investing in false causes that will only further destabilize China, Asia, and the world – threatening our best interests while serving the machinations of Wall Street/Washington yet again.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

Extension du système mondialiste

L’ALLIANCE DU PACIFIQUE

Extension du système mondialiste

Auran Derien
Ex: http://metamag.fr

 

L’Alliance du Pacifique (Chili, Pérou, Colombie, Mexique) a été le cadre, début février, d’une signature commune pour éliminer, entre eux, les droits de douane. Juan Manuel Santos, président de la République de Colombie, partisan de l’alliance avec les Etats-Unis, a immédiatement affirmé que le développement de la région en serait favorisé. Cette Alliance pèse 215 millions d’habitants et obéit à la logique des regroupements promue par les organismes financiers.

Qui a intérêt aux regroupements ?

L’intégration recherchée a rarement des bases géopolitiques ou culturelles. Dans les accords de libre-échange, les produits industriels qui sont contrôlés par les multinationales n’ont pas besoin d’être protégés par des droits de douane. Entre les normes, les brevets, le conseil, les subventions de toutes sortes, le produit rapporte suffisamment. Les pays d’Amérique Latine, ayant peu investi dans la recherche et l’éducation sont facilement convaincus d’ouvrir leurs frontières pour contribuer, modestement, à une phase non essentielle d’élaboration d’un produit (exemple : l’aviation). Un pays perd lentement et sûrement la maîtrise de son destin et se retrouve désarticulé comme un puzzle renversé. L’Organisation Mondiale du Commerce se charge d’ailleurs de détruire ce qui reste de politique de développement endogène. Elle offre aux multinationales la possibilité de vassaliser tranquillement les pays de l’Alliance du Pacifique en imposant la vente des activités économiques.

 

Un mécano sans finalités.

 

Les membres de l’Alliance du Pacifique se vantent toujours d’attirer des investissements étrangers. Pour compenser l’influence occidentale, nous avons indiqué que la Chine était en passe de devenir leur deuxième fournisseur derrière les Etats-Unis. La zone de libre-échange prévue regroupe, en plus des quatre pays de l’Alliance, l’Australie, le Canada, le Japon, la Malaisie, Singapour et le Vietnam. Qu’y-a-t-il de commun entre ces cultures, qui puisse fonder une civilisation de paix et de justice ? Rien!

Les multinationales vont et viennent, comme l’aciériste Arcelor-Mittal qui a signé un accord de cinq ans avec le groupe canadien Evrim Resources pour exploiter le minerai de fer qui pourrait encore s’exploiter au Mexique. La rédaction des accords est toujours très technique et très précise pour favoriser les procès, régulièrement gagnés par les multinationales face aux Etats. Les textes des accords de libre-échange sont systématiquement fondées sur trois négations: aucune différence entre les investisseurs (étrangers ou autochtones); aucune contrainte de transfert technologique, aucun apport obligatoire de devises, pas de consommations intermédiaires locales. Enfin, les cadres viennent du vaste monde sans aucun lien avec la culture locale. Au total, l’investissement direct ne profite pas à la communauté; les marchandises circulent sans entraves et sans vérification ; tous les autochtones sont traités avec le plus profond mépris.

La globalisation de l'économie est acceptée et votée car on  fait croire que cela aidera le reste du monde à se développer. Mais la réalité confirme que les financiers nous plongent dans la crise. Toutes les zones disparates de libre-échange créées dans le monde n’ont qu’un seul objectif : assurer des super-profits et, en passant, payer de hauts salaires à des fonctionnaires dévoués.

La génération qui vient devra en finir avec ce monde. 

 

Eurasianism

Mark Hackard

 

Ex: http://www.geopolitica.ru

 

Russian emigre philosopher and geopolitician Pyotr Nikolaevich Savitsky (1895-1968) was a leading figure of the classical Eurasianist movement that flourished after the Bolshevik Revolution and during the inter-war years. In this excerpt from a 1925 essay, Savitsky expounds the Eurasianist worldview, one based on traditional spiritual values rather than the modern materialists’ reign of quantity.

 

Eurasianists join those thinkers who reject the existence of universal progress…If a line of evolution runs differently through various spheres, then there can be no general ascending movement, no gradual and unbending general improvement; one or another cultural medium, improving in one area (from one point of view), often degrades in another and from another point of view. This position is applicable, in particular, to the European cultural medium: it has bought its scientific and technical “perfection,” from the point of view of the Eurasianists, with ideological and most of all religious impoverishment. The duality of its achievements is distinctly expressed in relation to the economy. Over the course of long centuries in the history of the Old World, there existed a certain singular correlation between the ideological-moral-religious principle on the one hand and the economic principle on the other. More precisely, there existed some ideological subordination of the latter principle to the former.

 

Namely the permeation of the whole approach to economic issues by the religious-moral moment allows some historians of economic theories (for example, the old mid-nineteenth century German-Hungarian historian Kautz, whose works up to now haven’t lost a certain significance) to unite into one group – by their relation to economic problems – such varying texts as Chinese literary fragments, the Iranian code of the Vendidad, the Mosaic law, the works of Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle and the medieval Western theologians. The economic philosophy of these texts is in a well-known sense the philosophy of a “subordinate economy;” the connection between satisfaction of our economic requirements with the general principles of morality and religion is emphasized within all of them as something necessary and proper.

 

The economic philosophy of the European “new era” is opposed to these views. Not always by direct words, but more often by the foundations of worldview, the new European economic philosophy asserts the cycle of economic phenomena as something self-sufficient and of autonomous value, containing and drawing from within itself the objectives of human existence. It would be a sign of spiritual blindness to negate the enormity of those purely cognitive achievements and successes in understanding and viewing economic phenomena that the new political economy has accomplished and accumulated. Yet acting as an empirical science and indeed in a certain and greater degree being such, in a whole host of its attitudes, the new political economy has influenced intellects and epochs as a metaphysic…

 

Just as the economic ideas of the ancient legislators, philosophers and theologians are tied to certain metaphysical conceptions, the economic ideas of the new economists are also tied to them. But if the metaphysics of the first was a philosophy of “subordinate economics,” then the metaphysics of the second is a philosophy of “militant economism.” The latter is in some way the ideological price that the new Europe has paid for the quantitatively tremendous economic growth she has experienced in modernity, especially in the last century. There is something instructive in this picture – both at the close of the Middle Ages and in the course of the new era, the ancient wisdom of moral testament, immemorial and restraining the egotistical instincts of man through words of exhortation and denunciation, the philosophy of “subordinate economics” is crumbling under the offensive of the new modern ideas, with the theory and practice of militant economism conceitedly asserting itself.

 

Historical materialism is the most consummate and dramatic expression of the latter. There is far from an accidental link between the philosophy of subordinated economics on the one hand and militant economism on the other, as we observe in empirical reality, with a certain attitude to questions of religion. If the philosophy of subordinated economics always serves as an appendage to one or another theistic worldview, then historical materialism is ideologically bound to atheism.

 

Like a wolf in fairy tales, the atheistic essence once hiding in historical materialism has now cast off the diversionary sheepskin of empirical science that had covered it: the atheist worldview is perpetrating its historical triumph in Russia, and state power in the hands of atheists has become an instrument for atheist propaganda. Not examining the question of historical responsibility for what has happened in Russia and not wishing to relieve anyone of this responsibility, the Eurasianists at the same time understand that the essence Russia assimilated and implemented, due to the susceptibility and excitability of her spiritual being, is not a Russian essence at its source and spiritual origin. The Communist witches’ Sabbath ensued in Russia as the completion of a more than two-hundred year period of europeanization.

 

To admit that the spiritual essence of Communist rule in Russia is, in a special manner, the reflected ideological essence of Europe’s new era is to make an assertion that is empirically founded to a high degree. (Here we must consider the following: the origin of Russian atheism in the ideas of the European Enlightenment; the importation of socialist ideas into Russia from the West; the connection of Russian Communist “methodology” with the ideas of French Syndicalists; and the significance and “cult” of Marx in Russia.) But having seen the ideological essence of European modernity in the form that was brought to its logical conclusion, Russians, not accepting Communism and at the same time not having lost the ability to think logically, cannot return to the basis of Europe’s latest ideology.

 

In the consciousness of the Eurasianists, there flows from the experience of the Communist Revolution a certain truth, simultaneously old and new – a healthy social community can be based only upon the indissoluble tie of man with God. An irreligious community and an irreligious sovereignty must be rejected; this rejection predetermines nothing in relation to concrete legal-constitutional forms, and there may exist as such a form, in the conception of the Eurasianists, of “separation of Church and state,” for example. Yet essentially, it is nevertheless highly significant that perhaps the first government by a consistently atheistic Communist power that had turned atheism into the official faith proved to be an “organized torment,” in the prophetic words of the profound nineteenth-century philosopher Konstantin Leontiev, a system of shock and destruction of “the common good” (in the name of which Communist power was established) and such an outrage upon the human person that all images pale and all words are powerless in the portrayal of a terrible, unprecedented and blasphemously bestial reality.

 

And we reiterate: the circumstance that the first consistently atheist power proved itself the dominion of the bestial is hardly an accident. Historical materialism, and the atheism that supplements it, deprives man’s primarily animal instincts of their restraint (including the primarily economic instincts, which amount to robbery). The basic defining force of social existence in the conditions of materialism and atheism’s ideological dominance turns out to be hate and delivers its deserved fruits: torment for everyone. And sooner or later it cannot but bring the final fruit – torment to the tormenters.

 

Russia enacted the triumph of historical materialism and atheism, but those laws that manifested in the course of her Revolution concern far from her alone. The cult of primarily economic interest and every sort of animal primacy has also germinated abundantly in the consciousness of peoples outside of Russia, and neither can it be the basis for a long-lived and successful society beyond her borders. The destructive forces gathering in these conditions will sooner or later overcome the power of social creation here, as well. One has to approach the problem in all its depth and breadth. The pressure of the materialist and atheist outlook must be opposed with an ideological essence overflowing with valuable and weighty content. There can be no hesitation. With still unheard-of directness and unbending resolve, on the broadest front and everywhere, it is necessary initiate and lead the struggle with everything associated even in the slightest degree with materialism and atheism. The evil must be traced back to its roots; we need to literally uproot it. It would be a superficial and powerless attempt to fight only with the most pronounced manifestations of historical materialism and atheism, or Communism alone. The problem is set deeper and at a more essential level. War must be declared upon militant economism wherever it might reveal itself. In the name of our religious worldview we must gather our forces, and with ardent feeling, clear thought and the fullness of understanding, combat the specific spirit of the new Europe.

 

Since the Continent has arrived at that historical and ideological frontier where it is at present, we can assert with great probability that in some period of the future, one of two outcomes will occur. Either the cultural medium of the new Europe will perish and scatter as smoke in tortuously tragic upheaval, or that “critical,” in the terminology of the Saint-Simonians, epoch that began in Europe with the close of the Middle Ages should come to an end and be replaced by an “organic” age, an “age of faith.” Past a certain measure, one cannot trample with impunity ancient wisdom, for in it is truth – not on the basis of elevating primarily selfish human instincts into the higher principle upheld in the philosophy of militant economism, but on the basis of an enlightened religious feeling of restraint and control of these instincts, thereby achieving a practicable higher measure of the “common good” on earth. A society given over to exclusive concern for worldly goods will sooner or later be deprived of them; such is the terrible lesson that shows through from the experience of the Russian Revolution.

 

The Eurasianists attempt to conclusively and thoroughly clarify and comprehend this experience, extract all the lessons streaming out of it, and be fearless in the matter. This is in contradistinction to those who have in confusion and timidity reeled from Communism’s beastly image, yet have not refused that which composes the basis or root of Communism; those who seizing the plough, look back; who try and pour new wine into old skins; who, having seen the new truth of Communism’s repulsiveness, are not strong enough to denounce the old abomination of militant economism, whatever forms the latter might assume.

 

Private faith is insufficient – the believing person should be conciliar. The Eurasianists are men of Orthodoxy. And the Orthodox Church is the lamp that illuminates them; they call their compatriots to Her, to Her Sacraments and Her Grace. And they are not troubled by the terrible sedition that has arisen in the heart of the Russian Church through the incitement of the atheists and theomachists. Spiritual strength will be sufficient, the Eurasianists believe; the struggle leads to enlightenment.

 

The Orthodox Church is the realization of higher freedom; its principle is concord, as opposed to the principle of authority that dominates in the Roman Church that separated from her. And it seems to the Eurasianists that in the stern matters of the world, one cannot make do without stern authority, but in matters of spirit and the Church, only grace-filled freedom and concord are good instructors. In some spheres of its worldly affairs, Europe demolishes the efficacy of authority and introduces a tyrannical power. The Orthodox Church has for long centuries been a light only to those nations who stayed faithful to her; she shined with the truths of her dogma and with the exploits of her ascetics.

 

At present, perhaps, a different period approaches: the contemporary Orthodox Church, continuing the succession of the ancient Eastern Church, received from her a whole unprejudiced approach to forms of economic life (so contradictory to the techniques of the Western Church, for example, which for long centuries fought against the collection of interest) and to the achievements of human thought. And therefore, it may be that within the framework of the new religious epoch, namely the Orthodox Church in the greatest measure is called to consecrate the achievements of the latest economic technology and science, having purified them from the ideological “superstructure” of militant economism, materialism and atheism, just as in her time, in the age of Constantine, Theodosius and Justinian, within the framework of a genuine and inspired “age of faith,” the ancient Church was able to consecrate a quite complex and developed economic way of life and considerable freedom in theological and philosophical thought. In contemporary economic life and empirical science, whatever its development, there is nothing that would exclude the possibility of their existence and prosperity in the depths of the new epoch of faith. The combination of modern technology with the ideology of militant economism and atheism is in no way either obligatory or unavoidable.

 

From the religious outlook, economic technology, whatever the limit of its possibilities might be, is a means of realizing the Testament laid by the Creator into the foundation of the human race: “and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Empirical science, from the religious point of view, is the uncovering of a picture of God’s world – whereby through the advance of knowledge, the wisdom of the Creator is ever more fully and completely revealed…

 

(с) 2007-2014 Геополитика.ru. Возрастная категория сайта 18+

Свидетельство о регистрации СМИ "Информационно-аналитического портала "ГЕОПОЛИТИКА" Эл № ФС 77-32517 от 18 июля 2008 года.
Свидетельство выдано "Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи и массовых коммуникаций".
Все права защищены. Перепечатка авторских материалов допускается только при наличии ссылки на портал Геополитика.ru.
Телефон редакции: (495) 514- 65-16

Soviet-Afghan War Lesson

Soviet-Afghan War Lesson: Political Problems Never Settled by Force

By Sergey Duz
The Voice of Russia

Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com

25 years ago, the almost 10-year long deployment of the limited contingent of Soviet forces in Afghanistan drew to a close. Experts have since been at variance about the assessment of the Afghan campaign, but they invariably agree that it was the biggest-scale (and actually quite ambiguous, obviously for that reason) foreign policy action throughout the post-war history of the Soviet Union.

The last Soviet soldier left Afghanistan on February 15th 1989 as part of the Soviet 40th Army, which was the backbone of the limited contingent. The Soviet troops withdrew under the command of the 40th Army legendary commander, Lieutenant-General Boris Gromov. He managed to brilliantly carry out the withdrawal, with the US now trying to use his experience to more or less decently pull out of Afghanistan following the more than 20 years of actually useless occupation of that country. This is what an expert with the Centre for Modern Afghan Studies, Nikita Mendkovich, says about it in a comment.

“The Americans will have to rely heavily on intercontinental delivery means, because the troops are being evacuated to another region, to another continent. Back in 1989, it was largely a ground-force operation. The Soviet troops pulled out by land via Central Asia. The basic problem of any operation of this kind is security. Huge masses of troops and a great number of military vehicles are moving along the roads, so they should be guaranteed against likely attacks. To attain the objective, one can either reinforce local garrisons that will remain deployed in Afghanistan after the pull-out of the bulk of the troops and will cover the withdrawal, or reach agreement with the enemy not to attack the leaving troops, because this is not in the enemy’s interests”.

There are both similarities and numerous differences between the Soviet and American campaigns in Afghanistan. The main difference is that the Soviet Union did manage to achieve its goal, whereas with the United States it is no go. The Soviet troops were to render assistance to the Afghan government in settling the home policy situation. Secondly, the Soviet troops were to prevent external aggression. Both objectives were fully attained.

The Soviet political leadership felt that the revolution of April 1978 had no right to lose. Ideological reasoning was reinforced by geopolitical considerations. This predetermined Moscow’s decision to send troops, says editor-in-chief of the National Defence magazine, Igor Korotchenko, and elaborates.

“The Afghan campaign was inevitable if seen from the perspective of defending the Soviet Union’s national interests. It may seem odd, but Afghans are still nostalgic about the times when Soviet troops were deployed in their country. Even former field commanders can’t help but show some sort of liking for the Soviet Union, for the Soviet Army. We were no invaders; we helped build a new Afghanistan. The Soviet troops built tunnels, ensured the operation of water-supply systems, planted trees, built schools and hospitals, and also production facilities. The Soviet troops were indeed performing their international duty, they accomplished quite a feat. When the Soviet troops pulled out, Najibullah had a strong Afghan Army under his command. He remained in control of the situation in Afghanistan for 12 or 18 months. His regime fell when the Soviet Union cut short its material supply for Kabul. The current Afghan regime of Karzai will certainly prove short-lived; it’s no more than a phantom. The US troops will hardly pull out with their heads held high, the way the Soviet soldiers did”.

But then, some people disagree that all Afghans were happy about the Soviet military presence. The Soviet Prime Minister Alexei Kosygin pointed out the danger of the Soviet troops getting drawn into guerrilla warfare. He said in late 1979 that the invasion of Afghanistan “would trigger drastically negative many-sided consequences”. “This would essentially become a conflict not only with imperialist countries, but a conflict with the proper Afghan people. Now, people never forgive things like that”, Kosygin warned, and proved correct. This is what the chairman of the Common Afghan Centre in St. Petersburg, Naim Gol Mohammed, says about it in a comment.

“The people of Afghanistan have their own traditions, mentality and culture. The belligerent Pashtun tribes have never taken orders from anyone. These tribes never take to foreign troops. The locals revolted against the Soviet troops. The Soviet troop withdrawal in 1989 was followed by a period of anarchy. Government agencies were non-operational. The Soviet Union supplied Afghanistan with whatever was required quite well. But once the Soviet troops were out, the supplies were brought to a halt. That was bad. But the Soviet Union made the right decision, for it is impossible to defeat Afghans on their own soil”.

Quite a few experts insist that however tragic or pointless the Soviet military campaign in Afghanistan may seem, it had largely influenced the shaping of the new Russia’s optimal foreign policy. Moscow is perfectly aware today that no use of force can help resolve political problems, that these can only have a negotiated settlement. Moscow is trying to put the idea across to the main geopolitical players today. This is the most important lesson that should be learned from what experience the Soviet Union gained in Afghanistan.

Reprinted from The voice of Russia.

Vladimir Odintsov :

The USA’s Asia Policy is Shifting

Ex: http://journal-neo.org

 

The February 5th discussion in Congress of the issue of the United States’ Asia policy came as a clear confirmation of the course taken by Washington influence by hawks: transitioning from the balanced approach of the past to solving territorial disputes in the Pacific Rim to a tougher stance, one including the use of force. The intent of updating future US activities in Asia is reflected in the very name of the congressional subcommittee hearing: “America’s Future in Asia: From Rebalancing to Managing Sovereignty Disputes.” It wholly confirmed Washington’s decision of transitioning to a position of imperial dictatorship in that area of the world, where in recent times the US has regularly expressed grievances against China regarding the recently announced Chinese Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), which includes a number of islands in the South China Sea.

According to reports of various foreign observers, a fairly obvious tension in relations between the two countries has appeared in recent days, despite Washington’s outward declaration of willingness to develop a bilateral cooperation with China in a number of arenas. In the view of many analysts, this is largely due to a shift in US military strategy and its particular emphasis on the strengthening of its strategic presence in the Pacific region as a means of combating Chinese expansion in Asia. The sharpest of these confrontations are in the field of military strategy and of competition for influence over regional economic trade unions. The underlying motive for this is clear: each year 5.3 trillion dollars of the trade turnover takes place in the South China Sea, with US trade accounting for 1.2 trillion of the total amount.

A session of the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US House of Representatives termed “China’s Maritime and Other Geographic Threats” held on October 30th, 2013 is a clear indication of the growth of anti-Chinese sentiment in the American political establishment. This session, chaired by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, witnessed a significant rise in the inciting of military confrontation with China in the Pacific Rim region, as well as a quest by US politicians to further strengthen US expansion in that part of the world by military confrontation with China, looking to Japan for support.

Giving testimony before a congressional subcommittee on February 5th, the US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Daniel Russel, stated that the United States is acting against “China’s incremental efforts to assert control over the area contained in the so-called “nine-dash line” (i.e. China’s territorial demands in the South China Sea)”. He added, “I think it is imperative that we be clear about what we mean when the United States says that we take no position on competing claims to sovereignty over disputed land features in the East China and South China Seas…we do take a strong position that maritime claims must accord with customary international law…”

This assertion, repeated several times during his testimony before Congress and in a briefing for foreign journalists which took place on February 4th in the US Department of State Foreign Press Center, may indicate significant changes in US foreign policy in the Asia-Pacific region. Before Russel’s testimony the United States officially announced its neutrality in respect to maritime disputes in the South China Sea, which was used by American diplomats primarily as a denial of the military component of Washington’s policy in the region. The White House now, however, takes a “strong position” on the issue and intends to use certain provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) – which the US itself has not yet joined – to place increased pressure on China and to denounce Beijing’s maritime demands.

Adjusting for the adoption of its modified position in the Pacific Rim region Washington “aided” the Philippine government in bringing a judicial lawsuit against China before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), which will review the issue on March 30th of this year in Hague. This step, however, is clearly a link in Washington’s coordinated military propaganda campaign against China, as the same day that Russel gave testimony before Congress the New York Times published an interview with president of the Philippines Aquino, in which he compared Beijing’s territorial demands in the South China Sea with Hitler’s 1938 seizure of the Czech Sudetenland, equating China’s activities with those of Nazi Germany. In support of Aquino’s inflammatory comparison, on February 6th of this year The Atlantic temporarily carried an article with a critique of China.

When, with the clear sanction of the White House, the US media begins comparing a country with Nazi Germany, it becomes obvious that the American war machine is gaining momentum in its preparations for the next war, in which military industry circles have long been interested. The “informational support” of such a shift in US foreign policy was provided in the form of speeches delivered by a number of congressmen before congressional subcommittee hearings on maritime disputes, which took place last week. Testimony was brought by congressmen Ami Bera, Steve Chabot, Randy Forbes, Brad Sherman and a number of others in support of a forceful US position and of confrontation with Beijing over disputed territories in the Pacific Rim region.

Meanwhile, an active relocation of the US submarine fleet in the Pacific Ocean is underway, as well as the modernization and expansion of the US military base on Guam, its largest base in the Western Pacific since World War II, although the military equipment there is already sufficient for large-scale military activities, according to a number of military experts. The building of additional military bases on the South Korean Island of Jeju, the Australian Cocos Islands and the expansion of its base on the Diego Garcia Islands is clearly in the Pentagon’s interest. Singapore has already given permission for the use of its Navy base, Chang, for better control over the Malacca Strait, through which 80% of its Chinese oil imports arrive…

Under such circumstances, the true agenda of US vice-president Biden and US Deputy Secretary of State William Burns’ visits to the region becomes increasingly clear, as well as that of the upcoming visits of Secretary of State John Kerry, Minister of Defense Chuck Hagel and a number of other high-level US officials. The US’s political balancing act in the Pacific Rim region is truly shifting.

Vladimir Odintsov, a political observer, exclusively for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook.

Taliban bedreigen niet-islamitisch bergvolk

Taliban bedreigen niet-islamitisch bergvolk: bekeer je of sterf!

Ex: http://www.parool.nl

 

 

Kailash-vrouwen in Islamabad op een bijeenkomst over de verschillende culturen in het land. © epa

De Kalash, het Pakistaanse bergvolk dat zegt af te stammen van Alexander de Grote, zijn altijd veilig geweest achter hun muren van rots en ijs. Maar de Taliban hebben 'een gewapende strijd' aangekondigd tegen deze stam, omdat deze zich nooit heeft bekeerd tot de islam.

Er komen weinig buitenstaanders in de Chitral-vallei. De wegen zijn een groot deel van het jaar onbegaanbaar en voordat een vliegtuig het aandurft om op te stijgen, moeten de weersomstandigheden absoluut perfect zijn: de kleine luchthaven ligt weggemoffeld tussen bergtoppen van meer dan achtduizend meter hoog.

Dit is misschien wel het mooiste deel van Pakistan. Bergtoppen torenen woest, rauw en overdonderend boven de vallei uit. Overal is water: rivieren, beken en watervallen vechten zich een weg naar beneden en op sommige plaatsen verandert grijze rots in een boomgaard vol roze bloesem of velden vol wuivende tarwe.

Altijd met rust gelaten

Vroeger werd deze vallei gedomineerd door gematigde Ismaëlies, een aftakking van de islam die wordt geleid door de Agha Khan. Nu zijn soennitische moslims er in de meerderheid, maar ook zij hebben de 3.500 Kalash altijd met rust gelaten. De rijzige mannen en vrouwen, vaak met lichte ogen en een lichte huid, leven in hun afgelegen dorpen, ver in de bergen.

Soms ondernemen toeristen de lange reis om de Kalash te zien. Een enkele buitenlander. Een handjevol Pakistanen uit 'de vlaktes'. Die laatste groep is overigens niet erg populair bij de Kalash-vrouwen, zo vertelden ze in 2002 in een interview met de Volkskrant. 'Ze verstoppen hun eigen vrouwen, maar komen wel naar onze gezichten kijken', zei een jong meisje. 'Ze hebben geen respect.'

'Bekeer of sterf'

Begin deze maand, op 2 februari, verscheen er een video op een website van de Taliban die volgens persbureau AFP begint met prachtige beelden van de vallei. Daarna zegt een stem dat de Kalash zich tot de islam moeten bekeren, of zullen sterven.

'Bij de genade van Allah heeft een groeiend aantal mensen van de Kalash de islam omarmd. We willen aan de hele stam duidelijk maken dat de leden zullen worden vernietigd met hun beschermers, de westerse agenten, als ze niet bekeren.'

In de video worden internationale non-gouvernementele organisaties ervan beschuldigd in Chitral te infiltreren om de cultuur van de Kalash te beschermen, en daarmee mensen weg te houden van de islam. De liefdadigheidsorganisatie van de Agha Khan wordt hierbij als voorbeeld genoemd, en de stem zweert om dergelijke snode plannen in de kiem te smoren.

(Door: Sacha Kester)

 

Author: Salman Rafi Sheikh

 

Pakistani Province of Baluchistan at Cross-Roads of Geo-Political games

Ex: http://journal-neo.org

 

Baluchistan, the energy rich western province of Pakistan, has been experiencing violence and conflict in the form of insurgency for many decades. Although this insurgency has partly resulted from the socio-economic deprivation of the province, however, there is also another dimension of this conflict—the direct involvement of certain foreign powers both regional and international. They have they been exploiting this deprivation for igniting conflict but also providing both the material and non-material support to the insurgents by passing resolutions in favour of an ‘Independent Baluchistan’ and providing military equipement for sustaining skrimishes against the government and the army of Pakistan. This very foreign involvement which has turned this otherwise ‘socio-political struggle’ against deprivation into different sub-forms: ethno-nationalism, sectarianism, provincial chauvinism, terrorism and ‘Talibanism’. And, it is this very foreign involvement that has made the insurgency exclusively ‘Baluch insurgency’ instead of an insurgency of the people of Baluchistan which include Pashtun and other ethnic communities too. However, these forms of the on-going spate of large scale violence are not necessarily the result of that purely Baluch struggle against deprivation, nor are the people of Baluchistan, or more specifically people of typical Baluch ethnic origin, themselves directly involved in it. There is a definite global geo-political context which, when taken into account, does explain to a reasonable extent the spread of violence and instability.

This aspect is related to the geographical location of Baluchistan at the maritime interface of the Western, Southern and Eastern segments of Asia alongside the Indian Ocean that further enhances its importance in facilitating global trade and energy shipments. Baluchistan thus provides a number of shortest possible land and sea route to and from the East and the West. For this very reason Baluchistan has become a ‘geo-strategic’ fulcrum of this arena of extremely heightened geo-political competition. The US sponsored idea of “Greater Baluchistan” has done Baluchistan no good. On top of all Baluchistan’s territorial link with Afghanistan and use of its territory for the facilitation of NATO supplies has made it even more vulnerable to the geo-political maneuvering of the US and its allies in the region.

The idea of “greater Baluchistan” includes not merely territorial disintegration of Pakistan alone; it also includes that of both Iran and Afghanistan. In introducing a resolution on ‘independent Baluchistan’ in the US House of Representative in 2012, the US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher said that the people of Baluchistan, “currently divided between Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan, have the right to self-determination and to their own sovereign country,” adding that they should be afforded full opportunity to choose their own status among the community of nations. This ‘moral support’ is being followed by the supply of ample foreign fundings, arms deliveries and military training. In 2001, Jane’s information group, one of the leading sources on intelligence information, reported that the RAW and MOSSAD have created five new agencies to penetrate Pakistan to target important religious figures, civil and military personnel, journalists, judges etc, and the current situation and information provided by Pakistan’s various security agencies also verifies the fact of foreign involvement in Baluchistan. Even the government of Afghanistan has been abetting the disruptive forces in igniting conflict in the region by providing territorial sanctuaries to the so-called insurgents.

The continuing Baluch struggle against “deprivation”, properly supplied by the Western fighter for the greater good have successfully spread the conflict into many zones of Baluchistan, making them virtually independent. By repeatedly highlighting and emphasizing the state of deprivation of the Baluch people, the US and its allies have been exploiting the Baluch youth that is dying out with foreign arms in its hands in an attempt to attain the much yearned after ‘national’ independence from the ‘dictatorial’ domination of the Punjab. In this context, the US Congress bill on Baluch’s right to separation and self determination, tabled in 2012, is one of the manifest examples of the deliberately designed geo-political maneuvering. That bill was and is not only a violation of the internationally recognized principle of non-intervention, but also a sort of window dressing of the US’ and its Western allies’ global agendas. In essence, it was nothing else but an attempt to give a ‘legitimate’ cover to pursue, on part of the US, the twentieth century grand objectives which include domination of the region extending from Baluchistan to Central Asia and Eurasia and to Eastern Asia by way of segmenting the entire region, thereby controlling and dominating the flow of energy to and from the Eastern, Central and Western segments of Asia through the Indian Ocean.

It is for this reason that many US policy makers have, from time to time, been emphasizing the geo-strategic significance of Baluchistan in terms of serving the “grand objectives” of the US. For example a prominent US expert on South Asian affairs, Selig Harrison, urged the White House in 2011 to contain the fast spreading influence of China in the India Ocean, “by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar.” Similarly, the evidence of such an interest in disintegrating Pakistan can also be found in an article, “Blood Borders” written by a military analyst of the US, Lt. Col. Ralph Peter, who presented the idea of revision of the boundaries of the entire Middle East as per the wished of the people of locale, and further suggested the placement of the US forces in the region to “continue to fight for security from terrorism, for the prospect of democracy and for access to oil supplies in a region that is destined to fight itself.”

The US has thus been using its presence in Afghanistan, which is by default linked to the attainment of the US’ grand objectives, to play dirty game in Baluchistan too. In 2012, during a briefing to the upper house of Pakistan’s parliament, the then interior minister of Pakistan, Mr. Rehman Malik, presented a number of letters written by the Afghan government to provide funds, visas, weapons and ammunition to Brahamdagh Bugti’s followers inside Baluchistan. Only in Kandhar there were reported 24 CIA sponsored training camps which train insurgents for carrying out their militant missions inside Baluchistan; and moreover, since 2002, the CIA has been running training camps inside Baluchistan for the Baluchistan Liberation Army (BLA) and it has considerably assisted it in establishing a ‘state within a state.’

Needless to say, the CIA’s use of mercenaries to fight covert wars is an escapable feature of the US foreign policy. The arrest of such a mercenary, Raymond Davis, in Lahore blew the lid off the extensive role CIA covert operations are playing in creating the climate of violence and instability throughout Pakistan, and more specifically in Baluchistan. The underlying purpose of such covert operations is to manipulate in favour of supporting the Baluch peoples’ right to self-determination through secession.

That is how the neo-imperial forces of the West, led by the US, have been applying the policy of divide and rule—the classic political stratagem that has not escaped the interest of the neo-colonial states. While the truth is that the location of Baluchistan at the interface of three major segments of Asia, its maritime significance because of Gwadar port, its capacity to provide the shortest possible route to the landlocked states of Afghanistan and Central Asia, its capacity to serve as an international energy transit corridor, and its own untapped numerous reservoirs of energy sources add to its significance in the current era of extremely heightened competition in and around the Indian Ocean. As such, by disintegrating Pakistan, leading to an extended redrawing of regional boundaries, the US can significantly alter regional balance of power, and can place its own military in the region in the name of ‘maintaining peace and security.’

The US, in its quest for dominating the world is showing little to no respect for human rights Despite the fact that Pakistan is a non-NATO ally of the US,  is standing in the way of the U.S. and pays a handsome price for it.

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

Rangoon Realpolitik: Russia, India courting Myanmar

Rangoon Realpolitik: Russia, India courting Myanmar

by Rakesh Krishnan Simha

Ex: http://indrus.in

 

 

A strategic axis that was threatening to develop between Myanmar, China and Pakistan has been nixed by the Southeast Asian country’s growing ties with Russia and India.

 

Myanmar Army Commander Gen Min Aung Hlaing on a visit to Delhi in 2012. Source: AP

A mini version of the Great Game is being played out in Asia – and the prize is Myanmar, strategically overlooking the main shipping channel that connects the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Long boycotted and forgotten by much of the world, the Buddhist country’s military junta – perhaps unwillingly – had developed strong military and commercial ties with China and Pakistan.

Part of the blame for Myanmar tilting towards China and Pakistan goes to next-door neighbour India. Showing a complete lack of realpolitik, New Delhi had shunned the Myanmarese military rulers while openly supporting the opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

The friendless junta opted for 'friends' who were available. At one time, Myanmar used to refer to China as “paukphaw” – the Myanmarese word for sibling. The strategic and military relationship between the two resulted in Chinese fighter jets, tanks and missiles pouring into Myanmar. Military advisors soon followed and soon the army, air force and navy were being trained by Chinese officers.

India's huge stakes in Myanmar

In return China got access to Myanmar ports, offering Beijing with strategic influence in the Bay of Bengal, in the Indian Ocean region and Southeast Asia. Worryingly for India, China built a massive intelligence gathering network on Great Coco Island. Located just 18 km from India’s Andaman & Nicobar Islands, it allows China to monitor India's military activities, including missile tests, in the area.

Pakistan followed in China’s wake. In 2001, three Pakistan Navy vessels - a submarine, tanker and destroyer - visited Yangon Port. This was an unprecedented development because until then Myanmar had maintained it would not permit foreign navies to visit the country.

Enter Moscow

Despite deep defence ties the Myanmarese were loath to buy their insurance policy from just two countries – especially when one of them was a known international outcaste. Myanmar had never quite forgotten that in 1963 Moscow had provided the newly installed military government with three helicopters. Russia, having lost ground in its former strongholds such as Iraq, Libya and Syria, also saw an opening into a growing market.

In 2009 Moscow cracked that market, selling the Myanmar Air Force 20 MiG-29s in a $570 million deal, edging out the Chinese who had offered their knockoff fighters. Russia’s MiG Corp also pitched in, helping upgrade Myanmar's main military airstrip.

‘India needs Myanmar, and Myanmar also needs India’

Russia also sold Myanmar Mi-35 attack helicopters, aircraft trainers, artillery guns, air defense systems, tanks, radars and communication equipment.

According to Wikileaks, Russian diplomats were able to connect with the secretive Myanmarese generals. “Russia has exceptional access in Naypyidaw (the capital), including to top military leaders; and [the Russian ambassador] has been the most outspoken defender of the regime’s policies, including its human rights record during sessions with visiting UN officials,” reads the leaked cable.

The Myanmarese generals were glad they had made the right buys. The cable shows Russian helicopter gunships were successfully deployed against Kachin rebels.

India’s reset

Alarmed by the Chinese military and intelligence gathering bases in Myanmar, India has taken a long-overdue policy u-turn. Indian military supplies are now trickling into the country. These include maritime patrol aircraft, naval gunboats, 105 mm light artillery guns, mortars, grenade-launchers and rifles.

India has reported agreed to Myanmar’s request for assistance in building offshore patrol vehicles (OPVs). More importantly, it has green lighted a request to double the number of vacancies for training Myanmarese Navy officers and sailors from the current quota of 50. India will also train Myanmarese pilots to fly Russian-built Mi-35 helicopters.

Ethnic violence in Myanmar

According to The Diplomat, Myanmar is currently engaged in a competitive naval buildup with Bangladesh, particularly since the maritime standoff between their navies in 2008, which did not portray Myanmarese naval capabilities in a particularly good light. It is in this backdrop that Myanmar has asked for more from India – new radars, sensors and sonars for its naval frigates and corvettes.

In a sign that India is shedding its Gandhian reticence towards military exports, the Defence Research & Development Organisation’s hull-mounted sonar (HUMSA) – which is designed for small frigates, corvettes and OPVs – is being exported to the Myanmar Navy.

The sonars are also part of a larger pipeline of naval sensors being supplied to Myanmar, which has in the past included BEL-built RAWL-02 Mk III L-band 2D search radars and commercial grade navigation radars that are being sported by Myanmar Navy ships, reports The Diplomat. The primary offensive weapon of these ships is the Russian built Kh-35 Uran anti-ship missile.

While India would like to play a larger role in Myanmar, especially its democratisation process, the junta is in no hurry to travel that path. Instead they find the Vladimir Putin school of democracy more suited to the needs of a developing country that is reeling under separatist movements.

A Mandela moment in Myanmar

According to Asia Times, Myanmar appears to be looking elsewhere for inspiration and ideas. In July this year, a parliamentary delegation from Myanmar led by speaker Shwe Mann visited Russia as part of a "fact finding mission" on Russia's democracy model.

“Given their wariness of democracy in the first place and particularly one that is argumentative and noisy like that in neighboring India, Myanmar's rulers, who have often spoken in favor of a ‘disciplined democracy’ are looking to Russia for ideas….,” says the report.

Considering the state of democracy in India, you couldn’t fault the Myanmarese for looking elsewhere. As long as Myanmar is being weaned off both Beijing and Islamabad, New Delhi should count its blessings.

Related

• India, Russia and Abe’s posturing
• Moving beyond ‘conflict of civilizations’ to multi-polar equilibrium
• Russia praises results of African Union Summit

Is Japan Losing its Independence?

Record Trade Deficit in Japan and Nuclear Reality: Is Japan Losing its Independence?

Noriko Watanabe and Walter Sebastian

Ex: http://moderntokyotimes.com

The anti-nuclear lobby in Japan and the mass media in this nation on a whole continue to focus on the negative side of nuclear power stations. Not surprisingly, the government of Japan is dithering about this issue just like other important areas – for example the declining birth rate. However, Japan can’t afford to maintain its current energy policy because it is hindering the economy too much. Either Japan must re-focus on nuclear energy which helped in the modernization of this nation in the post-war period – or, Japan must bite the bullet and formulate an alternative energy policy and quickly.

The Ministry of Finance announced earlier this week that the trade deficit in 2013 reached a record figure. This should set off alarm bells in the corridors of power because the $112 billion dollar trade deficit will put enormous strains on the economy. After all, with no real energy policy existing currently in Japan, then it seem more than feasible that the next few years will follow the same pattern.

Issues related to the nuclear crisis in Japan appear to have been blown up out of all proportion. After all, the huge loss of life occurred because of the brutal tsunami that followed the massive 9.0-magnitude earthquake on March 11 in 2011. This isn’t meant to belittle the trauma caused to the local area in Fukushima because within a certain zone it is clear that problems continue to exist. However, the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear crisis is more based on bad management, the age of the plant, deficiencies within the planning mechanisms of this nuclear plant, lack of accountability, limited safety mechanisms – and other areas of importance. Of course, the earthquake triggered the tsunami but the nuclear crisis that erupted was based on human failure when faced with the brutal reality of nature.

Vojin Joksimovich, nuclear specialist and writer at Modern Tokyo Times, stated last year: “Japan has few natural resources and imports about 84% of its energy requirements. Nuclear power has been a national strategic priority since 1973. The country’s 54 nuclear plants have provided some 30% of the nation’s electricity. This was expected to increase to 40% by 2017 and to 50% by 2030. Japan has a fuel cycle capability including enrichment and reprocessing of used fuel for recycle and waste minimization. Shutdowns of 48 units capable of generating electricity have resulted in soaring fossil fuel, mostly LNG imports. Five nuclear utilities have been compelled to raise electricity rates: household rates 8.5-11.9%; commercial rates 14.2-19.2%.” 

“According to the NASA climate change study, summarized in the May 2013 issue of the Nuclear News, using nuclear power to generate electricity instead of burning fossil fuels prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution deaths and 64 billion metric tons of CO2- equivalent greenhouse gas emissions between 1971 and 2009. In the time frame 2000-2009 the nuclear plants prevented on average 76,000 deaths/year. It appears that the NRA has ignored these types of considerations, while pursuing the absolute safety quest for the nuclear plants.” 

In the same article Vojin Joksimovich says: “There is now abundance of evidence showing that the worst accident in the history of commercial nuclear power has not harmed the Japanese public. The University of Oxford physics professor Wade Allison, author of the remarkable book Radiation and Reason: The Impact of Science on a Culture of Fear, testifying in the British House of Commons in December of 2011, was the first one to tell the world that the accident has not harmed the Japanese public: “No acute fatalities, no acute injuries, no extended hospitalizations due to radiation, unlikely cancer fatalities in 50 years.”

“World Health Organization (WHO) report followed: “Low risk to population, no observable health effects.”United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) report, with contributions from 80 international experts, says: “No immediate health effects, unlikely health effects in future among general public and vast majority of workers.” Most Japanese were exposed to additional radiation less than natural background level of 2.1mSv/yr. The report concludes that observable effects are attributable to stresses of evacuation and unwarranted fear of radiation. This means that the most serious health effects were not caused by radiation but by fear of it by the Japanese authorities. Lastly the Fukushima Medical University (FMU) is conducting a health management survey of all 2 million Fukushima Prefecture residents. Thus far the maximum dose received was only 19mSv. This writer, while in a local hospital, has received doses of 30-40mSv from CT scans. It means that he has received higher dose than ~99% of the Japanese population from the Daiichi accident.”

Now Japan is stuck by either adopting a pragmatic nuclear policy based on modernizing the entire system and implementing tougher standards – or to continue with importing dirty energy at a negative cost in terms of health related issues and hindering the economy. Of course, Japan could try to radically alter its energy policy by implementing a policy that boosts alternative energy – the effects and costs remain debatable. However, the current status quo of relying on expensive imported fossil fuels to bridge the non-existent energy policy isn’t viable.

The huge deficit is based on increasing imports that followed in the wake of the March 11 9.0-magnitude earthquake that triggered the tsunami and nuclear crisis in Fukushima. Since this period, imports continue to rise in relation to the demand of fossil fuels. Therefore, despite exports rising in Japan to nearly 10% in 2013, it is clear that the import imbalance, weak yen and the reliance on fossil fuels are all hitting the economy hard.

Forbes says: “A surge in Japanese fossil fuel demand following the Fukushima nuclear crisisin 2011 pushed imports to their highest-ever level of 81.26 trillion yen.”

“In other words, steep post-Fukushima energy bills are taking a toll on Japan’s economy.”

“Prior to the Fukushima fiasco, nuclear reactors supplied a third of Japan’s electric demand.”

Lee Jay Walker at Modern Tokyo Times says: “The yen will continue to feel the effects of the current account deficit and if this isn’t addressed then traders may well sell off more yen. This in turn will have an adverse effect on import costs thereby creating a downward economic spiral. Therefore, given the reality that exports reached a near 10% increase last year, it is clear that Japan needs to address its energy policy along with other essential areas related to the economy.”

Akira Amari, Fiscal and Economic Policy Minister, is extremely anxious about the deficit. He warns that unless this issue is addressed then Japan “may become like the United States in depending on other countries for its financial funds.”

If the above scenario happens then Japan will further lose its independence and this also applies to the nuclear angle. After all, the development of the nuclear sector was an area of self-reliance given the overall weakness of Japan in relation to natural energy resources. Now, however, Japan is beholden to more imported fossil fuels; the nation relies on America for protecting the nation state in relation to the armed forces of this nation being stationed in Japan; while imported foodstuffs are a natural fact of life; and if the trade deficit continues then soon Japan may rely on foreign nations for funds. Therefore, the current leader of Japan needs to focus on a proper energy policy because the current status quo is undermining the economy along with other negative ills.

Lee Jay Walker gave guidance to both main writers

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2014/01/27/the-cost-of-misguided-energy-policies-japans-record-trade-deficit/

http://www.moderntokyotimes.com/2013/07/16/restart-of-japanese-nuclear-plants-politically-correct-radiophobia-harms-the-general-public/

[e-mail]

http://moderntokyotimes.com

Les Ainu et la politique des minorités ethniques au Japon

Les Ainu et la politique des minorités ethniques au Japon

par Rémy VALAT

« Le Japon est un peuple ethniquement et culturellement homogène », telle est l’idée dominante, héritée de la mythologie et de l’idéologie politiques modernes – qui a longtemps prévalu dans ce pays. À ce titre, pendant la période d’expansion coloniale en Asie (1895 – 1945), les populations ethniquement non japonaises ont été assimilées par la force (les habitants des îles Ryûkyû – l’actuelle préfecture d’Okinawa – et les Ainu) ou réduites au travail forcé (Coréens). D’autres minorités sont le résultat des migrations internationales contemporaines et de divisions culturelles au sein même de la société japonaise.

 

Survol sur les minorités au Japon

 

Le Japon est le « pays des dieux », un pays unique peuplé par une race homogène : une interprétation courante des groupes ethniques et des nations souhaitant se singulariser par rapport aux autres. Cette vision est défendue par les politiques et longtemps soutenue par la communauté scientifique qui défendait la thèse d’une « japonéité » se fondant sur une explication biologique, servant de prétexte à une appartenance communautaire reposant sur le « droit du sang ».

 

Toutefois, il existe des disparités au sein même de la population de même sang, une « caste » a pendant longtemps été reléguée : les Burakumin (ou « gens des hameaux » – sous-entendu « spéciaux »). Les personnes (et leurs collatéraux) exerçant des métiers « impurs » d’un point de vue religieux, parce qu’en relation avec la chair morte ou la mort, voire pour le caractère itinérant de leur profession (forains), ont été mises au ban de la société (comme les comédiens ou les bourreaux de la société française d’Ancien Régime). La discrimination à l’encontre de ces individus est en voie de disparition. D’autres Japonais, les victimes des bombes atomiques américaines, ont aussi été considérées avec un certain mépris, comme l’attesterait des enquêtes menées sur les demandes en mariage ou les demandes d’aides sociales (travail, assurance maladie), peut-être en raison de la visibilité de leurs blessures, qui serait une sorte de rappel d’un passé que l’on souhaiterait oublier.

 

La logique des vertus de l’homogénéité ethnique a été mise à mal par l’expérience d’un retour au pays de descendants d’émigrants japonais, les « personnes de lignée japonaise » (Nikkeijin). Ces derniers ont bénéficié – pendant la phase de reconstruction et d’essor économique de l’après-guerre – d’une politique favorable d’immigration, en réalité une politique officieuse d’immigration choisie. Ils seraient, à l’heure actuelle, environ 700 000 résidents permanents. Beaucoup sont revenus d’Amérique latine (principalement du Brésil), où ils ont servi de main-d’œuvre dans les plantations de café, des États-Unis, où ils ont été victimes de sévères lois sur l’immigration et – après la déclaration de guerre avec le Japon – de persécutions et d’internement dans des camps, et des Philippines. Ces « Japonais de sang » ont également été soumis, à leur arrivée, à un statut particulier (titre de résident temporaire, logement dans des quartiers réservés) et connaissent de nos jours une crise d’identité, mais aussi des difficultés d’insertion, notamment du fait de leur acculturation et, parfois d’une maîtrise insuffisante de la langue.

 

Avec les Ainu, objet de cet article, les 1,4 million d’habitants des îles Ryûkyû (actuelle préfecture d’Okinawa, annexée en 1879, puis occupée par l’armée étatsunienne entre 1945 et 1972) ont aussi bénéficié d’un statut particulier, parce que peuple autochtone. Engagés dans la lutte pour la rétrocession de l’île au Japon, les habitants d’Okinawa ont vu leur niveau de vie nettement amélioré, bien qu’encore inférieur à celui des autres préfectures japonaises.

 

La principale minorité issue de l’immigration est d’origine coréenne (700 000 personnes en 2005), qualifiés de « Ceux qui sont au Japon » (Zainichi). Cette communauté est venue sur le sol national japonais, lors de l’annexion de leur pays (1910 – 1945). Traités avec mépris, ces travailleurs – d’abord volontaires – puis soumis au travail obligatoire vivaient dans des espaces réservés (buraku) et ont mêmes été victimes de massacres collectifs : en 1923, dans les circonstances difficiles du tremblement de terre, bon nombre ont été tués par les Tôkyôites qui les ont accusés d’avoir empoisonné l’eau de consommation courante. Pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, ils seront enrôlés de force, selon un système proche du Service du travail obligatoire allemand (S.T.O.). En 1945, plus de 2 millions de Coréens retourneront dans la péninsule, 600 000 resteront au Japon, mais privés de nationalité jusqu’en 1965 (ils deviendront « Sud-Coréens » en 1965). Le Japon compte aussi une minorité chinoise, d’immigrants venus des pays littoraux ou insulaires de l’Océan Indien et du Pacifique et un faible nombre de ressortissants des pays occidentaux, principalement nord-américains.

 

Ce tableau mérite cependant d’être nettement tempéré, car depuis l’ouverture du Japon sur le monde et la pacification de ces mœurs politiques en Asie, ce pays, doté d’une Constitution réellement démocratique, est progressivement devenu une terre d’accueil pour les étrangers (principalement asiatiques, des Chinois et des Coréens, soit 57 % des résidents étrangers au Japon), en raison du changement des mentalités et du besoin d’immigration, engendré par le vieillissement de la population : les étrangers représentent 2 % de la population totale, et leur nombre a augmenté de 50 % depuis le début du deuxième millénaire. Les nouveaux venus sans qualifications ou ne maîtrisant pas la langue sont, comme dans tous les pays économiquement développés, bien souvent réduits aux tâches les moins valorisantes ou les plus pénibles (ce sont les trois « K » : kitsui, pénible; kitanai, sale; kiken, dangereux), mais de réelles possibilités d’intégration – y compris l’adoption de la nationalité japonaise – existent pour eux. Chaque année, 42 000 nouvelles unions, soit 6 % des mariages annuels au Japon, sont le fait de couples internationaux (dans 80 % des cas, l’époux est Japonais). Dans la réalité, le regard porté par les Japonais sur les minorités asiatiques a changé, en dépit de la persistance de discriminations réelles. Le Japon paraît être en transition et s’adapter avec prudence aux réalités migratoires, corollaire de la troisième mondialisation.

 

La culture ainu : origines et principales caractéristiques

 

L’origine des populations ainu serait Préhistorique : elle remonterait à la période Jômon (voir notre article sur ce sujet), et son origine exacte reste encore incertaine. Certains individus sont parfois morphologiquement différents des hommes de la période Jômon, leurs phénotypes ayant des caractéristiques pouvant les rattacher aux populations caucasiennes. La culture Jômon sera progressivement subjuguée par une nouvelle vague de migrants venue du continent à la période Yayoi (Ve siècle av. J.-C. – IIIe siècle ap. J.-C.), importatrice de technologies (riziculture et métallurgie) et d’une culture nouvelles : leurs descendants sont les Japonais. Les populations constitutives de la culture ainu étaient implantés dans la zone septentrionale insulaire de Hokkaidô, de Tôhoku, des Kouriles, de Sakhaline et du sud de la péninsulaire du Kamtchakta. Les spécialistes penchent désormais pour la cœxistence de plusieurs groupes ethniques différents répartis dans la partie septentrionale du Japon actuel : les Emishi (voir infra) – repoussés par les Japonais – venus du Nord du Tôhoku et du Sud-Ouest de Hokkaidô- se seraient amalgamés avec les populations existantes (Ashihase).

 

Au VIIIe siècle, les ethnies ainu se répartissent sur les îles Kouriles et Sakhaline. Dans les premières annales du Japon (le Kojiki et le Nihongi ou Nihonshoki), ces derniers sont dépeints comme appartenant à une ethnie différente, farouche et sont qualifiés de différents ethnonymes (dont celui d’Emishi) faisant référence à leur pilosité corporelle abondante. Ces populations se qualifient elles-mêmes de Ainu, qui signifie  : « être humain ».

 

La langue ainu est radicalement différente du japonais (qui appartient au groupe des langues altaïques – à l’instar du turc, du mongol, du toungouse et du coréen) aussi bien d’un point de vue syntaxique, phonologique, morphologique que du vocabulaire (comme la langue basque dans le Sud-Ouest de la France et en Espagne). Enfin, la culture ainu est une tradition orale, son système d’écriture repose sur des translittérations empruntées aux langues des civilisations russes (alphabet cyrillique) et japonaises (katakana). Plusieurs dialectes la composent, mais une langue commune, véhiculaire était compréhensible par tous les membres de la communauté, parce que réservée à la transmission culturelle, notamment des mythes. La langue ainu est en voie d’extinction, peut-être une quinzaine de locuteurs l’utiliseraient de nos jours.

 

La culture ainu a hérité de nombreuses pratiques de la période protohistorique, notamment le tatouage, les fondements de la religion, la chasse, mais avec une évolution singulière dans le temps, constitutrice d’une « identité ». La société ainu est restée pendant longtemps traditionnelle et proche de la nature : ce « retard » technologique par rapport à la Russie et au Japon l’a – à terme – marginalisée.

 

Les Ainu face à la colonisation japonaise dans un contexte politique et économique d’expansion impériale (1869 – 1945)

 

Les Ainu se trouvaient, du point du vue des gouvernements successifs japonais, au-delà du « limes ». Si les clans du Tôhoku (Nord-Est de l’île d’Honshû) ont finalement adopté la culture dominante, les autres groupes ont longtemps offert une âpre résistance au front pionnier japonais. Dès la période de Heian, les marches de l’État japonais étaient administrées par un officier supérieur, chargé de soumettre les Emishi : le shôgun. Au XVe siècle, les Japonais commencent à s’implanter dans le Sud-Ouest de Hokkaidô (Ezochi, appellation ainu) et à repousser les populations locales vers le nord, mais celles-ci parviennent à faire refluer l’invasion, puis à renouer des relations économiques avec le Japon.

 

À l’époque d’Edo (1600 – 1867), la politique de fermeture adoptée par le shôgunat ne s’applique pas aux Ainu : ces derniers commercent abondamment avec les Chinois et les Russes. Mais, la progression russe d’Ouest en Est à travers l’Asie centrale vient se heurter aux intérêts japonais : les enjeux se cristallisent autour du contrôle de l’île Ezo (ancienne appellation de Hokkaidô). Le Bakufu renforce son emprise sur l’île en détruisant la résistance des populations autochtones (bataille de Knashiri-Menashi, 1789) : l’île est économiquement exploitée par le Japon, notamment pour la production d’engrais de harengs.

 

Une rupture s’opère au XVIIIe siècle, l’invasion russe du Nord des îles Kouriles et de Sakhaline (à partir de 1730) pousse le gouvernement japonais à poursuivre une politique d’assimilation des peuples indigènes pour justifier sa revendication territoriale (un traité russo-nippon fixe la frontière entre les deux États, traité de Shimoda, 1854 : la ligne de partage séparant les deux empires se situant entre les îles d’Urup et d’Etorofu, voir notre article sur le sujet).

 

La restauration impériale (1868) et l’essor économique et industriel sont accompagnés d’un accroissement de la population japonaise : bon nombre d’insulaires partent s’installer à l’étranger, notamment en Amérique du Sud. En 1869, l’île de Hokkaidô est annexée à l’Empire et la colonisation favorisée (une commission de colonisation est créée); en 1886, l’île devient une préfecture, avec un statut particulier. Les Ainu sont rapidement soumis à un régime d’exception, leur interdisant toute activité culturelle (tatouages, pratiques funéraires, etc.) et économique traditionnelle (pêche, chasse). La situation connaît une aggravation, lorsqu’un nouveau traité russo-japonais rattache toutes les îles Kouriles au Japon, en échange de l’actuelle Sakhaline (1875). Les Ainu de Sakhaline sont contraints de rejoindre Hokkaidô, où ils sont cantonnés dans des réserves.

 

La politique cœrcitive japonaise vise à transformer la population, paupérisée par l’accaparement des terres par des colons japonais, en agriculteurs. Une politique volontariste d’assimilation, oblige les enfants des familles ainu à se rendre dans des écoles spécifiques où les enseignements sont dispensés en langue japonaise, les mariages mixtes sont encouragés. Par ailleurs, la colonisation a des effets ravageurs sur les autochtones, marqués psychologiquement, d’aucuns sombrent dans l’alcool, d’autres périssent des maladies importées par les immigrants nippons.

 

Les Ainu sont peu à peu soumis à un statut particulier. La commission de Colonisation adopte officiellement le terme de kyudojin, qui signifie « anciens aborigènes » (1878). Plus tard, en 1899, une loi est votée par les représentants japonais pour « protéger » les Ainu, considérés comme une « race primitive sur le déclin ». La politique coloniale japonaise se calque ainsi sur la pensée occidentale, notamment les théories évolutionnistes alors en vogue, et mise au service d’une politique expansionniste. Les Ainu et leurs territoires sont devenus une sorte de musée, de « zoo humain » (déjà vu sous d’autres tropiques), que viennent étudier et photographier les anthropologues occidentaux : des Ainu sont mêmes présentés aux expositions internationales de Chicago (1904) et de Londres (1910)…

 

Les Ainu vivent dans une situation de grande précarité, et ce n’est pas l’exode massif de population de la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (1,5 million de Japonais supplémentaires se rendent sur l’île d’Hokkaidô, poussés par l’avancée soviétique en extrême-Orient et dans les îles Kouriles) qui permit d’apporter une amélioration à leur sort…

 

La politique coloniale japonaise est, nous l’avons dit, une appropriation et une adaptation des politiques coloniales européennes. Les autorités japonaises, nous l’avons vu, se sont octroyés le « pouvoir de nommer » la population cible, afin de l’individualiser et d’en souligner l’altérité, voire de la « dévaloriser » (la référence à la pilosité et le statut d’aborigène, voir supra). Cette qualification (1878) a été une étape déterminante à la création d’un statut singulier (1899) justifiant les pratiques discriminatoires et répressives, processus que l’on retrouve dans toutes les colonisations. Le statut de kyudojin n’est pas sans rappeler celui de l’indigénat dans les colonies françaises d’Afrique ou celui des Indiens d’Amérique du Nord.

 

Ces mesures administratives sont à l’origine d’un mouvement de défense de la part des populations ainu, même si certains, convertis au christianisme, espèrent que l’assimilation leur permettra d’obtenir une égalité de droit avec les Japonais. En 1930, un mouvement associatif voit le jour et réclame la révision de la « loi discriminatoire » de 1899. En outre, le processus de démocratisation enclenché après la défaite du Japon (1945) créé un climat plus favorable pour le mouvement revendicatif, qui peut notamment faire référence à l’article 13 de la Constitution qui rendent illégales la discrimination et l’assimilation du peuple ainu.

 

Les nouvelles représentations du peuple ainu : l’acquisition d’une reconnaissance officielle sous regard international

(1945 à nos jours)

 

Les années 1960 marquent un tournant. Pendant cette période encore, l’image des Ainu est instrumentalisée : les guides touristiques, notamment francophone, décrivent les populations locales comme « une race frappée d’impuissance » (guide Nagel, 1964); des scientifiques japonais vont même jusqu’à leur nier toute aptitude technique propre (ce qu’invalide les découvertes archéologiques actuelles). À la fin de la décennie, en pleine phase contestataire au Japon (mouvements des habitants et mouvements contre les discriminations) et dans le monde (Mai 1968), les associations de défense de la communauté ainu donnent de la voix par des actions symboliques (protestations contre la commémoration du centenaire de la colonisation de Hokkaidô, notamment).

 

En 1968, le gouvernement japonais fait un pas en faveur de la communauté en révisant partiellement la loi de 1899 (sans en modifier le caractère discriminatoire) et en proposant des aides sociales.  S’inspirant des mouvements de revendications des peuples autochtones de par le monde et des mouvements anti-colonialistes de libération nationale, le mouvement revendicatif ainu adopte une stratégie internationale, se fondant sur la charte internationale des droits de l’Homme.

 

L’association des revendications à ces valeurs universelles oblige le gouvernement japonais, en pleine expansion économique bâtie sur une représentation pacifique du pays, à signer la Convention internationale sur l’élimination de toutes les formes de discrimination raciale (1978) et le Pacte international sur les droits civils et politiques (1979) et à reconnaître les droits des minorités. Mais l’existence de ces dernières est niée, le Premier ministre Nakasone Yasuhiro ayant officiellement rappelé le caractère mono-ethnique du pays (1986). En 1987, des représentants de la communauté ainu sont admis au groupe de travail des Nations unies, ayant entamé une réflexion sur le sort des peuples autochtones : il en résulte, en 1989, que le gouvernement japonais établit un comité en charge d’examiner les différents points d’une future loi concernant le peuple ainu.

 

Placé sous les projecteurs de la communauté internationale, Tôkyô finit par attribuer le statut de minorité ethnique aux Ainu et l’image de ces derniers commence à évoluer favorablement au yeux de l’opinion japonaise : en 1994, Kayano Shigeru (1926 – 2006), un des responsables du mouvement de revendication entre au Sénat; en 1997, le gouvernement japonais abolit l’appellation de kyudojin et adopte une loi de valorisation de la culture ainu (loi sur le développement de la culture ainu et la diffusion et l’instruction de la connaissance concernant la tradition ainu). Cette loi fait suite à un contentieux administratif autour du projet de construction d’un barrage sur un site sacré ainu : le rendu de la cour de justice de Sapporo ayant reconnu le caractère sacré du lieu et rappelé les carences du gouvernement japonais en matière de protection de l’héritage culturel des Ainu, cette décision a pesé sur l’adoption de la loi de 1997. C’est le premier texte reconnaissant une minorité ethnique au Japon. La législation offre désormais la possibilité aux multiples manifestations culturelles d’être subventionnées, mais ne prend spécifiquement en charge les problèmes socio-économiques de la population cible et aucune autonomie politique n’est accordée (elle n’est d’ailleurs pas recherchée par les intéressés). Le gouvernement revendique toujours sa totale légitimité sur l’île d’Hokkaidô : le centre de promotion de la culture ainu, qui a ouvert ses portes à Sapporo en 2003 est administré par des fonctionnaires japonais et lors du classement de la péninsule de Shiretoko à l’inventaire du patrimoine naturel mondial, aucune référence n’a été faite à la culture ainu, à laquelle cette langue de terre doit le nom. Enfin, le 6 juin 2008, une résolution, approuvée par la Diète, invite le gouvernement à reconnaître le peuple ainu, comme indigènes du Japon et à hâter la fin des discriminations, la résolution reconnaît le peuple ainu comme un « peuple indigène, avec un langage, une religion et une culture différente et abroge la loi de 1899.

 

D’après des enquêtes menées par l’association de défense de la culture ainu (Tari), les Ainu seraient encore victimes de discriminations scolaires (présence moindre sur les bancs universitaires) ou sociales (mariage). Cependant les mentalités et le regard porté sur les Ainu continuent de changer, notamment par le truchement des découvertes archéologiques, qui mettent en avant les peuples de la période Jômon, replacés dans une perspective et un environnement asiatiques (voir notre article sur le sujet). Des expositions internationales, un projet de parc culturel et même des artistes d’origine ainu (l’acteur Ukaji Takashi, le musicien Kano Oki) défendent et cherchent à valoriser leur culture. Des citoyens, issus de la génération d’enfants nés de couples mixtes, essayent de découvrir (pour ceux qui le découvrent) leurs origines, occultées par les parents. Cependant,  le film d’animation Princesse Mononoké (1997), réalisé par Hayao Miyazaki, fait implicitement référence aux traditions ainu, mais sans les manifester ouvertement. Mais, depuis peu (30 octobre 2011), un mouvement de militants ainu se lance dans la vie politique institutionnelle avec à sa tête, Kayano Shiro, le fils de l’ancien responsable ainu, Kayano Shigeru, et pour objectif l’instauration d’une société multiculturelle et multi-ethnique au Japon.

 

Conclusions

 

L’idée japonaise d’une société ethniquement homogène est battue en brèche, parce que pure construction politique et idéologique. Avant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, le rapport aux minorités reposait sur le rapport de force, la création d’un statut, l’assimilation et l’exploitation économique forcée. Hanté par la crainte de la dégénérescence raciale et aveuglé par le succès de l’expansion coloniale qu’ils attribuent à la supériorité de leur « race» en Asie, le Japon s’est enfermé dans une idéologie et une politique impérialiste, qui a conduit le pays à la défaite. Il est flagrant de relever qu’après un conflit multiséculaire contre les Emishi et les Ainu, c’est précisément au XIXe siècle – alors que le Japon s’ouvre aux technologies, aux économies et aux cultures de l’Occident – que ce pays en s’en appropriant certaines de ses valeurs, s’est donné les moyens d’une politique impériale à destination de l’Asie et des territoires proches revendiqués par lui (Hokkaidô, îles Ryukyu et péninsule coréenne).

 

L’objectif était ouvertement – pour les populations des îles périphériques – l’assimilation, car d’un point de vue juridique, le Japon ne reconnaissait, jusqu’à la résistance civique des Ainu, qu’une seule ethnie. Les difficultés rencontrées par les Nikkeijin dans leur intégration, a démontré que l’appartenance à un groupe sur le seul critère biologique (l’innée), est une interprétation erronée minimisant l’importance des facteurs culturels (l’acquis).

 

Même si à l’heure actuelle, les minorités ne sont toujours pas juridiquement considérées comme faisant partie intégrante de la société, car ne possédant pas les attributs de la japonité, la société japonaise change : les signes d’acceptation des minorités (officieuses et de la minorité officielle ainu) sont visibles dans les média et au quotidien. En outre, les conditions d’accès à la citoyenneté japonaise prennent les formes intelligentes, pragmatiques et prudentes d’une immigration choisie (comme remède au vieillissement programmé de la population). Enfin, émane du pays une image pacifiée et positive, que l’on retrouve dans les médias occidentaux et sur Internet (le « Cool Japan », politique internationale pacifique, etc.), qui font de ce pays, probablement un des seuls réellement démocratique en Asie, une terre d’accueil pour de nouveaux immigrants, à condition que ceux-ci fassent un effort réel d’intégration (ce qui est au demeurant la moindre des choses…).

 

Rémy Valat

 

Orientations bibliographiques :

 

• Batchelor John, Sympathetic Magic of the Ainu. The Native people of Japan, Folklore History Series, reprint 2010.

 

• Beillevaire Patrick, « Okinawa : disparition et renaissance d’un département », in Le Japon contemporain, Dir. Jean-Marie Bouissou, Fayard, C.E.R.I., 2007.

 

• Dallais Philippe, « Hokkaidô : le peuple Ainu, ou l’ambivalence de la diversité culturelle au Japon », in Le Japon contemporain, Dir. Jean-Marie Bouissou, Fayard, C.E.R.I., 2007.

 

• Ethnic groups in Japan, including Ainu people, Ryukyuan people, Emishi, foreign-born Japanese, Dekasegi, Yamato people, Gaijin, Chinese people in Japan, Brazilians in Japan, Aterui, Indians in Japan, Peruvians in Japan, Burmese people in Japan, Hephaestus Books, 2011, (Une impression des sources Wikipédia disponibles sur le sujet).

 

• Kayano Shigeru, The Ainu. A story of Japan’s Original People, Tuttle Publishing, 1989.

 

• Pelletier Philippe, Atlas du Japon. Une société face à la post-modernité, Autrement, 2008.

 

• Poutignat Philippe et Streiff-Fenart Jocelyne, Théories de l’ethnicité, Presses universitaires de France, coll. « Quadrige », avril 2008.

 

• Reischauer Edwin O., Histoire du Japon et des Japonais. Des origines à 1945, Seuil, coll. « Points Histoire », 1988.

 

• Yamamoto Hadjime, Rapport japonais. Les minorités en droit public interne au Japon, en ligne à l’adresse suivante : www.bibliojuridica.org/libros/4/1725/45.pdf

 

---

 

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

 

URL to article: http://www.europemaxima.com/?p=3482