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

Ukraine- Crimée : de l’insurrection à la guerre

Ukraine- Crimée : de l’insurrection à la guerre

 

L’Europe gagne un boulet et une crise

Jean Bonnevey
Ex: http://metamag.fr

L’insurrection l’a emporté. Comme partout, quand un  régime autoritaire cède, il s’effondre et il est dévoré par sa propre meute. Rien n’est plus répugnant que le résistant de la 13ème heure se transformant en vengeur.

Certains saluent la victoire de la démocratie et de la liberté. En fait il y a bien, pour le moment un, échec de Poutine. Mais cet échec ne peut changer l’essentiel. L’Ukraine est liée au monde russe plus qu’à l’Europe de Bruxelles. Une Europe qui va devoir payer le prix fort pour éviter un effondrement de ceux qu’elle a soutenu pour chasser le pouvoir pro-russe.

Un pays lourdement endetté

L'Ukraine a besoin de 35 milliards de dollars d'aide internationale sur deux ans et a souhaité obtenir un premier versement dans les jours ou les semaines qui viennent, annonce lundi le ministère des Finances dans un communiqué dont l'agence Reuters a eu copie. « La représentante de la diplomatie européenne, Catherine Ashton, va discuter des mesures nécessaires à prendre pour stabiliser l'économie du pays », a indiqué la Commission européenne. Cet appui reste cependant conditionné à la conclusion d'un accord avec le Fonds monétaire international.

Les Ukrainiens vont vite déchanter et comprendre que la pseudo liberté politique passe par  une vraie servilité économique. En décembre dernier, le président russe Vladimir Poutine avait promis de fournir une aide de 15 milliards de dollars (11 milliards d'euros) et de réduire les tarifs du gaz vendu à l'Ukraine après la décision de son homologue ukrainien Viktor Ianoukovitch de ne pas signer un accord d'association avec l'Union européenne. Une première tranche d'aide a été débloquée, mais suite aux récents évènements, la Russie a suspendu l'octroi d'un second versement. « En cas d'accord avec le FMI, d'autres aides internationales pourraient se mettre en place et aider l'Ukraine à se redresser », a souligné un haut fonctionnaire américain. Le nouveau pouvoir sera donc totalement dépendant non plus de Moscou mais de Washington et Bruxelles.

Plus encore que de la banqueroute, la communauté internationale redoute, dans l'immédiat, que la crise creuse le fossé entre l'Est russophone et russophile, majoritaire, et l'Ouest nationaliste et ukrainophone. Sous le règne de l'Union soviétique, les russes ont immigré en masse dans l'est du pays,  qui a fait l'objet d'une rapide industrialisation. L’Ouest est historiquement plus tourné vers la Pologne. Le Premier ministre polonais Donald Tusk, en première ligne, estimait  d'ailleurs, samedi soir, qu'il existait des forces menaçant l'intégrité territoriale de l'Ukraine.

Alarmés, la chancelière allemande Angela Merkel et le président russe Vladimir Poutine ont d'ailleurs souligné l'importance pour l'Ukraine de préserver son intégrité territoriale, lors d'un entretien téléphonique, a indiqué le porte-parole du gouvernement allemand. « Une partition de l'Ukraine ou le « retour de la violence » ne sont dans l'intérêt ni de l'Ukraine, ni de la Russie, ni de l'Union européenne, ni des Etats-Unis », a  assuré une proche conseillère de Barack Obama, Susan Rice. Certes mais, les JO terminés, Poutine va retrouver tous ses moyens.

Le conflit pourrait rebondir en Crimée

Région peuplée principalement de russophones, la Crimée a été rattachée en 1954 à l'Ukraine qui faisait alors partie de l'Union soviétique. Il s'agissait d'une décision purement formelle, car le transfert de ce territoire a été effectué à l'intérieur du même Etat. Après la chute de l'URSS en 1991, la Crimée est restée au sein de l'Ukraine, mais a reçu le statut de région autonome. « La Crimée demandera à se séparer de l’Ukraine en cas de renversement du pouvoir légitime dans le pays », a déclaré le président du parlement régional de la Crimée Vladimir Konstantinov, ajoutant que cette question ne se posait pas pour le moment.

« Nous n'avons qu'une seule voie à suivre: dénoncer la décision du Comité central du PCUS concernant le rattachement de la Crimée [à l'Ukraine]. Un pays a transmis la Crimée à un autre pays, nommé Ukraine, en signe d'amitié éternelle. Nous voyons bien ce qui est advenu à cette amitié. Et si un pays cesse d'exister, les actes juridiques le concernant sont déclarés nuls et non avenus », a affirmé M. Konstantinov à Moscou lors d'une réunion de la fraction libérale-démocrate au parlement russe. Les représentants de la communauté russe et du parti communiste de l’Ukraine se sont exprimé lors de l'événement. Les orateurs se sont opposés à l’entrée de l'Ukraine dans l'Union européenne, et ont appelé à la sortie de la Crimée du pays.

La crise n’est pas finie.

Ukraine: L’UE a soutenu un putsch contre un gouvernement démocratiquement élu

Ex: http://zejournal.mobi

Par Aymeric Chauprade

Le coup de force organisé par les États-Unis et l’Union européenne soutenant Tiagnibok (seul leader qui contrôlait les émeutiers) pendant les Jeux de Sotchi (les Russes ayant alors les mains liées) a donc fonctionné et débouché à l’effondrement du pouvoir légal la veille de la fin des Jeux (le 23 février).

Quelles leçons pouvons-nous tirer ?

1) Les récents événements dramatiques démontrent qu’il n’existe aucune solution politique viable et durable pour l’Ukraine dans les frontières actuelles car l’Ukraine est divisée géopolitiquement.

2) Le président Ianoukovitch qui a quitté le pouvoir de lui-même, et afin que le bain de sang cesse, avait certes des torts sérieux (corruption, incapacité à agir dès le début de la crise) mais il avait été élu démocratiquement (aucune contestation de l’OSCE) et était le président légal. C’est donc un coup de force, un coup d’État même, qui l’a poussé vers la sortie et ce coup d’État a bel et bien été soutenu par l’Union européenne.

3) Le sang a coulé parce que l’opposition a tiré la première à balles réelles sur les forces de l’ordre. Les premiers morts ont été des policiers. Qu’aurait fait un gouvernement occidental si des manifestants avaient tiré à balles réelles sur ses forces de l’ordre? On se souvient que l’autoritaire M. Valls aura quand même fait jeter en prison des petits jeunes de la Manif pour tous ou de Jour de Colère pour un simple jet de canette !

4) Dans cette situation dramatique, l’Union européenne et les États-Unis portent une très lourde responsabilité. Ils ont encouragé la rébellion qui a débouché sur la violence ; ils ont cautionné un coup d’État contre un gouvernement démocratiquement élu.

5) La trame de fond de cette affaire, ne l’oublions pas, est, premièrement l’affrontement entre les États-Unis et la Russie, les premiers voulant otaniser l’Ukraine, les seconds voulant y conserver leur influence stratégique.

C’est, deuxièmement, un affrontement historique entre l’Allemagne qui a toujours voulu contrôler (Hitler) l’ouest de l’Ukraine (ce qui explique les néo-nazis de Svoboda) et la Russie qui tente de refouler cette influence (ce qui explique les slogans anti-nazis des ouvriers de Donetsk).

6) L’affaire ukrainienne, après la Syrie, la Libye et tant d’autres depuis 1990, apporte la démonstration que l’antifascisme et l’antisémitisme sont une posture pour les partis dominants en France et non un combat réel, posture qui ne vise qu’à diaboliser les forces politiques réellement alternatives. Ce n’est en effet pas une conviction puisque, au nom de l’Union européenne, ces partis inféodés aux oligarchies pro-américaines ont soutenu les néo-nazis ségrégationnistes et antisémites de Svoboda, le fer de lance du coup de force contre le gouvernement légal d’Ukraine.

Une fois de plus, l’Union européenne prouve qu’elle n’est rien devant les tendances lourdes de l’Histoire et les enjeux de puissance. Sa rhétorique sur la démocratie et les droits de l’Homme est instrumentalisée. Les gesticulations bellicistes de BHL en sont l’illustration pathétique.

L’Ukraine face au réel

L’opposition est divisée : que peut-il y avoir de commun en effet entre Ioulia Timochenko et les néo-nazis de Svoboda ?

Les différents clans d’opposants vont devoir faire face à la réalité économique et géopolitique :

- banqueroute de Naftogaz, la compagnie gazière

- plus de service public, fonctionnaires non payés, caisses vides. L’UE ne donnera pas suffisamment. Donc Iatsenouk va devoir aller mendier l’argent russe et on imagine comment il sera accueilli.

- chaos dans l’Ouest de l’Ukraine où des bandes ont pris le contrôle.

- qui fera partir les extrémistes qui tiennent Maïdan ?

Le retour à la Constitution de 2004 n’arrangera rien. Bien au contraire. Leonid Kuchma sentant le vent tourner en sa défaveur pendant la Révolution orange, avait imaginé une constitution perverse qui diluait tout les pouvoirs si bien que personne ne dirigeait vraiment l’Ukraine.

Revenir à cette Constitution sera une catastrophe quand on connaît la fragilité géopolitique intérieure de l’Ukraine et ses difficultés économiques. Selon Standard&Poors, l’Ukraine fera défaut sur sa dette (elle doit rembourser 13 milliards de dollars cette année) si la Russie arrête son aide, ce qui est désormais probable.

Que peut-on souhaiter ?

Pour ramener la paix, il ne reste qu’une solution viable. Diviser l’Ukraine en deux États. Une Ukraine de l’Ouest tournée vers l’Allemagne, la Pologne et donc l’Union européenne. Ce sera l’Ukraine pauvre, nous serons perdants, sauf les Allemands qui vont y trouver une main d’oeuvre à bas coût pour continuer à maintenir leur avantage compétitif sur nous.

Une Ukraine de l’Est, indépendante ou rattachée à la Russie (après tout les habitants y sont russes) avec la Crimée bien sûr, éminemment stratégique pour Moscou.

Conclusion

Nous ne sommes qu’au début du chaos ukrainien et l’Union européenne porte une très lourde responsabilité. Manipulée par les États-Unis, l’Union a voulu exclure la Russie, acteur essentiel dans la zone, du règlement. Rappelons qu’après le Sommet de Vilnius de novembre 2013, le Kremlin a proposé de régler la question de l’Ukraine lors d’une conférence qui aurait rassemblé les Ukrainiens, les Russes et les Occidentaux.

La crise ukrainienne est donc une nouvelle preuve de l’échec de l’Union européenne. L’Union européenne n’est pas un facteur de paix, elle est un facteur de guerre.

 - Source : Realpolitik.tv

Ukraine: coup d'Etat ou début du "grand coup"?

L'Ukraine, guerre civile

 

Coup d'Etat ou début du ''grand coup'' ?

Michel Lhomme
Ex: http://metamag.fr

 

L'Ukraine paralyse la diplomatie européenne. Ce qui s'est passé sur la scène internationale depuis l'affront russe aux Etats-Unis à propos de la Syrie, démontre qu'il s'agit pour l'Empire US de se venger et de reprendre la main. Les Européens éclairés ont bien compris où l'on veut en venir, où l'on veut mener l'Europe, à son corps défendant. L'Europe est  impuissante, prise au piège de sa dérive occidentaliste. Elle se révèle comme la somnambulique de la place Maidan, kidnappée par les événements et ayant compris que tôt ou tard, elle se retrouvera en Ukraine, dans une Ukraine dépecée ou coupée en deux mais une Ukraine divisée dont elle devra porter le Sud pauvre à bout de bras, servi sur un plateau rouillé par l'idéologie démocratique. 

Victime de sa crédulité aux médias et ignorant les soubresauts des diplomates européens et des intellectuels du mondialisme comme BHL ou Daniel Cohn-Bendit, il faudra pour l'Histoire retenir le nom de l'ambassadeur américain à Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt et diffuser en boucle sa conversation avec Victoria Nuland. Comme dans un roman de Gérard de Villiers, c'est Victoria Nuland qui donne ses instructions à l'Ambassadeur américain sur la façon de se comporter pour qu’ Arseni Iatseniouk devienne rapidement le nouveau chef du gouvernement, pour que Vitaly Klitschko, favorisé pourtant par l'Union Européenne et la chancelière allemande Angela Merkel, soit expulsé, et comment tout cela devrait ensuite "coller" à l'ONU ! « Fuck The UE », a souligné Mme Nuland dans sa détermination à imposer en Ukraine la stratégie américaine du chaos. Que faut-il aux analystes de plus transparent ?

L'administration Obama est donc bien derrière la tentative de coup d'Etat contre le président élu, Victor Ianoukovitch. Selon l'économiste russe Sergueï Glaziev, conseiller du président Poutine sur l'Ukraine, ce sont environ 20 millions de dollars qui ont été dépensés ces dernières semaines pour armer les combattants de rue dans la perspective du coup d'état pro-américain. Obama aurait-il décidé de jouer quitte ou double ? Il attend, semble-t-il, le faux pas de Poutine, l'intervention imminente de la Russie pour fournir le prétexte à une confrontation. Si les choses continuent sur un tel chemin, nous pouvons être en quelques jours, conduits dans un ''grand coup''.

Tout repose sur la Russie et sa maîtrise froide de la situation. Il semblerait que sa doctrine soit pour une fois plus chinoise que russe, reposant sur le non-agir, le laisser-faire stratégique de Lao-Tseu, belle tactique déconcertante pour les stratèges du Pentagone. Laisser faire, s'asseoir et regarder les manipulations occidentales jusqu'à ce que la guerre civile ukrainienne se propage ? Dans l'effondrement économique qui est le sien, l'Etat étatsunien y résisterait-il ? Diplomatiquement, les Etats-Unis ont violé le Mémorandum de Budapest de 1994, qu'ils avaient signé avec l'Ukraine et la Russie, où celle-ci acceptait d'abandonner en partie l'arsenal nucléaire soviétique ukrainien tout en s'engageant conjointement à la responsabilité pour la sécurité et la souveraineté de l'Ukraine. L'ingérence des États-Unis, dans le problème ukrainien est de fait une violation manifeste et flagrante de cet accord. C'est déjà en soi une déclaration de guerre.

 

Par ailleurs, la République autonome de Crimée, russophone, a pris acte le 19 février d'une sécession possible de l'Ukraine. Un appel de la Crimée à la Douma d'Etat russe a même été enregistré demandant à la Russie d'être le garant de l'inviolabilité du statut de la Crimée. Compte tenu du Mémorandum de Budapest et de l'appel imminent du Parlement de Crimée, une intervention russe en Ukraine aurait alors un fondement juridique. Une intervention russe en Ukraine pour ''sauver'' la Crimée est l'un des scénarios russes posés sur la table. Poutine ayant compris la stratégie du chaos appliquée par les Etats-Unis en Ukraine, cherche l'épreuve de vérité avec les USA, ce moment fatal où les Etats-Unis seront obligés de reconnaître leurs vrais objectifs à savoir l'encerclement systématique de la Russie par l'élargissement à l'Est de l'OTAN et l'entrée de l'Ukraine dans une Union Européenne devenue un pur satellite appauvri du mondialisme transatlantique en construction. 

Cette politique du changement de régime par l'idéologie démocratique est pourtant l'exacte continuité de la politique américaine depuis la dissolution de l'Union soviétique.  L'Histoire du monde devra être jugée demain sur l'histoire de cet empire anglo-américain, basé sur une relation spéciale avec Israël, pour une vision et une suprématie hégémonique sur le continent européen. Angela Merkel et la Pologne ont compris tardivement qu'ils avaient tout à y perdre. Peu ont relevé le fait significatif que  Victoria Nuland, la porte-parole du Département d'Etat, est mariée à Robert Kagan, le co-fondateur du Projet pour le Nouveau Siècle Américain c'est-à-dire qu'elle est l'épouse de l'auteur de la Bible de l'idéologie impérialiste des néo-conservateurs. Robert  Kagan, c'était le propagandiste zélé de la guerre en Irak où à l'époque, Victoria Nuland était conseillère en politique étrangère, adjointe au vice-président Dick Cheney, l'ambassadeur américain à l'OTAN de 2005 à 2008. 

On sourit à voir la presse française faire maintenant l'éloge de Maidan, la Place de l'Indépendance à Kiev, occupée par les manifestants. Ils évoquent comme hier Tahrir ou les places arabes et turques, un ''agora'', un "espace physique" anti-autoritaire, un espace où l'on pourrait respirer «l'esprit de la Maidan " malgré le froid et le gel, les plaques de verglas et les matraques. On sourit parce qu'on sait regarder les images, on reconnaît la symbolique de certains ''boucliers'', on a lu les papiers de Svoboda et de toutes les organisations néo-nazies qui gravitent autour des barricades érigées. Toute avant-guerre est d'ailleurs trouble (qui manipule qui ?) mais surtout, elle reste noircie de contre-vérités officielles La tentative de prise de contrôle de l'Ukraine doit donc être considérée dans le contexte du système de défense antimissile américain en cours de déploiement en Europe centrale et orientale et dans celui de la doctrine de la "Prompt Global Strike". 

Sommes-nous à deux doigts de tester grandeur nature cette théorie ? La doctrine militaire américaine repose sur la croyance théorique que les capacités nucléaires de l'adversaire pourraient être neutralisées par une première frappe nucléaire. En ce qui concerne cette doctrine jointe souvent chez les Américains à la doctrine de la "Air-Sea Battle," la Russie et la Chine ont parfaitement fait entendre ces derniers temps que, si nécessaire, ils déploieront leurs arsenaux nucléaires. Si donc l'Allemagne et d'autres pays européens ne veulent pas se laisser entraîner dans un conflit armé, ils doivent s'identifier dès à présent. Ils doivent faire entendre fortement la voix d'une renaissance de la puissance européenne. Ils doivent désigner par son nom, le caractère impérialiste de l'Etat américain. Ils doivent souligner la nature de la tentative de coup d'Etat en Ukraine. C'est maintenant que l'Europe de la puissance doit se lever. Nous en sommes malheureusement loin.

En savoir plus : Entretien avec Alexandre Douguine sur l'Ukraine

Naufrage de la diplomatie US

Naufrage de la diplomatie US: amateurisme, incompétence, corruption

Ex: http://dedefensa.org

Il s’agit effectivement de la diplomatie US, mais nombre des points de l’analyse de l’ancien analyste de la CIA Philip Giraldi, dans Antiwar.com le 18 février 2014, pourraient évidemment être repris pour la diplomatie des pays du bloc BAO en général. Il y a, dans ce cas, solidarité, unité et émulation, sans doute grâce à la vertu des principes néolibéraux de concurrence : c’est au meilleur qui sera le pire.

 

Giraldi part de l’exemple désormais fameux de Victoria Nuland, dite Victoria Nuland-Fuck, et sa fameuse conversation sur l'Ukraine interceptée et rendue publique. Plus encore que de l’impudence, du suprématisme, etc., – même si ces attitudes sont tout de même présentes, – il faut y voir incompétence et amateurisme, juge-t-il. (Pour Geraldi, l’interception de la conversation de Nuland est moins due aux capacités de ceux qui l’ont interceptée qu’à son manque total de professionnalisme, qu’à son ignorance de toutes les règles de sécurité : amateurisme, tout cela.) Ainsi Geraldi dénonce-t-il l’impuissance et l’incompétence générale d’une diplomatie réduite à sa caricature, à peine camouflées par la rhétorique simpliste des neocons...

 

«Why is the United States so reluctant to negotiate with other countries and so prone to leap immediately to the option of using force or chicanery in lieu of a more deliberative foreign policy? It might partly be because we Americans are not very good at the subtlety and give-and-take that diplomacy requires, but it could also be because our framework for operating, which shapes what we do and how we do it, is hopelessly skewed. One might even argue that the dominant neoconservative way of thinking has thoroughly infected both parties’ perceptions of how a foreign policy is supposed to work, leading official Washington to see everything in terms of “us and them” while at the same time exonerating every American misstep by citing the largely bogus national security argument to explain places like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.»

 

Geraldi détaille le modus operandi d’un tel processus, si catastrophique, constamment dans l’erreur, constamment mis à jour dans son impuissance et son incompétence. S’il développe le cas de Nuland, des neocons, etc., c’est parce qu’ils sont comme archétypiques de ce qu’est devenue cette non-diplomatie US. Les effets ne peuvent être que catastrophiques, et ils sont, effectivement, constamment renouvelés dans le mode catastrophique. Il s’agit d’une transformation de substance de cette diplomatie US, désormais complètement investie par les tares du Système considérées comme des vertus, et sans cesse plus développées, accentuant sans cesse les vices de fonctionnement et les effets catastrophiques. L’équation surpuissance-autodestruction est parfaitement rencontrée.

 

Gealdi termine par une autre pratique fondamentale, qui est la corruption de cette diplomatie par le pouvoir exécutif US lui-même. Ces pratiques ont toujours existé mais elles étaient jusqu’ici contenues dans des normes acceptables. Les postes de convenance d’ambassadeurs des USA donnés à des soutiens politiques et financiers du président sans compétence particulière se situaient, avec les précédents présidents, autour de 25% des attributions, et en prenant garde à préserver les ambassades importantes aux professionnels. Avec Obama, on approchait les 40% lors du premier terme, et on dépasse les 50% pour son deuxième terme.

 

«Ideologues like Victoria Nuland, who might serve as a poster child for what is wrong with the US government, constitute only one element in the dysfunctional White House view of the world and how to interact with it. Former Senior State Department official James Bruno asks "Why does America send so many stupid, unqualified hacks overseas?" For the first time since the Second World War more than half of all US Ambassadors overseas are political appointees rather than career diplomats, yet another instance of President Barack Obama’s saying one thing while running for office and doing another thing when actually in power. Bruno describes an ambassador to Sweden lying drunk in the snow, the current hotel chain owner nominee for Norway who did not know the country was a constitutional monarchy, and a TV soap opera producer pick for Hungary who had no idea what interests the US might have in the country. One Obama appointee Seattle investor Cynthia Stroum actually was forced to resign after running her embassy in Luxembourg into the ground, verbally abusing her staff and spending embassy funds on personal travel and alcohol.

 

»All of these splendid examples of American officialdom have one thing in common: they gave a lot of money to the Obama campaign. Raising $1.79 million is now the going price for an ambassadorship. Good work Mr. Obama. You promised transparency and have again exceeded all expectations by appointing ambassadors whose lack of qualifications would embarrass the head of state of a banana republic. With Victoria Nuland firmly at the helm of our ship of state in Europe and working to overthrow a friendly government while a group of rich but clueless clowns heads our embassies every American will henceforth know that he or she can sleep safe at night.

 

»Bei freien Wahlen befürchten USA und UN Assad-Sieg in Syrien«

»Bei freien Wahlen befürchten USA und UN Assad-Sieg in Syrien«

Ex: http://sachedesvolkes.wordpress.com

Unter diesem Titel erschien am Freitag auf der Seite des Internetportals http://www.globalresearch.ca ein Artikel von Daniel McAdams, der zuvor vom konservativen Ron-Paul-Institute des gleichnamigen früheren republikanischen US-Präsidentschaftskandidaten veröffentlicht wurde:

Einen (…) Blick hinter die Vorhänge erlaubte das Interview des iranischen Botschafters im Libanon, Ghazanfar Roknabadi, Mitte der Woche in der angesehenen libanesischen Zeitung Daily Star. Darin ging es unter anderem um den jüngsten Bombenanschlag auf die iranische Botschaft in Beirut und die wachsende Bedrohung der Region durch die zunehmende Zahl dschihadistischer Gruppen in Syrien.

Dann ließ Roknabadi die diplomatische Bombe platzen. Er erzählte dem Daily Star, daß der Westen die iranische Regierung unter erheblichen Druck gesetzt hatte, den syrischen Präsidenten Baschar Al-Assad davon abzuhalten, bei den nächsten Präsidentschaftswahlen wieder zu kandidieren. Als Syriens einziger regionaler Verbündeter hat Iran vermutlich ziemlich viel Einfluß auf die Assad-Regierung. Wörtlich sagte Botschafter Roknabadi: »Bei seinem Besuch in Iran im letzten Sommer hat Feltman (UN-Untergeneralsekretär für politische Angelegenheiten) die iranische Regierung gebeten, Assad davon zu überzeugen, nicht zu den nächsten Präsidentschaftswahlen anzutreten. Die iranischen Beamten fragten ihn: ›Wo liegt das Problem, wenn er antritt?‹ Feltman antwortete: ›Wenn er antritt, wird er die Wahlen gewinnen‹«.

Feltman ist nicht irgendein UN-Bürokrat, sondern ein Beispiel für die Drehtür zwischen der US-Regierung und der UNO. Von August 2009 bis Juni 2012 war er US Staatsekretär für den Nahen Osten im US-Außenministerium. Von Juli 2004 bis Januar 2008 war er als Botschafter der Vereinigten Staaten im Libanon gewesen, und davor hatte er Washingtons Politik im »befreiten« Irak umgesetzt.

Auch in dem (…) skandalösen Telefonat zum Umsturz in der Ukraine zwischen US-Unterstaatssekretärin Victoria Nuland und dem US-Botschafter in der Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt spielte Feltman eine wichtige Rolle. In dem Ukraine-Drama sprachen sich Feltmans ehemalige Kollegen vom US-Außenministerium dafür aus, daß man ihm bei der Auswahl eines verläßlichen UN-Beamten vertrauen könnte, der (als Sonderbeauftragter der UNO für die Ukraine) den von Nuland und Pyatt mit der ukrainischen »Opposition« ausgeheckten Deal zusammenkleben soll.

Wenn Botschafter Roknabadis Aussagen stimmen, dann bestätigen sie den zynischen Syrien-Regimewechsel-Trick der US-Regierung. (…) Von Gaza bis Ägypten, von Afghanistan bis Libyen und Irak: Was die US-Demokratisierungsbemühungen am meisten zu fürchten scheinen, ist echte Demokratie. Da ist es kein Wunder, daß US-Außenminister Kerry verzweifelt an seiner absichtlichen Fehlinterpretation des Syrien-Kommuniqués von »Genf I« festhält und ohne jegliche Beweise behauptete, daß es sich dabei um ein Vereinbarung zwischen den Unterzeichnerstaaten für einen Regimewechsel in Damaskus handelt. Assad muß von der Bildfläche verschwinden, weil die USA Angst vor seiner Popularität in Syrien haben.

Übersetzung: Rainer Rupp

The Conspiracy in Venezuela

The Conspiracy in Venezuela, or the Maidan with a Latin American Twist

Nil NIKANDROV

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

Attempts to destabilize Venezuela have not ceased, despite the efforts of the Nicolas Maduro government to start a dialog with the opposition. The latest attempt to test the regime's mettle was an opposition demonstration on February 12 in front of the Attorney General's office in the center of Caracas. Among the demonstrators' demands were the immediate release of those arrested for participation in street riots in the cities of Tachira and Merida and early elections.

During these riots, rocks and Molotov cocktails rained down on the police. Several police cars were engulfed in flames. Groups of young men started storming the doors of the Attorney General's office and trashing the entryways to the Parque Carabobo subway station and the rides at a nearby children's park. Many of the attackers were in masks and bulletproof vests and had metal rods in their hands. Some were carrying firearms. There were injuries, and two or three people were killed, but even at the height of the confrontation the police only used rubber bullets and teargas.

The violent demonstration was organized via the Internet by the radical opposition group Popular Will (Voluntad Popular). Their leader, Leopoldo Lopez, is a long-time committed believer in overthrowing the existing regime by force. The Attorney General has given orders for his arrest. By all appearances, Lopez has gone underground in order to hide in the U.S. (it is well known that he is collaborating with the CIA). Yet another warrant was issued for the arrest of retired vice admiral Fernando Gerbasi, the former ambassador of Venezuela in Bogota. He headed the organization of disturbances in the territory bordering on Colombia. Participants in attacks on police and arson against state institutions have been put on the wanted list.  

The parallels between the events of February 2014 and the attempt to overthrow President Chavez in April 2002 are obvious. At that time mass popular demonstrations and timely action by the military units which remained loyal to the president ensured the quick neutralization of the rebels.  The Venezuelan media has been writing a lot about the striking similarity between the «spontaneous protests» in their country and the Kiev Maidan.

In Venezuela U.S. intelligence uses students and Colombian paramilitares, members of militant groups which participate in the cleanup of territories under the control of FARC and ELN guerillas, as cannon fodder... Now the paramilitares are gradually moving across the border into the Venezuelan states of Zulia, Barinas and Merida, blending into Colombian communities and waiting for marching orders. In November 2013 Jose Vicente Rangel described the preparations for subversive operations in Venezuela on his television show «Confidential» (Confidenciales). During a recent trip to Miami, Leopoldo Lopez visited a center for training fighters in Los Cayos, led by Cuban immigrants. A group of Venezuelan «cadets» demonstrated their shooting achievements to Lopez; pictures of President Maduro were used as targets. Lopez promised to provide funds for training additional snipers in order to guarantee «the restoration of democracy and freedom» in Venezuela. A center for communication between the Venezuelan conspirators and U.S. intelligence is also operating there in Miami. The Venezuelan side of the conspiracy includes ex-Minister of Defense Narvaez Churion and former leaders of the punitive agency DISIP from the time of the Fourth Republic. 

The situation in Venezuela is complicated by the drawn-out financial and economic war, planned from the United States. Instances of food being stolen from the state-run Mercal grocery store chain and then being sold on the black market at artificially high prices have become more frequent. Smuggling causes enormous damage to the country's food security. Hundreds of mafia organizations are operating on the long border with Colombia, transporting goods subsidized by the Venezuelan government into Colombian territory. Colossal quantities of gasoline, diesel, lubricants, tires, and auto parts are being exported. In many cases gasoline simply does not make it to filling stations on the Venezuelan side. The paramilitares provide security for the smuggling operations, even to the point of eliminating Venezuelan customs and military personnel sent to guard the border. 

Venezuelans are accustomed to generous state paternalism: free medical care, mass construction of «people's houses», a free education system, and thousands of state scholarships for those who seek to acquire knowledge in foreign universities. However, in recent months consumer euphoria has often been marred by various types of interruptions of electricity and water and deficits of food and other goods.  All of this is the result of deliberate sabotage organized in the classic traditions of the CIA. It is not for nothing that Walter Martinez, the popular host of the television program Dossier, told his viewers about how the overthrow of the government of Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973 was planned with the participation of the American corporation ITT. The conspirators were especially thorough in planning commercial sabotage and the creation of speculative demand for all goods.  The methods used for destabilizing Venezuela today are a precise repetition of the Chilean scenario, which led to a bloody massacre and the dictatorship of Pinochet. 

Much hatred has built up toward Venezuela. The threat of civil war is constantly being discussed in the media. Against this backdrop, President Maduro continues to patiently advocate dialog, the seeking of mutual understanding and domestic detente. Here one cannot but mention the destructive influence of persons connected with Zionist circles in the U.S. and Israel on the situation. They control the banking system and trade and have thoroughly infiltrated the Venezuelan media, inciting acts of «civil protest» and creating a climate of psychological terror with regard to leading government figures. Practically all the hostile clichés which were used in American - Zionist propaganda against Chavez are now being used against Maduro... 

The Venezuelans have money, but spending it is becoming increasingly difficult. Even buying airline tickets to spend one's vacation somewhere abroad has become a problem. The Venezuelan media, 80% of which is under the control of the opposition, blame President Maduro and his supporters for the «universal discomfort». Supposedly they have gotten carried away with «socialist experiments» in the economy. In fact, neither Chavez nor Maduro has touched the principles of the capitalist economy. Not because they did not dare to, but because they understood that taking radical steps would be premature, especially after an attempt to amend the country's constitution to suit the purposes of socialist reforms. The referendum on this issue showed that about half of voters were against the idea. There was no consensus in the ranks of the ruling United Socialist Party either. Chavez' decision to carry out his program of socialist reforms gradually, at a moderate pace, was never implemented due to his premature death. 

Anti-government propaganda, coordinated by subversive centers from the U.S., is fully exploiting the theory of the growth of corruption in the country and the complicity of the «red Bolivarian bourgeoisie» in it. This is directed first and foremost against the former associates of Chavez who have closed ranks around Maduro, remaining faithful to the Bolivarian ideology and its triad of «the people - the army - the leader». The CIA and opposition spin doctors are trying to drag those among the youth with whom the propaganda «war on corruption» resonates out onto the Venezuelan barricades. The coordination of these activities is being carried out through several channels, but everything leads back to the U.S. embassy in Caracas. 

Compared to his predecessor Kelly Keiderling, who was exposed by Venezuelan counterintelligence as a coordinator of subversive operations in the country, the current U.S. charge d'affaires Phil Laidlaw, also a career CIA agent, shows more imagination in his attempts to stir up a color revolution in Venezuela which would then become a civil war. On Laidlaw's initiative, letters of solidarity with the «Maidan activists» aimed at Venezuelan students were published on the Internet: «We admire your courage! Freedom and democracy come first!» I would not be surprised if in the near future Mr. Laidlaw were to organize the deployment of several detachments of fighters from the Kiev Maidan to some secret CIA air base in Venezuela to aid in the fight against the «Maduro dictatorship».

Lebanonization Strategy

Israel and Saudi Arabia’s Priorities in Syria. Covert Militarism and the “Lebanonization Strategy”

By Phil Greaves

Ex: http://www.globalresearch.ca

Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-and-saudi-arabias-priorities-in-syria-covert-militarism-and-the-lebanonization-strategy/5369324

Current developments both inside and outside of Syria have shown that the primary sponsors of the extremist-dominated insurgency – namely, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Israel and Turkey – aren’t quite ready to throw in the towel.

One may be forgiven for thinking the Obama administration had decided to abandon the policy of regime change following the failed attempt to incite intervention, through the chemical weapons casus belli in August. But the harsh reality remains that the above mentioned alliance is indeed continuing its covert military support of the insurgency, in one form or another, in the full knowledge the vast majority of rebels are religious fundamentalists with a sectarian agenda, and vehemently opposed to any form of democracy or political pluralism.

 Primarily, the continued support is a product of the American Empires’ overarching strategy of Full Spectrum Dominance over resource-rich and strategically placed regions of the globe, via subversion, economic and military aggression; a policy imposed to varying degrees upon any state unwilling to accept full US subordination. This aggressive US stance is by no means exclusive to periods of heightened tension or crises; it is a permanent one, brought forward to its violent climax purely through Machiavellian opportunism. In Syria’s case, the Arab uprisings provided the United States and its allies the perfect opening to set in motion the subversive plans they had been working on since at least 2006. The possibility of removing an opposing government that refuses to abide by American/Israeli diktat was simply too good a chance to be missed. Accordingly, and from a very early stage, the US made attempts to facilitate and support the violent elements in Syria, while its media arms were busy conflating them with localised legitimate protesters.

Since the US took the typically reckless decision to support, widen and exacerbate the militant elements, the policy has been an abject failure. Clearly, from the tone espoused by Western diplomats and propagandists, and the oft-repeated slogan of “Assad’s days are numbered”, they expected swift regime change. These desires were largely based on American hubris and the hope that the Libya No Fly Zone scenario would gain traction in the UN security council.

Contrary to such desires, Russia and China’s anger regarding NATO’s destruction of Libya and Gaddafi’s assassination, meant that any similar resolutions put forward on Syria would face immediate veto. In turn this has proven to be a turning point in the modern relationship between the permanent members of the security council, the full ramifications of which are yet to materialise. Moreover, it proved to be a turning point in the Syrian crisis itself; knowing Russia and China would block any attempts to give NATO its second outing as Al Qaeda’s airforce, the US once again chose the policy of further covert militarism, drastically increasing funds and weapons deliveries to the rebels – parallel to the sectarian incitement campaigns espoused by Salafi-Wahhabi clerics across the Gulf – in the hope they could overturn the Syrian army through terrorism and a brutal sectarian war of attrition.

As a consequence of the failure to remove Assad or destroy the Syrian government and its apparatus, the Obama administration, reluctant and politically incapable of engaging in overt acts of aggression, is employing a realpolitik strategy; using primarily covert militarism to appease the desires of NeoConservative hawks in Congress, and its more zealous regional influences emanating from Riyadh and Tel Aviv, while avoiding the possibility of being dragged into another overt military intervention.

In turn, this double-edged strategy feeds the false public perception of the American Empire, which the pseudo-pragmatists and neoliberal propagandists are so eager to uphold and is so fundamental to US Empire-building; that of an inherently altruistic force, acting as global arbiter, grudgingly subverting, invading, bombing, and intervening in sovereign nations affairs for the good of all mankind. As long as this false perception is upheld, the sharp-edge to the grotesque charade of US realpolitik – that of covert militarism and state-sponsored terrorism – continues unabated. Clearly, the US Empire is in no rush to end the bloodshed in Syria, its priorities, as they have been since the start of 2011, are to remove, or at least severely disable and weaken the Syrian government and state, regardless of the consequences to the civilian population.

By using its control of state-funding, the arms flow, and therefore the strength and capabilities of the insurgency as a whole, the Obama administration has employed futile carrot and stick tactics in attempts to pressure the Syrian government during the current negotiations phase into acceding to US demands and giving up its sovereignty – with both the US-led alliance, and Syria and its international allies, primarily Russia and Iran, in the full knowledge the rebels lack both the domestic support, and manpower necessary, to oust Assad or defeat the Syrian army alone. Recent reports allude to the stick of US Democracy having its most recent outing in the form of “new”  and improved weapons supplies to the rebels, allegedly including MANPADS. This comes immediately off the back of the designed-to-fail Geneva “peace” talks and can be interpreted as a direct result of Washington’s failure to enforce their objectives: the stick is an endless supply of state-sponsored terrorism, the carrot is turning off the tap.

Whether the “new” arms shipments actually increase the rebels ability to inflict damage on the Syrian government remains to be seen, and is highly improbable at this stage as the Syrian army moves into the Qalamoun mountains to liberate the rebel-held town of Yabroud, in turn securing vital transit and logistical routes from Lebanon. The likely outcome of an increased arms flow to the rebels in the south, as evidenced at every interval of US-instigated militarization, will be a repeat of the same devastating results: more civilian displacement, adding to the already critical refugee crisis; more rebel destruction of civilian infrastructure, adding to further food and utility shortages; and many more lives lost.

“Lebanonization” a substitute for regime change?

As is proving to be the case, if the United States and its allies are incapable of removing the Syrian government via proxy forces without an increasingly unpopular Western military intervention, and Assad’s position and domestic support remain steadfast, then a Lebanonization strategy may well be the substitute “optimal scenario” the US and its allies are now working toward.

 Encouraging, exacerbating, and inciting division between Arabs has been the long-term strategy for the Zionist establishment since the colonialists first usurped Palestinian land in 1948 – with specific effort made toward fomenting conflict along sectarian lines. The strategy of division is directed toward any Arab state or government that refuses to abide by Zionist demands. Israeli strategist Oded Yinon’s now infamous “A strategy for Israel in the 1980′s” – dubbed the Yinon Plan – provides perhaps the clearest account of Israel’s intentions toward its Arab neighbours:

The total disintegration of Lebanon into five regional local governments is the precedent for the entire Arab world … The dissolution of Syria, and later Iraq, into districts of ethnic and religious minorities following the example of Lebanon is Israel’s main long-range objective on the Eastern front. The present military weakening of these states is the short-range objective. Syria will disintegrate into several states along the lines of its ethnic and religious structure … As a result, there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state, the district of Aleppo will be a Sunni state, and the district of Damascus another state which is hostile to the northern one. The Druze – even those of the Golan – should forma state in Hauran and in northern Jordan … the oil-rich but very divided and internally strife-ridden Iraq is certainly a candidate to fill Israel’s goals … Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation … will hasten the achievement of the supreme goal, namely breaking up Iraq into elements like Syria and Lebanon.

When viewed in this context, it can be no coincidence that US Secretary of State John Kerry is desperately pursuing a fait accompli with the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Contrary to the sickening media portrayal of the US as impartial peacebroker, Kerry’s eagerness to pursue a “deal” at this moment in time is a direct result of the Syrian conflict, and the divisions within the resistance camp it has created. The US and Israel are now attempting to force through an Israeli-oriented “peace deal” with the corrupt PA that will inevitably be both a failure, and against the Palestinians interests. Staunch allies of Palestinian resistance, currently bogged down fighting Al Qaeda ideologues in Syria and defusing car-bombs bound for Dahiyeh, are in no position to support the Palestinians against Israel in their hour of need, the US and Israel fully grasp the importance of isolating genuine Palestinian resistance from the few Arab states and actors it receives support. In his latest speech, Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah reminded his listeners of this very crucial issue:

“the US Administration is seeking, along with the Zionist Administration to put an end to the Palestinian cause, and it considers that this is the best time for that because the Arab and Islamic worlds are absent today, and every country is occupied with its own problems.”

In a similar fashion, the US has used the Syrian conflict as a lever against Iran in the nuclear negotiations, Washington’s longstanding attempts to pacify and subordinate an independent Iran has undoubtedly played a major role in US policy on Syria – perhaps the defining role. Consequently, both the Palestinian and Iranian conflicts with Israel and the United States are now, as they have always been intended to some extent in US calculations, inextricably linked to resolving the Syrian crisis.

True to form, Israel’s evident glee at the destruction in Syria and overt preference for the removal of Assad and the Syrian government, with the devastation that would entail, has proven at times hard for them to conceal. Furthering the point, just one of many examples of Israeli-rebel collusion came in a recent report from the National (falsely portraying the rebels Israel is “reaching out” to as ostensibly “moderate”) which relayed that hundreds of rebels have received treatment in Israeli hospitals and been sent back into Syria with up to a $1000 in cash. Israel have made further efforts to consolidate contacts with the rebels in the south, regardless of the level of fundamentalism, and cooperated with rebel factions during the Israeli bombings on Latakia and Damascus.

 In a feeble attempt to whitewash this collusion, Israeli propagandists are busily spreading the misinformation that Israel is facilitating the Druze community in the south of Syria; yet the Druze community are firmly allied with the Syrian government. In reality, Israeli attempts to cultivate relations with the communities and rebels in the south should be correctly viewed as attempts to create enforced “safe-zones” around the occupied Golan Heights, in furtherance of the Zionists land-grabbing expansionist aspirations. Accordingly, Israel’s fraudulent neutrality is completely exposed by their collusion with the rebels to meet their own interests, and overt acts of aggression against the Syrian army.

There are many other indications that allude to prominent factions of the US alliance being preferable of, and encouraging an outcome of division, most notably Israel, but simple logic determines that Saudi Arabia, Israel’s most vital strategic partner in the region, and the actor from within the US alliance that possesses the most material influence and political will to support fundamentalists and terrorism, would also approve of the disintegration of the Syrian state, primarily viewing it as a blow to “Shi’a expansion”. The Saudi and Gulf fixation on sectarian themes, to mask what are essentially politically oriented conflicts, is also intentionally built to intensify the strategy of division in multi-ethnic, religiously plural societies – as evidenced in virtually every country fundamentalist Gulf proxies have been unleashed upon, most recently in Libya.

Yet even the Saudi’s have limits to their own capabilities and decisions, ultimately they rely on the military largesse and protection of the United States, and will therefore reign in the terrorist networks if push comes to shove. Hence, the recent Saudi attempts to dissociate from Al Qaeda and the various extremists fighting in Syria can be seen as largely cosmetic and for public consumption. In reality, the Saudi leadership see Al Qaeda and its extremist confrères as malleable proxies of no real threat to themselves, while constituting a critical component of Saudi foreign policy and covert aggression.

 Of far higher importance to both Israel and Saudi Arabia’s confluent interests in the region, which in turn play a critical role in US calculations, are the very states the fundamentalist proxies are currently being sponsored to wage war upon; namely, Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah. The disintegration of the resistance axis is the utmost priority for the states that drive US policy in the Middle East, the supposed “threat” faced by militant fundamentalist ideologues, originally created, and intermittently sponsored by the US and its allies, is merely an afterthought.

 The US Empire, in its efforts to contain, and therefore dominate and control such a strategic and resource-rich region, is more than content to allow its reactionary and sectarian clients to incite the conflict necessary to subvert, fracture and divide the inevitable power a unified Middle East could claim: if only their progressive aspirations and unity were not repeatedly “set back” by Zionist occupation and manufactured antagonism.

Phil Greaves is a UK based writer on UK/US Foreign Policy, with a focus on the Arab World, post WWII. http://notthemsmdotcom.wordpress.com/

Copyright © 2014 Global Research

«Tout homme raisonnable doit souhaiter à l’Ukraine stabilité, paix et prospérité»

Ex: http://www.horizons-et-debats.ch

km. Dans les pays germanophones, ceux qui actuellement donnent une information objective et équilibrée à propos de l’Ukraine ont peu d’occasions de présenter leur position dans les médias. Ceux qui lisent les grands médias y rencontrent une campagne chargée d’émotions où tout est mis au pas. Même là où des responsables de la politique occidentale parlent de temps en temps de la nécessité de «compromis» et d’«entretiens avec la Russie» – à l’instar de l’ancien stratège Zbigniev Brzezinski lors de la Conférence de sécurité de Munich – de telles déclarations ne semblent pas très crédibles, car les activités et les paroles sont contradictoires. Une des personnes qui a encore accès aux médias occidentaux et orientaux est le spécialiste de la Russie Alexander Rahr. Alexander Rahr est directeur de recherche du Forum germano-russe, Senior Advisor de la Wintershall Holding GmbH et membre du centre de débats internationaux «Waldai», né d’une initiative russe, traitant, lors de ses réunions annuelles, de la politique intérieure et extérieure de la Russie. Les deux textes ci-dessous sont des extraits d’interviews d’Alexander Rahr, accordés à l’agence de presse russe Ria Novosti et à la station de radio Deutschlandfunk.

«Tout homme raisonnable doit souhaiter à l’Ukraine stabilité, paix et prospérité. Il doit également lui souhaiter que les hommes politiques trouvent un langage et des intérêts communs et qu’ils puissent se mettre d’accord pour stopper cette crise inutile et créée artificiellement.»

«Janoukovych n’a pas violé la législation comme l’avait fait le gouvernement ukrainien il y a dix ans, dont l’aboutissement fut une révolution, suite à des manipulations électorales. Il s’est simplement opposé à la signature d’un document et l’a reportée. Il a obtenu des crédits russes, dont il avait un urgent besoin, crédits que l’Occident ne pouvait lui offrir. Voilà pourquoi je suis d’avis qu’une seconde révolution serait un non-sens.

[…] Le problème consiste aussi dans le fait que l’UE n’a actuellement pas envie de se mettre à la table de négociations avec la Russie. L’Europe se trouve pour de nombreux points du côté de l’opposition. Elle veut faire de Janoukovych une sorte de malfaiteur au sein des autorités ukrainiennes. Je pense que l’Occident crée ainsi une situation explosive. […]»

Source: Alexander Rahr dans une interview accordée à Ria Novosti le 24/1/14

«Nous devons apprendre à coopérer différemment avec des centres de pouvoir, telles la Chine et la Russie, parce qu’ils se renforcent et ne s’affaiblissent pas.»

«Je pense, qu’il y a une chose qu’il faut s’imaginer différemment que durant les années 90. La Russie n’est plus une grande puissance défaillante mais un pays qui a retrouvé le chemin vers le haut. La Russie construit à l’Est de l’Europe – indépendamment de ce que nous voulons, nous ne pouvons pas l’en empêcher – une Union eurasienne. Cette Union eurasienne, il faudra bien qu’elle crée à longue échéance une base de coopération avec l’Union européenne. Sinon, on continuera d’être pris dans la guerre froide. Je pense que les deux parties ont fait de graves erreurs en Ukraine; les Russes avec leur guerre commerciale mais également l’Union européenne – c’est ce que Mme Merkel a avoué dans sa déclaration gouvernementale – a commis l’erreur de forcer l’Ukraine à choisir. Il doit être possible d’offrir à un pays comme l’Ukraine deux options, tant une association avec l’Union européenne qu’une coopération étroite avec l’Union eurasienne. […]

L’Union eurasienne ne peut se faire sans l’Ukraine. Mais à l’heure actuelle, l’Union eurasienne que Poutine et le président kazakhe Nazarbaïev construisent, n’est à la base pas dirigée contre l’Union européenne en soi, mais c’est la tentative de créer un modèle d’intégration à l’Est de l’Europe qui pourrait, une fois ou l’autre signer un accord de zone de libre-échange avec l’Union européenne.

Pour l’Ukraine, nous devons trouver une solution commune avec les Russes. Ils ont autant d’influence sur l’Ukraine que l’Occident, que l’Union européenne, c’est pourquoi il faut trouver les points communs. […]

A mon avis, l’Occident se voit toujours et encore dans la position du vainqueur des années 90. De notre point de vue, nous avons gagné la guerre froide et voyons toujours et encore un élève sage dans un pays telle la Russie. Cela a changé. Le monde n’est plus mono-polaire, mais multipolaire. Nous allons devoir apprendre à coopérer différemment avec des centres de pouvoir, telles la Chine et la Russie, parce qu’ils se renforcent et ne s’affaiblissent pas, comme nous l’avions pensé jusqu’à présent.»    •

Source: Alexander Rahr dans une interview accordée au Deutschlandfunk le 28/1/14
(Traduction Horizons et débats)

Syrie: La Russie met fin aux illusions américaines

Ex: http://zejournal.mobi

Les paris américains de pousser la Russie à exercer des pressions sur la délégation syrienne à la conférence de Genève II, pour l'amener à modifier ses positions de principes, ont échoué. La profonde déception de Washington est apparue dans les comptes rendus de la réunion tripartite, vendredi à Genève, entre la Russie, les Etats-Unis et Lakhdar Brahimi. Lors de cette rencontre, le vice-ministre russe des Affaires étrangères, Guennadi Gatilov, a fait preuve d'une grande fermeté en s'opposant aux Américains et à la partialité de l'émissaire international.

Le déroulement des négociations de Genève prouve l'absence de tout compromis déjà convenu, comme l'ont cru certains milieux politiques et diplomatiques dès le début de la conférence. Il doit être clair à tous les analystes que la relation entre la Russie et l'Etat syrien est bâtie sur un solide partenariat et une alliance, et non pas sur le suivisme, comme c'est le cas dans la relation entre les oppositions syriennes et leurs maitres américains, arabes et occidentaux.

Le dossier syrien est l'espace dans lequel sont en train de se former les nouvelles équations de partenariat entre les deux pôles russe et américain. Dans ses efforts visant à retrouver sa place sur la scène internationale, la Russie se base sur un solide roc, assuré par la résistance de l'Etat syrien, la progression de ses troupes sur le terrain et un vaste soutien populaire que même les pires ennemis de la Syrie ne peuvent plus nier.

Dans ses efforts visant à construire ce nouveau partenariat international, la Russie agit d'égal à égal avec les Occidentaux, même si au début de la conférence, elle a fermé les yeux sur le retrait de l'invitation adressée à l'Iran et la limitation de la représentation de l'opposition syrienne à la seule délégation de la Coalition nationale. Les Russes ont fait tomber, vendredi, d'un seul coup, les illusions américaines, en soutenant à fond la position de la délégation gouvernementale syrienne qui est intransigeante dans les priorités: la lutte contre le terrorisme doit passer avant toute autre question politique, car elle constitue le pilier de tout futur accord inter-syrien.

Washington tente d'imposer le concept développé par Richard Haass d'un partenariat international... dirigé par les Etats-Unis!

C'est ce que les Américains tentent de faire en Syrie, en essayant d'orienter vers ce concept le processus politique et diplomatique engagé pour régler la crise dans ce pays. Mais cette tentative va à contre-courant des rapports de force sur le terrain, qui permettent à l'Etat syrien, qui tire sa force de son armée et du soutien d'une grande partie de la population, de placer le monde devant deux alternatives: un compromis bâti sur un partenariat dans la lutte contre le terrorisme, appuyé par des résolutions internationales fermes contre tous les Etats impliqués dans le soutien aux mouvements terroristes; ou la solution militaire grâce aux propres moyens de l'Etat syrien, qui imposerait un fait accompli sur le terrain.

Grâce à ses renseignements et aux sondages d'opinion qu'il a menés, l'Occident sait pertinemment que la popularité du président Bachar al-Assad est inébranlable. Le fait que le président syrien soit la cible des Etats-Unis n'a fait que renforcer sa popularité et son image de leader populaire incarnant la volonté syrienne de résister au terrorisme et de défendre l'indépendance et la souveraineté nationales.

La Russie a voulu adresser un message fort de solidarité avec la Syrie, son peuple et son leader, lequel s'est attiré l'admiration des hommes libres de ce monde avec sa volonté de résistance.

La position de Moscou a été aidée par une gestion intelligente et courageuse des négociations de Genève par la délégation gouvernementale. Ce n'est pas un hasard que des manifestations de soutien au président Assad, à la délégation gouvernementale à Genève et à l'armée arabe syrienne, aient lieu dans les régions syriennes perturbées. Les images des foules à Deraa, Deir Ezzor et les autres villes du pays sont éloquentes.

La Russie est convaincue qu'elle est la cible du terrorisme takfiriste parrainé par des pays évoluant dans l'orbite américaine. Elle est aussi victime de pressions en Ukraine et dans d'autres régions, qui constituent sa zone d'influence historique. Le ministre russe des Affaires étrangères, Serguei Lavrov, s'est dressé devant l'arrogance américaine et face au projet de bouclier anti-missile, qui constitue une menace directe pour les équilibres mondiaux. Ce projet est explicitement dirigé contre la Russie et son allié iranien.

Cela signifie que la priorité de l'Etat syrien de combattre le terrorisme est aussi celle de défendre la Syrie, la sécurité de ses alliés et la stabilité du monde. Il est tout à fait naturel que la position de la Russie à la conférence de Genève soutienne cette priorité, défendue par la délégation gouvernementale syrienne, surtout que l'Etat syrien a pris en compte, ces trois dernières années, et à plus d'une reprises, les intérêts de son allié russe.

La relation entre la Russie et la Syrie est bâtie sur une alliance organique et stratégique, basée sur la crédibilité, la compréhension et le respect mutuel. La Syrie est un partenaire essentiel de la Russie et non pas un pays vassal, à l'instar de la relation entre les Etats-Unis et leurs "alliés".

Pour toutes ces considérations, l'illusion du compromis russo-américain convenu d'avance est tombée vendredi à Genève... et s'est évaporé avec elle les plans  américains de faire primer "le transfert du pouvoir" sur la lutte contre le terrorisme.

L'armée arabe syrienne se chargera, sur le champ de bataille, de convaincre ceux qui sont encore bercés par ces illusions, que tous leurs paris sont perdants.

- Source : Al Manar (Liban)

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.

The Salvadorian Elections and Beijing’s Rise Star in Central America

Mahdi Darius NAZEMROAYA

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

The Salvadorian corruption scandal involving Francisco Flores, who was president of El Salvador from 1999 until 2004, has opened the door for the diplomatic recognition of the People’s Republic of China by the next government in San Salvador, which the FMLN failed to ascertain under the term of President Mauricio Funes. The graft involving Flores has created the appropriate political opportunity for El Salvador’s Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) to formally cut diplomatic ties with Taiwan (formally known as the Republic of China)), if an FMLN president is elected in March 2014. 

This diplomatic question additionally exposes the behind the scenes coordination that is taking place between Beijing and Taipei. This paints a picture of a cordial path towards Chinese unification between Taiwan and mainland China and not one of rivalry. Neither Beijing nor Taipei has put major obstacles in the other’s way, recognizing that ultimately there will be one China.

Francisco Flores and the Salvadorian Oligarchy

Francisco Flores was president of El Salvador when the Nationalist Republican Alliance, mostly commonly called by its Spanish acronym ARENA, was ruling the Central American republic. He is a member of the corrupt US-aligned Salvadorian oligarchy that cheapened El Salvador by reducing it to the de facto status of a US colony by following orders from Washington, DC. Exemplifying this relationship, it was under the presidential term of Flores that El Salvador would send hundreds of troops to help the United States and the United Kingdom during their illegal occupation of Iraq.

The Salvadorian oligarchy has for all purposes operated as a comprador elite class, which means that they have ultimately served as the local representatives or managers of foreign corporations, governments, and interests. In this case the Salvadorian oligarchy has acted collectively as a comprador elite class serving the elites of the United States, which themselves are more precisely described as parasitic elites due to the fact that they have siphoned off most the local wealth and resources of the countries they have subverted to their influence. Historically, these US elites penetrated the power structures and hierarchies of Latin America once the influence of the original Spaniard parasitic elites at the top of the economic hierarchy in the Western Hemisphere was eroded. Many Latin American countries even had a US official or minister overseeing their government and daily affairs.

Under Flores and ARENA, El Salvador lost its monetary sovereignty. The colon, El Salvador’s national currency, was removed by order of Flores and his ARENA government. They replaced the colon with the US dollar as the official currency of El Salvador. Thus, El Salvador joined the ranks of the various territories of the US, East Timor, Panama, and Ecuador as a place where the US dollar is official currency.

Under ARENA’s rule numerous unfair private business monopolies were established by law for ARENA members and supporters. It was illegal and next to impossible to buy medication from anyone except Alfredo Cristiani, the oligarch who was the ARENA president of El Salvador prior to Armando Calderón Sol and later Funes. Cristiani not only initiated the neoliberal economic restructuring of El Salvador, but also used his private monopoly on medication to always overcharge users and to even sell expired medication with impunity. It was the same with fertilizer and other agricultural products too, which were placed under Cristiani’s private monopoly. The ARENA government would allow no competition whatsoever. Moreover, Cristiani privatized the Salvadorian banking system letting his family use Cuscatlan Bank, which is now owned by Citibank, to expand their influence across Central America.

Albeit political corruption still lingers in El Salvador, the criminal basis of the previous ARENA governments is explicitly acknowledged by the reports and files of their own police administrations. Police intelligence files testify that every president, justice minister, and police director was tied to organized crime until the FMLN took over the government in San Salvador. Moreover, Alfredo Cristiani, the sweetheart of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, is widely recognized as the father of organized crime in El Salvador.

The Authors of the Salvadorian Option

Before ARENA was officially formed, these oligarchs used the Salvadorian military and police to wage a vicious war, with the outright involvement of the US government and Pentagon, against El Salvador’s indigenous people, peasants, poor, intellectuals, unions, Roman Catholic Church, and anyone demanding democracy and equal rights. The brutal repression and consequential civil war in El Salvador was part of the Salvadorian oligarchy’s efforts to maintain control over Salvadorian society. 

It was under the rule of these oligarchs that the infamous Salvador Option was spawned by US-aligned death squads that would exterminate whole villages in slow, cruel, and grotesque ways. Ice picks would be used to stab out eyes and deform faces while limbs would be systematically torn by horses or vehicles. The murder of Archbishop Oscar Romero, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in San Salvador, who was killed while giving a mass, is one of their most well-known acts. The man behind Romero’s murder, Major Roberto D’Aubuisson, would become the founder of ARENA.

The murder of Archbishop Romero, however, was merely one of the many atrocities that these oligarchs committed with Washington’s full knowledge, support, and involvement. Salvadoran military leaders were trained by the infamous School of the Americas and by the Pentagon and many of the torture and murder techniques that the death squads had used were taught to them by the US military. Moreover, countless Salvadorian guerilla fighters remember fighting US troops and hearing US orders on the radios to bomb the jungle and villages of El Salvador in English or Spanish.

Almost all of El Salvador’s indigenous population would be exterminated by these oligarchs. Entire families would be murdered while their properties would be plundered or destroyed. Not even children and animals would be spared. Both rape and the desecration of graves would be systematic and common practices.

One of the worst massacres was committed on December 11, 1981. This massacre took place in the village of El Mozote in the Department of Morazan. Eight hundred unarmed civilians, including children, were systematically tortured, humiliated, raped, and killed by a US-trained special operations unit.

Washington would send people like James Steele and John Negroponte to Anglo-American occupied Iraq to recreate the reign of terror that the US helped author in El Salvador. The exact same patterns and tactics of murder and torture would emerge in occupied Iraq, exposing the US as the source behind the death squads in both El Salvador and Anglo-American occupied Iraq. 

Taiwanese Bribery?

While the National Assembly or Legislative Assembly of El Salvador was conducting an investigation on past corruption it discovered that 10 million US dollars had personally gone to bank account of Francisco Flores. When Flores was questioned by the National Assembly about the large amount of money his responded by saying that the money had come from the Taiwanese government and that he had actually taken more than 10 million dollars from Taiwan. It was after this that Flores tried to flee El Salvador or tried to make it look like he had fled. Flores did this after he was ordered to reappear in front of the National Assembly again on the eve of the first round the 2014 Salvadorian presidential elections.

The funds that Francisco Flores had taken were actually part of a set of secret payments being made by Taiwan annually. Taiwan has very close ties to El Salvador and Central America. Aside from the US-sponsored states of Latin America, the Taiwanese government also joined the US and Israel to support the oligarchs in El Salvador against the FMLN during the Salvadorian Civil War. 

The secret payments made by Taiwan to Flores were originally established to prevent El Salvador from recognizing the government in Beijing as the legitimate government of China. While the payments may have originally been anti-Beijing or a Taiwanese award for the recognition of Taiwan instead of the government in mainland China, they appear to have been sustained with less and less anti-Beijing sentiments. The continued Taiwanese payments were maintained to sustain advantageous treatment of Taiwanese business interests and to win economic concessions in El Salvador, including a monopoly over the Salvadorian geothermal sector that is completely owned by Taiwan.

It is also worth noting that the Salvadorian government and Taipei have been exchanging information over the corruption scandal. This is in part due to the fact that Chen Shui-bian was the Taiwanese president whose government sent Flores the funds. Shui-bian and his wife are now in jail due to corruption convictions in Taiwan and there is probably a parallel probe in Taipei examining the role of Shui-bian and his associates. 

China’s Rising Star

The People’s Republic of China is an increasingly important player in Latin America. One important project that involves China is the creation of a mega canal connecting the Atlantic Ocean with the Pacific Ocean, like a second Panama Canal. This second Panama Canal, however, will be based in Nicaragua and called the Great Canal of Nicaragua… The Nicaraguan government even signed an agreement in 2012 with a freshly formed Hong Kong-based company, called the Nicaragua Canal Development Investment Company Limited, run by a Chinese telecommunications businessman magnet for attracting international investments for building the canal. The project is due to start in a matter of months.

When the FLMN had Mauricio Funes elected as president, they had him immediately establish diplomatic relations with Cuba when he was inaugurated on June 1, 2009. The previous ARENA government refused to have ties with Havana and was helping the US blockade Cuba and to oppose Venezuela and its regional allies. The FLMN additionally established diplomatic relations with Vietnam, Cambodia, and Russia. They failed to do so, however, with the People’s Republic of China due to multiple factors. 

The failure to recognize Beijing was due to opposition by President Funes, who is now the outgoing president of El Salvador. Mauricio Funes, a former CNN employee and popular local broadcaster, was merely endorsed by the FLMN. Funes is not a member of the FMLN as some outside of El Salvador assume. Under the agreement that Funes had with the FMLN, the portfolios of the Salvadorian cabinet were divided between the FMLN and non-FMLN individuals (popularly called the “Friends of Funes”) selected President Funes. Under this power sharing agreement, Funes would control strategic issues, national economics, and the secretariat for political reforms while the FMLN would manage the portfolios responsible for healthcare, education, and security. It was under this framework that Funes was able to stall recognition of the People’s Republic of China and to hinder the economic and political reforms that the FMLN wanted. 

By the time that the Salvadorian government did reach out to officials in Beijing, the Chinese government was cool to the idea of establishing diplomatic ties. This was most probably because of the delay, which the Chinese government could have viewed as an insult to Beijing’s dignity. Although the FMLN as a political party has direct links to the People’s Republic of China through the FMLN’s international affairs office and has delegations invited to Beijing, the FMLN will look at ways to establishing formal diplomatic ties with Beijing when the FMLN win the 2014 presidential elections in March’s second round of voting. In this context, a second FMLN presidential term provides the opportunity for the FLMN to rectify the mistake and recognize Beijing quickly under a new chapter when Vice-President Salvador Sanchez becomes El Salvador’s next president.

The Salvadorian government and the FMLN have made it clear to Taiwan that El Salvador ultimately intends to recognize the Beijing as the legitimate government of China. What is interesting to note is that there has been no opposition from Taiwan against this decision. Nor will the severing of diplomatic ties between San Salvador and Taipei end Taiwan’s trade ties with El Salvador. There is even some type of silent coordination between Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China in regards to this trajectory that falls into the framework of Chinese unification. 

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is currently travelling in Central America. Presently he is in the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) stronghold of León inside Nicaragua. He was an international observer in El Salvador during the first round of the presidential elections in February 2014 and held discussions with Salvadorian officials about Salvadorian economics and foreign policy.

 

L’Algérie dans le viseur des USA

 

L’Algérie dans le viseur des USA

François Charles

Ex: http://www.lautreafrique.info

Il y a déjà plusieurs mois que les Etats-Unis, après avoir classé l’Algérie comme « pays à risque pour la sécurité des diplomates », ont implanté des installations militaires avec contingents de marines, à la pointe sud de l’Espagne, sans cacher le moins du monde leurs intentions interventionnistes vers le nord de l’Afrique.

Sachant par ailleurs, que les Etats-Unis visent désormais la région frontalière située entre le sud tunisien et l’Algérie: « Signe que les Etats-Unis sont décidés à agir, le Pentagone vient de récupérer, dans le sud de la Tunisie, une ancienne base désaffectée qui doit être rénovée pour intervenir sur le théâtre libyen, affirme une source diplomatique à Tunis.  (le Figaro, 1er février 2014), le moins qu’on puisse dire, même s’il n’est question pour l’instant que d’intervenir en Libye, est que l’ogre se rapproche…

Menaces de punition pour n’avoir pas suffisamment soutenu l’intervention militaire française au Mali ? Projet de déstabilisation d’un dernier bastion encore par trop indépendant de l’influence US ?

Toujours est-il que, après les maliens et au vu de l’état de tension régnant dans toute la sous-région, les algériens sont fondés à nourrir de grandes inquiétudes.

Une intervention militaire annoncée

500 marines, huit avions militaires de combat…Les Etats-Unis ont ainsi déployé, depuis l’été 2013, une force militaire d’intervention conséquente, dans la petite ville de  Moron en Espagne. Si le stationnement de militaires américains sur le sol espagnol n’est pas un scoop, ce qui est nouveau en revanche est la spécificité dédiée à cette nouvelle implantation. L’aveu du gouvernement espagnol à ce sujet est d’ailleurs de taille :  » permettre à l’armée américaine d’intervenir dans le nord de l’Afrique en cas de troubles majeurs ». On ne saurait, en effet,  être plus clair !

Aujourd’hui, alors que les USA viennent de faire une demande officielle au gouvernement Rajoy d’augmenter de moitié le contingent des marines déjà en place, appelé « Force de riposte pour la crise en Afrique », on apprend, par le quotidien espagnol El Pais, que sont prévus d’importants mouvements de la marine militaire US sur les côtes espagnoles :  » Le 11 février prochain le destroyer américain USS Donald Cook arrivera avec ses 338 membres d’équipage à la base navale de Cadix. Un second navire, USS Ross arrivera en juin et deux autres, USS Porter et USS Carney, en 2015. Au total, ce seront 1100 marines, avec leurs familles, qui s’installeront sur la base de Cadix ».

Interrogé à propos de toutes ces manoeuvres et implantations militaires, Gonzalo de Benito, secrétaire d’Etat espagnol aux affaires étrangères, se contentera de commenter :  » Quelles opérations réaliseront ces marines suréquipés ? Je ne peux pas le dire car ces forces sont pas venues pour des opérations précises mais pour des contingences qui peuvent se produire… »

Entre menaces et langue de bois, on mesure combien ces bruits de bottes sont à prendre au très sérieux.

Que ce soit en Italie ou en Espagne, au Nord Mali ou au Niger, qu’elles soient françaises ou US, force est de constater que les implantations militaires se multiplient dans la région proche Maghreb.

L’humanitaire d’abord et puis… la guerre

Toutes les interventions extérieures qui ont procédé, et y tendent encore, à ce processus de désintégration territoriale et politiques des nations, notamment africaines… ont toujours été précédées de campagnes ultra-médiatiques menées sur le terrain de « l’humanitaire ». On connaît parfaitement le déroulé des opérations : « humanitaires » et ONG signalent, généralement là où on le leur dit, une situation dramatique pour les civils, y dénoncent des famines en cours ou à venir, identifient des multitudes de génocides (ou risque de), abreuvent les opinions publiques d’images-choc et finalement… les grandes puissances se voient  »contraintes », à leur corps défendant s’entend… d’intervenir au nom du « droit à la vie des populations concernées ». CQFD en Libye, en Côte d’Ivoire, en Centrafrique, au Mali…tous désintégrés, découpés et finalement partitionnés.

C’est ainsi que, après avoir rôdé il y a fort longtemps son procédé  au Biafra et en Somalie, tous deux désintégrés (1), le  »bon » docteur Kouchner, devenu ministre français de gauche et de droite, allait inventer en ex-Yougoslavie, elle aussi désintégrée,  la version définitive du « droit d’ingérence » ! Invention qui, après avoir montré toute son efficacité dans l’implosion des Balkans, allait faire florès aux quatre coins d’une planète soumise à la globalisation impériale.

De l’Irak des « armes de destruction massive » à la Libye du « sanguinaire » Kadhafi  » meilleur ami de la France, de la Syrie au Mali, de la Côte d’Ivoire à la Centrafrique… on s’aperçoit que c’est surtout au nombre de guerres menées, en son nom, sur le continent qu’on peut mesurer les résultats de cette politique « humanitaire ».

Afrique du Nord, Algérie et Tunisie clairement visées

Qu’on n’oublie pas que le département américain des affaires étrangères a récemment classé l’Algérie dans sa trop fameuse liste des pays « à risque sécuritaire pour les diplomates ». Par ailleurs, au même moment, sous forme d’amendements, était rediscutée au Congrès américain la loi anti-terroriste avec comme objectif affiché de permettre l’intervention des Forces Armées, sans consultation préalable en…Afrique du Nord ! Tiens donc…

Les ONG humanitaires dont on a déjà dit l’empressement à « appeler les grandes puissances » et leurs armées au secours, sont depuis longtemps à pied d’oeuvre en Algérie. Selon la centrale syndicale UGTA (Union Générale des Travailleurs Algériens) ces ONG mènent campagne dans le but de diviser et opposer les populations entre elles : Nord contre Sud, Berbères contre Arabophones, salariés contre chômeurs… En tête de liste de ces « humanitaires » on trouve les ONG telles que Freedom House, Canvas, NED…dont les liens avec la CIA sont un secret de polichinelle. (2)

L’UGTT les accuse nommément d’infiltrer les mouvements sociaux aux fins de « les dévoyer et de les conduire vers des actions violentes, cherchant ainsi à créer une situation  de troubles pouvant justifier une intervention extérieure »  et encore  » Alors que les jeunes manifestent légitimement pour la création  d’emplois, contre la précarité et l’exploitation, les jeunes animateurs de Canvas leur proposent de régler la question de l’emploi dans un cadre séparatiste, du Sud de l’Algérie, c’est à dire là où se trouvent les grandes richesses minières, pétrolières et gazières. »  Comme par hasard, serait-on tenté d’ajouter ou plutôt…comme d’habitude. (3)

Insécurité et troubles sociaux provoqués en de ça des frontières, insécurité généralisée provoquée au delà. La méthode est connue. Les USA qui s’appuient déjà sur la déstabilisation régionale pour justifier le déploiement de leurs dispositifs militaires en Méditerranée ne manqueront pas de prendre demain le prétexte des troubles sociaux ou « du danger pour les diplomates » pour intervenir directement.

Ne serait-il pas légitime, pourtant, de poser la question de la responsabilité des grandes puissances, et très précisément de celle des USA, dans la prolifération des activités terroristes armées dans toute cette région d’Afrique ? N’est-ce pas, et ce n’est pas là le moindre des paradoxes, au nom de cette insécurité que les USA, par OTAN et France interposées, ont décidé de faire exploser la Libye en 2011 ? N’est-ce pas pour les mêmes raison que l’armée française est entrée en guerre au Mali en 2012. Deux interventions qui, rappelons le, loin de ramener la paix, ajoutant la déstabilisation à la déstabilisation, ont fait du Sahel, et de toute la sous-région, une véritable poudrière.

Ces nouvelles menaces US inscrites dans le cadre de la stratégie dite des « dominos », si chère à l’ancienne administration Bush, doivent être prises très au sérieux. On le voit, les prétextes même les plus fallacieux, ne manquent pas et ne manqueront pas, dans un avenir proche, pour une intervention militaire extérieure. Les grandes puissances ne s’arrêteront pas, bien au contraire, devant les risques de désintégration régionale et leurs conséquences meurtrières pour les peuples.

Déjà, c’est toute la région qui subit l’incroyable prolifération des armes due à l’explosion de l’état Libyen et au flux continu d’armements en tout genre, totalement irresponsable, à destination d’islamistes extrêmes en Syrie. Les ondes de choc de cette situation on les connait au Mali où une France militairement dépassée se montre très (trop) bienveillante à l’égard de séparatistes très bien équipés, en Algérie où ressurgit une certaine forme de terrorisme islamiste qu’on pensait éradiquée et jusqu’en Tunisie où sévissent désormais des groupes paramilitaires se réclamant de l’Islam et où, dans le même temps, le pouvoir laisse impunis les assassinats d’opposants politiques.

Il apparaît de plus en plus clairement aux populations concernées que ces menées dislocatrices dirigées contre des états souverains n’ont pour objectif que de laisser des nations affaiblies aux mains de supplétifs, divisées et impuissantées, incapables de résister aux appétits des multinationales.

C’est bien pourquoi les états d’où sont originaires ces multinationales s’entendent si bien, au gré de leurs intérêts et quoi qu’ils en disent, avec les islamistes les plus furieux, qu’il s’agisse aujourd’hui du Sahel et de la Syrie ou de la Libye hier. Autrement dit, à chacun son pré-carré, à chacun ses profits et ses caisses bien remplies.

Décidément, jamais les « vieilles chimères », portées par les pères fondateurs des Indépendances, comme  le « panafricanisme » ou « l’Afrique aux africains »… jetées depuis aux oubliettes de l’histoire, ne semblent pourtant avoir été autant d’actualité.

De toutes les manières et quoi qu’il en soit des débats urgents qu’impose la situation dramatique infligée au continent, l’actualité dicte que l’Algérie ne se voit pas dicter sa conduite sous intervention militaire.

Notes:

1/ Après le Biafra, Bernard Kouchner expliquera qu’il convient de « convaincre » d’abord les opinions publiques. S’en suivirent alors les opérations à grand spectacles comme « un sac de riz pour la Somalie », « un bateau pour le Vietnam »…les dissensions avec MSF, son départ et la fondation de Médecins du monde.

2/  UGTA Alger le 28 juin 2013 in Fraternité journal du PT algérien

3/ Sur le rôle néfaste des « humanitaires », des ONG et la dislocation des nations, voir www.lautreafrique.info (« Banque Mondiale et ONG déstabilisent les états »)

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.

 

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”.

L’Ukraine prise en tenailles entre l’Occident et la Russie

L’Ukraine prise en tenailles entre l’Occident et la Russie

par Thomas Ferrier

Ex: http://thomasferrier.hautetfort.com

La situation de l’Ukraine s’est profondément dégradée pendant le mois de janvier, alors que la résistance aux décrets liberticides votés par les parlementaires en catimini n’avait jamais été aussi forte. Des morts regrettables, des violences militantes autant que policières, ont entaché de sang un mouvement politique complexe, aux formes multiples, regroupant des libéraux occidentalistes aussi bien que des nationalistes radicaux.

La réaction du président Yanoukovitch est celle d’un pouvoir aux abois, sans la légitimité populaire d’un Poutine lui permettant de conserver son calme, et qui a été contraint de reculer. Il a contraint son premier ministre à démissionner, proposant l’ouverture à ses adversaires, à l’exception d’Oleh Tiahnybok, le dirigeant de Svoboda. Les députés ont aboli les lois qui restreignaient le droit de manifester. C’est un recul total ou presque, Yanoukovitch se refusant toutefois pour le moment à modifier le calendrier électoral et ainsi à prendre le risque d’être politiquement balayé, même s’il reste fort dans les zones russophones.

Yanoukovitch risque bien de subir le même désaveu que l’orangiste Sakashvili en Géorgie et pour les mêmes raisons, à savoir la volonté de mettre en place un régime restreignant les libertés. Or le souvenir de l’Union Soviétique n’est pas si loin. Poutine sait d’ailleurs ménager sa popularité en Russie en libérant ses adversaires, comme l’ex-milliardaire Khodorkovski ou les Pussy Riot, et en respectant en tout cas dans les formes les principes de la démocratie moderne. Mais il est vrai qu’il a le peuple derrière lui. Ce n’est pas le cas des tyranneaux des anciennes républiques soviétiques, qu’ils soient pro-USA ou pro-Russie.

L’Ukraine se trouve, on l’a dit, dans un positionnement géo-stratégique difficile, coupé en deux par un tropisme européen à l’ouest et par un tropisme russe à l’est, ravivant cette opposition, fondamentalement factice néanmoins, entre « occidentalistes » (zapadniki) et « slavophiles ». Entre volonté de rejoindre l’Union Européenne et crainte de perdre les avantages acquis de la relation ukraino-russe, le gouvernement en place n’a pas pu faire un choix clair entre deux options qui lui sont apparues comme incompatibles. La Russie a une part de responsabilité dans le sens où elle fait monter la pression vis-à-vis de l’Union Européenne, mais cette dernière a une responsabilité bien plus importante en se faisant le relai des intérêts américains dans la région. Poutine a très bien compris la politique de l’endiguement (« anaconda ») que les USA veulent mener contre la nouvelle Russie, comme ils l’ont fait dans le passé contre l’Union Soviétique.

Formé par le KGB, Vladimir Poutine sait très bien démasquer derrière des stratégies opaques les véritables chefs d’orchestre, ce qui ne veut pas dire qu’il faut tomber dans un autre piège qui est celui du « complotisme » et voir des plans ourdis par de mystérieux commanditaires derrière ce qui se passe aujourd’hui.

Tourner le dos à l’Union Européenne serait pour l’Ukraine une grosse erreur, mais cela en serait également de tourner le dos à la Russie. Ce serait comme tenter de s’unir en commençant par se couper en deux. Ces deux composantes, « europhiles » et « russophiles », ne devraient pas être opposées mais servir pour une synthèse originale, faisant alors de sa géographie une force et non plus une faiblesse.

Un gouvernement ukrainien digne de ce nom devrait se présenter comme un pont entre l’Union Européenne et la Russie, un espace intermédiaire d’échanges, un lieu où surtout Russes et (autres) Européens pourraient se parler et enfin s’entendre. Ceux qui sèment la division, là où les vrais européistes parlent d’unité, ce sont les USA et ceux qui leur servent de courroies de transmission. L’alliance Bruxelles/Moscou (ou Strasbourg/Moscou d’ailleurs) contre Washington, voilà qui aurait une autre « gueule », et dans un tel cadre, la situation de l’Ukraine serait nécessairement pacifiée et le pays en bien meilleure posture.

Yanoukovitch devrait s’en aller, comme Ioutchenko avant lui, et pour la même raison, qui est l’aliénation du pouvoir ukrainien à des intérêts étrangers, qui plus est des intérêts qui instrumentalisent le pays pour mener des manœuvres géopolitiques « conflictuelles ».

Car cette opposition que j’évoquais entre « occidentalistes » et « slavophiles » en Russie, comme en Ukraine, avec la mise en avant du courant « eurasien » qui relève de la seconde idéologie, est une idiotie conceptuelle totale. Les Slaves, et les Russes au premier plan, sont des Européens, tout comme les Français ou les Allemands. En affirmant leur slavité et leur orthodoxie, ils ne tournent pas le dos à l’Europe, mais ils s’y rattachent en vérité. Ivan Groznyi et Pierre le Grand ont toujours été du même camp, celui d’une Russie européenne dans une Europe européenne, une Russie qui certes s’étend à l’est de l’Oural mais toujours au nom d’une Europe expansive. Car si on gratte le russe, on trouve un varègue ou un bogatyr slave mais jamais un tatar.

L’Ukraine devra avoir l’audace de s’inventer un régime nouveau, avec une personnalité courageuse mais restant modeste, capable de maîtriser les dissensions et de susciter un « rêve ukrainien », celui d’une réconciliation entre l’ouest et l’est, mais aussi entre l’Union Européenne et la Russie. Cela implique de bien distinguer la volonté de rejoindre l’UE et tout lien avec l’OTAN. En clair, le gouvernement ukrainien devra veiller à rassurer le frère russe tout en orientant le frère européen (de l’ouest et du centre) dans le sens des intérêts strictement européens, qui sont ceux d’une grande alliance, en attendant une fusion, entre l’Union Européenne et la Russie. Et de la même façon, le tropisme atlantiste de Cameron, comme auparavant celui de Thatcher, de Majors, de Blair et de Brown, qui se cache derrière cette volonté de rupture avec l’UE, n’est pas au service du peuple britannique, ce dernier ayant vocation à restaurer son européanité au sein d’une Europe unie, en rompant avec le Commonwealth. C’est là où des mouvements comme UKiP servent manifestement la stratégie américaine en Europe, au nom d’une souveraineté britannique pervertie.

 

Thomas FERRIER (PSUNE/LBTF)

Aymeric Chauprade aux Ronchons

Jeudi 20 février :

Aymeric Chauprade

aux Ronchons

 

Un atlas géopolitique du monde actuel

Un atlas géopolitique du monde actuel

par Georges FELTIN-TRACOL

Il est toujours difficile de recenser un ouvrage qui l’a déjà été par nos soins. Aymeric Chauprade vient de publier la troisième édition, actualisée et augmentée, de sa Chronique du choc des civilisations. Intitulée « Civilisations en collisions » et mis en ligne sur le présent site le 9 octobre 2011, la précédente recension évoquait les qualités de cette deuxième édition qui valut l’éviction de son auteur de toutes les chaires universitaires à la suite d’une campagne de presse malveillante orchestrée par un de ces stipendiés par l’Oncle Sam.

 

 

Depuis 2011, l’ébranlement de la planète se poursuit avec de nouveaux conflits dont les fameuses révolutions arabes et le renversement de plusieurs régimes autoritaires laïques en Afrique du Nord, au Proche-Orient. Mais Aymeric Chauprade prend aussi en compte le déclin relatif des États-Unis d’Amérique, la montée en puissance de la Chine et la renaissance convalescente de la Russie. Il offre par conséquent au lecteur une vaste palette de textes et de cartes très éclairantes.

 

Le temps des civilisations

 

Favorable à une géopolitique culturelle (culturaliste ?), cet esprit aguerri aux sciences dures, les mathématiques en particulier, n’hésite pas à se référer à la longue durée chère à Fernand Braudel. Il replace dans un contexte politico-historique les heurts contemporains. Si l’ouvrage – le terme d’atlas serait plus approprié – s’ouvre sur un planisphère des civilisations, il ne faut pas se méprendre : Aymeric Chauprade n’est pas le disciple français de feu Samuel P. Huntington. Rappelons qu’en 1996, son premier essai portait sur L’Espace économique francophone. Pour une francophonie intégrale, vaine initiative de renouvellement des conceptions du gaulliste de la Francité, Philippe Rossillon. Il discerne ainsi quinze civilisations là où Huntington n’en distinguait que neuf !

 

« Le choc des civilisations, observe Aymeric Chauprade, traverse les siècles, et même, pour certaines civilisations, les millénaires; il s’apaise, qui reprend, et donne à l’histoire des chocs sourds et puissants, comme si des plaques tectoniques venaient à en découdre, causant d’immenses secousses dans l’humanité (p. 8). » Loin de se focaliser sur un seul antagonisme réducteur, il cherche plutôt à dresser un panorama précis de l’ensemble des territoires conflictuels tant aux confins qu’au cœur même des civilisations. Les dix chapitres géo-thématiques balaient dans le détail les cahots actuels.

 

Dégagé de tout subjectivisme, Aymeric Chauprade veut surtout montrer au lecteur la polymorphie des secousses civilisationnelles. Certes, il commence par évoquer l’affrontement islamo-occidental, mais il prend garde de ne pas sombrer dans un quelconque réductionnisme géopolitique ou de plaquer sur les événements ses propres représentations géopolitiques. Oui, l’islam concurrence le monde occidental. Mais, en dépit de l’exécution d’otages en Irak ou au Sahel, cette menace est maintenant moins terroriste – même si les risques persistent – que migratoire et démographique. La forte fécondité des immigrés d’Afrique subsaharienne prépare « une France dont la population serait majoritairement extra-européenne autour de 2040 (p. 58) ». Les bouleversements politiques sur les littoraux méridional et oriental de la Méditerranée font de cette aire géographique tricontinentale le point faible de l’Europe. Mais le péril mahométan se retrouve souvent instrumentaliser par les États-Unis d’Amérique notoirement anti-européens.

 

L’Europe doit lutter contre l’« Islamérique », cette alliance objective entre l’oligarchie étatsunienne, voire nord-américaine, et certaines tendances fanatiques de l’islam. Washington veut affaiblir l’Europe qui demeure la seule véritable rivale globale, d’où une longue et constante politique d’encerclement par des forces musulmanes hostiles soutenues en sous-main par l’hégémonie yankee. « Après l’Afghanistan (durant la guerre froide), puis les guerres de Bosnie, du Kosovo et d’Irak, après le soutien à l’A.K.P. en Turquie et aux Frères musulmans dans le monde arabe, l’Amérique offre en Libye un nouvel épisode de son alliance souterraine avec l’islam radical (p. 58). » Il s’agit par ailleurs d’entraver durablement la Russie qui retrouve son statut de grande puissance. Vladimir Poutine, l’homme le plus puissant du monde en 2013 selon le magazine Forbes, a compris que « l’énergie est le levier du redressement de la puissance russe (p. 101) ». Il faut par conséquent que Washington ou plus exactement l’« État profond » étatsunien – cette « structure de gouvernement à la fois invisible (par rapport à l’administration officielle) et continue (puisqu’elle survit aux changements de président), rassemblant des éléments et des moyens du Pentagone, de la C.I.A. et du F.B.I., des sociétés militaires privées et, plus globalement, du complexe militaro-financier (p. 13) » élimine dès le départ toute menace potentielle. La proximité et la connaissance, entre la haute-administration U.S. et les milieux financiers facilitent la privatisation de la guerre. Souvenons-nous que « la guerre d’Irak est directement à l’origine de l’exploitation capitalistique des S.M.P. Née d’un petit contrat de la C.I.A. de 5,4 millions de dollars en 2001, Blackwater (rebaptisée Xe en 2009) pèse, grâce à l’Afghanistan et l’Irak, 1,2 milliard de dollars. En 1995, Dyn-Corp ne pesait que 30 millions de dollars : c’est aujourd’hui la plus importante S.M.P. au monde, son chiffre d’affaires dépassant les 3 milliards de dollars (p. 25) ».

 

La pluralité de l’islam

 

Cependant, il ne faut pas considérer les islamistes comme de simples marionnettes aux mains des États-Unis. Les djihadistes savent nouer des alliances si l’exigent leurs intérêts. Et puis, l’islam est lui-même très varié, sinon l’Iran chiite, le Hezbollah libanais et leur allié baasiste syrien ne s’opposeraient pas avec un certain succès aux visées sunnites de l’Arabie Saoudite et du Qatar, appuyés par des puissances occidentales toujours aussi aveugles et bien corrompues par le pognon des hydrocarbures. Il traite aussi d’une donnée guère connue, à savoir « Les populations arabes de l’Amérique latine (p. 254) ». Issue de vagues d’immigration successives, cette population latino-américaine d’origine arabe « se situe dans la fourchette de 17 à 25 millions, ce qui représenterait 5 % de la population totale. […] Les Arabes d’Amérique, très majoritairement chrétiens, se sont fortement assimilés et ils se retrouvent même souvent dans les élites économiques, voire politiques, de leur accueil (p. 254) » comme le Mexicain Carlos Slim, le Chilien José Said ou l’Argentin Carlos Menem.

 

Si l’islam fait des convertis en Amérique latine, ce subcontinent, bastion du catholicisme romain, est surtout confronté « au défi des Églises pentecôtistes et évangéliques venues des États-Unis (p. 256) ». L’auteur mentionne les nombreuses méthodes de l’hégémonie yankee : l’action militaire, directe ou non, et/ou l’influence culturelle à travers les films, le non-art contemporain, les musiques dégénérées… Mais il attire aussi l’attention sur leur maîtrise élevée dans la dissimulation, la désinformation et l’intoxication. Tirant le bilan de l’invasion de l’Irak et l’avènement d’un gouvernement chiite proche de Téhéran, il prévient que « les Américains ont l’art de faire croire aux Européens qu’ils cumulent maladresses et erreurs (erreurs de la C.I.A., du Pentagone ou du département d’État), leur seul but étant en réalité de masquer ce que l’on appelle, dans le langage militaire français “ l’effet final recherché ” (p. 168) ».

 

Aymeric Chauprade examine avec soin tous les continents, hormis déplorons-le, l’Océanie dans laquelle est toujours présente au grand dam des Anglo-Saxons (Australie, Grande-Bretagne, États-Unis et Nouvelle-Zélande) la France, deuxième domaine océanique et maritime au monde et donc potentielle thalassocratie. À quand un Jeu de la France dans l’océan Pacifique, en partie traité par feu Hervé Coutau-Bégarie avec sa Géostratégie du Pacifique en 2001 ?

 

Vers l’ère des grands marchés intercontinentaux ?

 

La partie septentrionale de l’océan Pacifique aux portes de l’Extrême-Orient connaît un regain de tensions entre la Chine et le Japon. Y a-t-il un risque de guerre ouverte entre Pékin et Tokyo ? Sans répondre à cette difficile question qui nécessite des facultés de médium, Aymeric Chauprade relève que « les deux pays n’ont jamais été aussi interdépendants économiquement. La Chine est le premier partenaire commercial du Japon (elle représente plus de 20 % de son commerce) et le Japon est le premier fournisseur de la Chine (15 % des importations). Le Japon délocalise en Chine et, déjà, plus de 9 millions de Chinois travaillent pour le capital japonais. Cette intégration économique du Japon et de la Chine se fait de manière plus large dans le cadre du plus grand marché économique en formation dans le monde, le marché dit de l’A.S.E.A.N. + 3 (Chine, Japon, Inde), qui est devenu une réalité le 1er janvier 2010. Plus les années vont passer, plus la réalité économique du Japon va diverger de celle des États-Unis au profit de cette sphère de coprospérité asiatique (pp. 215 – 216) ». L’accélération des négociations entre Bruxelles et Washington pour constituer au plus tôt une grande zone de libre-échange transatlantique se comprend mieux quand on sait l’existence de ce  marché asiatique très étendu.

 

Cet atlas géopolitique est remarquable. Aymeric Chauprade met en perspective les problématiques géostratégiques avec leurs soubassements plus occultes. Pour preuve, depuis 2009, on a trouvé en Méditerranée orientale d’importantes bassins d’hydrocarbures dont la délimitation des zones d’exploitation en haute mer avive les querelles frontalières. La volonté des Occidentaux de contrôler ces ressources à peine découvertes explique leur ingérence en Syrie. Pis, l’atlas rapporte « en Grèce en 2012 et à Chypre en 2013 […] une tentative des milieux de la finance anglo-américaine (qui dominent le F.M.I. et l’Union européenne) de forcer les Grecs surendettés (pourtant assis sur des richesses considérables en hydrocarbures et en or) à céder les actifs qu’ils possèdent dans le secteur énergétique et les ports stratégiques (p. 107) ».

 

Avec un rare talent, Aymeric Chauprade ausculte les continents, explique les enjeux et identifie les manœuvres en coulisse, là où se joue vraiment à chaque instant le sort du monde.

 

Georges Feltin-Tracol

 

• Aymeric Chauprade, Chronique du choc des civilisations. Du 11 septembre 2001 à la guerre de Syrie, actualité, analyses géopolitiques et cartes pour comprendre le monde d’aujourd’hui, Chronique Éditions, (15 – 27, rue Moussorgski 75018 Paris), 2013, 272 p., 31 €.

 

---

 

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

 

URL to article: http://www.europemaxima.com/?p=3577

The Americanization of the World

 

The Americanization of the World

By Bionic Mosquito

Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com

The Americanization of the World, by William Thomas Stead.

With this post, I will begin a review of the above titled book, written in 1902.  In order to provide context as to my purpose for and approach in this review, I will begin by re-introducing and expanding upon my working hypothesis under which I have been considering various events over the last century and more.

1) There is a group of elite that operate above politicians and national governments, working through think-tanks and other global foundations and institutions.

2) The elite are not all of one mind, although in many ways their interests are aligned and the tools through which they leverage control are equally beneficial to all.

3) Until the turn of the 20^th century, much of this control was exercised through the British government and other British-based institutions.

4) Beginning as early as the late 19^th century (and perhaps the mid-nineteenth century), two things were becoming clear to this group:

a.The ability of Great Britain to be an effective tool for global reach would soon reach its limits.

b.The potential reach through the United States was untapped and, relatively speaking, unlimited.

5) The commonality in philosophical heritage and language of the people in Great Britain and the United States made the US population susceptible to similar tools of control – tools already established and proven effective.

6) Actions were taken beginning in the late 19^th century to effect the transition of this tool for global control from Great Britain to the United States.

7) These actions, through two World Wars, culminated in the United States moving to the position as the primary tool for control by the elite.

8) Winston Churchill – worshiped despite being the leading political figure during the entire span of the demise of the British Empire – played the key role in supporting this transition: both the decline of Great Britain and the ascendency of the United States as leader of this broader, English-speaking, elite controlled empire.

9) As opposed to looking elsewhere for world government, the United States has been the tool to implement world government – taking a leadership position in establishing the UN, IMF, World Bank, NATO, etc.

10) The good news?  Decentralization will win out: witness the break-up of the artificial conglomerations of the USSR, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia.  Witness similar events unfolding in Iraq, the inability to consolidate in Afghanistan.  Witness tiny Belgium, divided in two – yet somehow the entirety of Europe is going to meld into one?  Much more capable thinkers than I am write of the coming of the end of the nation-state (see especially the sections on Barzun and van Creveld).

Some of the visible actions taken to move the US into this leadership position include:

1) The creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913

2) The engagement of the US into the Great War, despite overwhelming public opinion against getting involved in this European conflict

3) The engagement of the US into the Second World War, again despite overwhelming public opinion against getting involved in this conflict.

4) Various purposeful actions taken by the British government to a) overcome the historical animosities between the two countries, and b) move the US toward the position of global primacy.

If you find this too tin-foil-hat for you, there is little reason to continue reading this post (if you haven’t stopped already).

While reading 1939 – The War That Had Many Fathers, I came across another event that seems to have helped move the US into a position to take the hand-off from Great Britain: the assassination of President McKinley in 1901.  As I explain here, this event helped to move the US from a negative or neutral posture toward Great Britain (and even somewhat favorable to Germany) toward a much more positive relationship with Great Britain through the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt.

This transition was but one step in what is known as the Great Rapprochement, the turning of US policy toward Great Britain in the period 1895 – 1915.

Also while reading the above-mentioned book I came across the name William Thomas Stead, and his book “The Americanization of the World.”  Given the title and description of the book, and that this book was initially published in 1902 (precisely at the beginning of this changing relationship), it seemed to me a worthwhile read given the hypothesis I identify above.

With that lengthy preamble out of the way, I offer an even lengthier introduction of Mr. Stead….

Who was Stead?  “William Thomas Stead (5 July 1849 – 15 April 1912) was an English newspaper editor….”

If his date of death seems familiar, it is because Stead died aboard the Titanic. Before this, he was a tremendously influential newspaper editor and author:

In 1880, Stead went to London to be assistant editor of the Liberal Pall Mall Gazette (a forerunner of the London Evening Standard), where he set about revolutionizing a traditionally conservative newspaper “written by gentlemen for gentlemen”.

Stead early on learned the power that the press could project over government action:

Stead’s first sensational campaign was based on a Nonconformist pamphlet, The Bitter Cry of Outcast London. His lurid stories of squalid life in the slums had a wholly beneficial effect on the capital. A Royal Commission recommended that the government should clear the slums and encourage low-cost housing in their place. It was Stead’s first success.

Despite being able to successfully move government to action, not every endeavor ended well; still, his reach and magnitude knew few limits:

In 1884, Stead pressured the government to send his friend General Gordon into Sudan to protect British interests in Khartoum. The eccentric Gordon disobeyed orders, and the siege of Khartoum, Gordon’s death, and the failure of the hugely expensive Gordon Relief Expedition was one of the great imperial disasters of the period.

 

Gordon was sent to evacuate British citizens from a troubled region and to otherwise abandon Sudan.  Once Gordon arrived, he apparently pursued a different course: he decided it was best to crush the Muslim uprising for fear that it would eventually spread to Egypt as well.  Gordon, with 6,000 men, began a defense of Khartoum.

On March 18, 1884, the Mahdist army laid siege to the city. The rebels stopped river traffic and cut the telegraph line to Cairo. Khartoum was cut off from resupply, which led to food shortages, but could still communicate with the outside world by using messengers. Under pressure from the public, in August 1884, the British government decided to reverse its policy and send a relief force to Khartoum.

“Under pressure from the public” a relief expedition force was sent, but failed to arrive in time to save Gordon and his men:

On January 26, 1885, Khartoum fell to the Mahdist army of 50,000 men. At that time of year the Nile was shallow enough to cross by wading and the Mahdists were able to breach the city’s defenses by attacking the poorly-defended approaches from the river. The entire garrison was slaughtered, including General Gordon. His head was cut off and delivered to the Mahdi. Two days later the relief expedition entered the city to find that they were too late.

Lord Kitchener later reconquered Sudan.

Forgive my diversion into this tale of late nineteenth century British imperialism; however it serves to demonstrate the power and influence that Stead possessed.  As cited above, “In 1884, Stead pressured the government to send his friend General Gordon into Sudan….”  It seems reasonable that he also was the one to apply pressure to send aid to “his friend” Gordon.

More on Stead and his influence:

1885 saw him force the British government to supply an additional £5.5million to bolster weakening naval defenses, after which he published a series of articles.  Stead was no hawk however; instead he believed Britain’s strong navy was necessary to maintain world peace.

Stead saw peace through war.  He saw the British Navy as a global force for good.  Consider how the tools used by the elite have not had to change a bit over the 125 years since Stead’s time, as the same tools used by Stead to help usurp wealth from the British middle class remain completely effective in the propaganda campaigns designed to usurp wealth from the middle class of the US today.

…he is also credited as originating the modern journalistic technique of creating a news event rather than just reporting it, as his most famous “investigation”, the Eliza Armstrong case, was to demonstrate.

Stead had other passions, showing an ability to understand future global consolidation well before any generally visible steps:

Stead was a pacifist and a campaigner for peace, who favored a “United States of Europe” and a “High Court of Justice among the nations”….

Stead held court in high places:

[Stead] was an early imperialist dreamer, whose influence on Cecil Rhodes in South Africa remained of primary importance; and many politicians and statesmen, who on most subjects were completely at variance with his ideas, nevertheless owed something to them. Rhodes made him his confidant….

Rhodes, of course, cornered the South African diamond market with the help of rather influential friends – call them the elite of the elite.  Rhodes was also quite influential regarding British Imperial policy:

Historian Richard A. McFarlane has called Rhodes “as integral a participant in southern African and British imperial history as George Washington or Abraham Lincoln are in their respective eras in United States history…

And Rhodes was influenced by Stead.

Stead found his influence ever-growing:

The number of his publications gradually became very large, as he wrote with facility and sensational fervor on all sorts of subjects, from The Truth about Russia (1888) to If Christ Came to Chicago! (Laird & Lee, 1894), and from Mrs Booth (1900) to The Americanisation of the World (1902).

And finally, to show the well-rounded character of the man:

Stead claimed to be in receipt of messages from the spirit world, and, in 1892, to be able to produce automatic writing.  His spirit contact was alleged to be the departed Julia Ames, an American temperance reformer and journalist whom he met in 1890 shortly before her death.  In 1909 he established Julia’s Bureau where inquirers could obtain information about the spirit world from a group of resident mediums.

As mentioned, Stead died on the Titanic.  His reputation survived:

Following his death, Stead was widely hailed as the greatest newspaperman of his age…. Like many journalists, he was a curious mixture of conviction, opportunism and sheer humbug. According to his biographer W. Sydney Robinson, “He twisted facts, invented stories, lied, betrayed confidences, but always with a genuine desire to reform the world – and himself.”

Why all of this background on Stead?  Well, it seems he was a rather influential fellow within the British elite at precisely the time when the United States began its turn toward Great Britain: an empire which (to say nothing of the spat in 1776) less than a century before burned the White House and much of the capitol, and only a few decades before, while officially neutral, aided the South in their war for independence – guilty enough to ultimately pay restitution of $15.5 million for building war ships for the Confederacy.

Great Britain was officially neutral throughout the American Civil War, 1861–65. Elite opinion tended to favor the Confederacy, while public opinion tended to favor the United States.

I will suggest it is elite opinion that counts when it comes to matters of politics, for example:

Diplomatic observers were suspicious of British motives. The Russian Minister in Washington Eduard de Stoeckl noted, “The Cabinet of London is watching attentively the internal dissensions of the Union and awaits the result with an impatience which it has difficulty in disguising.” De Stoeckl advised his government that Britain would recognize the Confederate States at its earliest opportunity. Cassius Clay, the United States Minister in Russia, stated, “I saw at a glance where the feeling of England was. They hoped for our ruin! They are jealous of our power. They care neither for the South nor the North. They hate both.”

Yet as early as 1895 – only 30 years after the end of the war – the US and Britain began their courtship.  And in the background was William Thomas Stead.

Finally, on to his book and the first chapter:

As it was through the Christian Church that the monotheism of the Jew conquered the world, so it may be through the Americans that the English ideals expressed in the English language may make a tour of the planet. (Page 3)

Setting aside the exaggeration of the claim, given the religion of statolatry (to borrow a phrase from Charles Burris), the comparison seems quite appropriate.

Stead saw the inevitability of the United States taking the preeminent position among the English-speaking nations.  He looked at population growth over the preceding 100 years (including empire), but also at differentiating the white population from the non-white (a recurring theme in his writing); he felt strongly that it was the white population that was of importance.

We are comparing the English-speaking communities.  The right of leadership does not depend upon how many millions, more or less, of colored people we have compelled to pay us taxes. (Page 5)

Stead, not shy, makes plain one purpose of colonizing people of color – compelling tax payments.  Stead also discounts the millions of British subjects in, for example, India, Africa, and the West Indies when it comes to considering the trends of population and future supremacy.

Population should be weighed as well as counted.  In a census return a Hottentot counts for as much as a Cecil Rhodes; a mean white on a southern swamp is the census equivalent for a Mr. J.P. Morgan or Mr. Edison.

A nation which has no illiterates can hardly be counted off against the Russians, only three per cent of whom can read or write. (Page 9)

He also sees no hope for reversal of this trend in favor of the US and to the detriment of Great Britain – not only in population but also industrial production and therefore capability of global reach.

Having presented this case, he suggests Britain embraces this inevitable change, restoring old bonds:

The philosophy of common sense teaches us that, seeing we can never again be the first, standing alone, we should lose no time in uniting our fortunes with those who have passed us in the race. Has the time not come when we should make a resolute effort to realize the unity of the English-speaking race?  …while if we remain outside, nursing our Imperial insularity on monarchical lines, we are doomed to play second fiddle for the rest of our existence.  Why not finally recognize the truth and act upon it?  What sacrifices are there which can be regarded as too great to achieve the realization of the ideal of the unity of the English-speaking race? (Page 6)

Stead sees continuous contention between the United States and Great Britain for control of global trade, with Britain eventually and ultimately the loser.  Stead is writing during the very early phases of the Great Rapprochement.  As regarding great sacrifices, considering the tremendous work done by Great Britain behind the scenes to create the propaganda in the US necessary to drag the American people into two world wars (as I view these wars as key to formalizing the transition of power), it seems reasonable to conclude that Stead’s suggestion that no sacrifices should be considered too great was taken quite seriously.

Stead goes on to outline the power and control available through a united US and British front: population, land mass, control of the seas and most navigable rivers.  And gold: “With the exception of Siberia they have seized all the best goldmines of the world.” (Page 7) Not a barbarous relic, apparently.

Between the two, they have seized the dominions of Spain, despoiled the Portuguese, the French and the Dutch, and left nothing but scraps to Italy and the Germans. (Page 7)  The only statistic in which these non-English-speaking nations hold the lead is in the amount of national debt! (Page 11)

Stead is looking for a savior, someone to lead in bringing these two – the US and Britain – into one, with the US taking the leading position:

The question arises whether this gigantic aggregate can be pooled.  We live in the day of combinations.  Is there no Morgan who will undertake to bring about the greatest combination of all – a combination of the whole English Speaking race?

The same motive which has led to the building up of the Trust in the industrial world may bring about this great combination in the world of politics.  (Page 12)

Presumably he is writing here of the work done by Morgan in consolidating the US steel industry.  Of course, Morgan also had connections with the same elite family that assisted Rhodes with diamonds in South Africa:

In 1895, at the depths of the Panic of 1893, the Federal Treasury was nearly out of gold.  President Grover Cleveland accepted Morgan’s offer to join with the Rothschilds and supply the U.S. Treasury with 3.5 million ounces of gold to restore the treasury surplus in exchange for a 30-year bond issue.

It should also be kept in mind: McKinley was a Rockefeller man; Rockefeller had ties to Germany.  Teddy Roosevelt, beneficiary of McKinley’s assassination, was a Morgan man; Morgan was a strong friend of Britain.  It seems the “Morgan” that Stead was looking for in the political combination was the same “Morgan” that he was referring to in the industrial combination.

Stead sees the impossibility of the American people accepting a combination where those in America would accept being subservient again to the crown:

It is, of course, manifestly impossible, even if it were desirable, for the Americans to come back within the pale of the British Empire. (Page 15)

Instead, he suggests Britain should accept reunion “on whatever terms may be arrived at.” (Page 15)

While not an overt political reunion, it certainly seems that a reunion was accepted by the British – and ultimately the U.S.  If one visible actor can be placed at the center of this “success,” I will suggest it is Winston Churchill.  For much of the first half of the 20^th century, Churchill played a leading role in British politics; even when not in an official position, he was communicating directly with Roosevelt behind the scenes in order to facilitate America’s entry into the Second World War – the final event in ensuring the transition.

During this time, Britain (or more precisely, the British population) certainly paid the price of reunion – “whatever terms necessary,” as Stead suggested in 1902: the terms for the British population can be seen in the blood of two world wars, inflation, a depression, a loss of manufacture and industry.  This price was paid over the next 50 years.  In the end, the United States clearly stood on top of the English-speaking world.

One politician, more than any other, stood in a position of leadership and influence while Britain was economically and physically bled: Winston Churchill.  Presiding (in various roles) over such a massive loss of Empire would normally result in the derision of the leader.  Yet Churchill is exalted.  Perhaps it has little to do with his role in the death of the British Empire, but because of his role in the birth of the larger, Anglo Empire.  For this reason, the gatekeepers of mainstream history frame Churchill in a praiseworthy manner.

And one writer, a man who traveled within and influenced the highest circles of the elite, wrote the book before the events even occurred: William Thomas Stead.

I will continue with further posts regarding this book as I find comments of import.  In the meantime, the examination of this one life and this first chapter has provided insights supportive of my working hypothesis regarding the transition of elite power and control from Great Britain to the United States.

The Best of Bionic Mosquito

Copyright © 2014 Bionic Mosquito

Previous article by Bionic Mosquito: State Sponsored Terrorism

The Ukrainian Dystopia

The Ukrainian Dystopia – Domestic and Foreign Factors

by Leonid Savin

Ex: http://www.geopolitica.ru

 

First of all, the situation in Ukraine is not as simple as it is being described by the Western media and Brussels/Washington politicians. The protest was started just before the Vilnius summit of the Eastern Partnership at the end of November 2013. Actually, most of protesters didn’t read the proposed agreement about the association with the EU, but were galvanized by leaders of the oppositional parties (Svoboda, Udar, Batkivschina). The slogan was that Ukraine is part of Europe (yes, of course, there was no doubt about this), but only a few interested individuals knew that such an agreement of association had previously been signed with… Jordan, Morocco, and some other countries.

 

This document was developed as tool of the EU’s soft power for engagement of the African and Eastern European markets. When President Yanukovich did not sign this agreement, the West initiated a colossal campaign against him: from political and diplomatic pressure to direct support of the Ukrainian opposition. We must take into account that the opposition, both nationalistic and liberal, was supported by the EU and USA years before through grant program.

 

Klichko’s Udar party was especially supported by Germany (he is also a resident of Germany). Russia has supported the decision of the Ukrainian president and provided a large discount for gas supplies and a loan of $15 billion. This gesture of good will was interpreted by the opposition and Ukrainian right-wing nationalists as the imperial ambitions of Moscow. From this point of view, Yanukovich is a puppet of Russia.

 

Some Ukrainian oligarchs also started to actually support the opposition because they are not pleased with Yanukovich and have their own funds abroad. Of course, there were long consultations between these oligarchs and Western politicians for how to better increase the pressure against the president, and the protests were intensified. We see that the general frontline of the protests was captured by ultra-radical groups similar to the Black Bloc of the antiglobalist movement a few years ago, but with a different political orientation.

 

These right-wing groups committed most of the violence during the protests (the destruction of Lenin’s memorial, attacks on police with Molotov cocktails, the ‘occupying’ of governmental building), and the political opposition was an umbrella that brought together these radicals. In reality, neo-Nazi radicals are strongly against the EU and European values and have no any road map for the future of Ukraine. They are funded by an umbrella of opposition groups (300 UAH for a day’s stay on Maidan and 2000 UAH for those who attacked police with Molotov cocktails. 1 $ US = 8 UAH) and both structures (the political opposition and neo-Nazi urban insurgents) choose the victims – it is the president, the Party of Regions, and the police.

 

After violent attacks near the ministers’ offices, parliament issued new laws pertaining towards addressing responsibility for such acts of protests and violence. But even these measures did not provide a cure for the crisis. On 25 December, three policemen were captured by extremists (one was wounded by a knife) and illegally held in one of the captured buildings in Kiev. The same day, Yanukovich proposed giving the post of prime minister to the leader of the Batkivshina party (Yatsenyuk) and the post of vice-prime-minister to Klischko (they refused).

 

Despite Western allegations otherwise, there really wasn’t much police violence, and the government does have the legal right to use such power if need be. In two words, we have a conflict between the established legal structures (president, parliament, other governmental structures) and those with self-proclaimed legitimacy (the opposition with mass support), as described by Carl Schmitt. The problem is that the opposition is very active, but the followers of the president, government, and order are passive. When the “Euromaidan” civil activists in Kiev and other regions began their street blockades and use of violence, the majority of Ukrainians did nothing and hoped that the police and the security service would intervene. But a paralyzed police force cannot perform their own standard functions because the opposition describes such measures as “violence against the people”.

 

The current problem is that the opposition umbrella does not have control over the violent neo-Nazi groups in Kiev and other regions, and some opposition leaders are nervous about their own place in any future political system in Ukraine. Another problem is that the “Euromaidan” activists have raised support from abroad (including from the Ukrainian diaspora) under the idea of “the people fighting against an authoritarian regime”. The masses do not usually understand the complexity behind such situations, and thus, they are profitably manipulated by those who are directing the destabilization.

 

The Strategic Landscape

 

The general context of these (and previous) protests may be found in the political system of Ukraine – it is liberal capitalism. For the last ten years, the social sector was destroyed, and Ukraine experienced a rapid rise in unemployment. Many citizens therefore needed to go abroad for work (Russia, Poland, and the European countries) or immigrate. When the “Orange Revolution” started in 2004, there was lots of optimism. The majority believed in changing the status quo and there were many calls of “Yes, we can!”. But this process of reorganization was twisted and stagnant.

 

The leaders were politically impotent, and corruption increased by leaps and bounds. The governmental system became more rotten than it had ever been before, and this process continued to accelerate. When Yanukovich returned to the presidency, he did not do enough to pursue radical changes to this trend. He cares more about his own “clan”, and this began the conflict between the oligarchs.

 

As I wrote above, some of them began to support the opposition (whereas they had supported Yanukovich in the past). The feeling of “yes, indeed” penetrated the minds of some oligarchs and they began to play their own game. Yet, they did not understand that another game was already in effect and that they were simply pawns within it!

 

Yanukovich understood that associating with the EU would be the last major political decision he would make. After the agreement, he would have to release Yulia Timosehnko (the former prime minister) from jail, and there is even a chance that he himself would then be sent to jail! Secondly, EU association would mean the implementation of protective tariffs from Russia. Russian gas would then be sold to Ukraine for the same price as it is to the EU. For example, in 2014 it would be about $370-380 per 1000 cubic meters, but Belarus would only be paying $175!!!

 

 

The difference can most certainly be felt, especially when one thinks about the economy’s industrial complex. In the process of building the Customs Union and the Eurasian Union, Russia will be very sensitive about any economic vectors near and around its own space. Ukraine would lose access to the huge Russian (but also Belarusian and Kazakh) market for its own goods, as well as the cheap goods coming out of the Customs Union. But the protesters do not think in geopolitical norms. They only rely on emotions…

 

European Involvement

 

European leaders are really confused. The European and US politicians need to stop and think before they continue to act, as they do not fully understand what it is they are doing. In the EU, we see much more police violence during protests than is the norm. When information about right-wing neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine entered into the Western media, there was cognitive dissonance. When Ukrainian Jews were attacked by the same protesters standing in Maidan, there was a strong reaction from the international Jewish community, but the European establishment once more expressed cognitive dissonance.

 

They wanted a planned and manipulated reality, but real life is different than their constructed images of it. They even wanted to present different images and pictures of what is happening. After two people were killed, new questions emerged: what is happening inside the opposition’s camp, and why can’t the opposition leaders control the radical groups under their own umbrella? I think that the European security services have knowledge and experience in dealing with leaderless resistance movements and insurgent anarchism, but the recognition of this occurring in Ukraine would also lead to the recognition that the Ukrainian government must use force to combat this extremist (even with European assistance)! In actuality, the EU does not have special think tanks or well-educated analysts that focus on Ukraine. Therefore, the European community does not have enough information about what is happening there, what its roots are, and what the possible tree of scenarios could be.

 

The Goals of the Ukrainian Opposition

 

The opposition wants to organize new presidential and parliamentary elections because that is the only legal way to change the power system. Because new presidential elections are scheduled for March 2015, this crisis is a serious test for Yanukovich. For the opposition, it is chance to get more publicity, because until now, they were supported only by some regions. And with the promotional aid of the EU and US, such a goal will be easier. On the other hand, they do not have a single leader to rally behind, so we could see an internal battle be waged inside the opposition’s camp in the future.

 

Ukraine actually has a very clear electoral map where one can see which region votes for the Party of Regions and which support the nationalists’ parties. If confidence in Yanukovich decreases, then he will lose support from the East and South of Ukraine (his classic base of electoral support). Nonetheless, Yanukovich is a legal president and he will not leave office before his term is over – this is certain. His post is guaranteed by the Constitution, and he has already proposed a plan for ending the crisis. The opposition does not have any such constructive ideas, and they speak with the language of ultimatums. This attitude is impossible to use in any normal negotiations, and the EU understands this very well. Therefore, they (the outsiders) cannot propose anything and just have to wait to see what happens.

 

The Role of the Media 

 

Most of the Ukrainian and European media take an incendiary position. There has been a lot of misinformation spread about the events in Kiev. Some US media outlets have used strategic rhetoric, for example, the Foreign Affairs magazine issued by the Council on Foreign Relations used the word “ceasefire” in an article about the process of ongoing negotiations between the authorities and the opposition.

 

Such a discourse is symbolic of a war of conscience against the state of Ukraine. Blogs and social networks are also effective in advancing this campaign. If one looks at a map of the “Euromaidan” hashtag, most activity will be seen as coming from three locations – Kiev, Washington, and London! Alternative media can also be of use in finding out more information about various figures of the opposition, for example, Oleg Tyagnibok of the Svoboda Party (formerly the Social-Nationalist Party of Ukraine), statements from his hate speeches (mostly against Jews, Russians, Poles, and communists), his background, and where he gets his money from to fund his current activities.

 

External Actors 

 

Ukrainian MPs, the prime minister, and even oppositional leaders (Klichko) already recognized that there have been manipulations and interference from abroad. This means that external influence has already happened. If regime change occurs, this will not mean anything good for Ukrainians. Radicals are radicals under any regime. They will use Molotov cocktails again, but this time, the target of their attacks will be the EU’s occupational regime, the degraded culture of the West, banks, and corporations (under the auspices of honor and Ukrainian independence, of course). This type of bourgeois right-wing nationalist that we currently see on Maidan will be emancipated in the near future.

 

Some oppositional leaders will get preferential treatment from the West, while a select few will be used as technical actors during the consequent engagement of Ukraine with the West. European institutionalism is a good tool for gradual reforms, but with the rise of Euroscepticism, especially in the neighboring countries of Hungary and Slovakia, this will no longer be as easy as before. The “Palestine-ization” of Ukraine could worryingly occur. There is a serious present crisis affecting the state system, political processes, national identity, geopolitical thinking, and sovereignty. I think that the key decisions that we see in the upcoming days will address each of these topics. Then we will see a test that can gauge the actual sovereignty of Ukraine.

 

The Geopolitical Scale 

 

In this crisis, the main geopolitical actors are trying to get new experience in order to use it for their own benefits. Russia is following a clumsy strategy of engagement and acts more reactively than proactively. The EU seems to be a timid actor, as the Ukrainian vector had been a fault line in the European strategy for many years. Because of the economic crisis and problems with its own identity within the EU, Ukraine is perceived as a difficult partner.

 

The homogenization of the Ukrainian space would not go as easily as previously planned, and Ukrainian society is divided in their vision of the future. The US continues to battle against Russia and the Eurasian Union. For this reason, Ukraine is a good place to wage such a campaign. The timing is on the side of the US, because the Olympic Games in Sochi may distract the global public (in a similar fashion as the 2008 Olympic Games in China provided a cover for Saakashvili’s regime to begin military aggression against South Ossetia). In this situation, Ukraine loses its geopolitical maneuverability very quickly. The moderate balance that served as a useful political tool for Ukraine’s external activities during the presidency of Leonid Kuchma no longer works. This is because in a geopolitical sense, Ukraine does not understand the necessity of a strong alliance with Russia and the Eurasian bloc, as without it, the country will be slowly devoured by the EU and manipulated by the US. Separatism could also possibly occur in Ukraine.

 

The first mirage of this processes emerged in 2004, but now the situation is more complex and there will be more than two separate pieces if this scenario becomes reality. The Zakarpatie region (bordering Hungary and Slovakia) does not want to be in an independent Western Ukraine. The Crimea has some Tatars who generally supported the “Euromaidan” events, so a conflict in the Crimea Autonomous Republic is also possible there, especially when we take into account that many Tatars have already been waging jihad in Syria and now have experience in military insurgency.

 

Conclusion 

 

Any results of “Euromaidan” will be negative both for the Ukrainian people and regional geopolitics. The society inside of the country is divided, and part of it thinks in the framework of revenge and resentment (both sides of the current conflict). The process of reconciliation will not be fast and easy. The only possible way for a positive political development would be innovation, but the Ukrainian political elites are lazy and do not have enough intellectual skills and experience to devise such innovations, as neither do the opposition. European and US advisors will not bring winning ideas to the Ukrainian opposition. The radical nationalistic sector thinks only about the realization of their own ideas which are similar to xenophobia and Nazism. Because of the activity of these aforementioned elements, there is no possibility to marginalize and “freeze” them.

 

The oligarchs will also try to use radicals as a frontline to further their own profit. It is very strange that the nationalists cooperate so closely with the cosmopolitan oligarchs and the neoliberals in Ukraine, because the doctrine of Ukrainian nationalism is against oligarchy and globalization. This alliance thus symbolizes nothing besides the hypocrisy that is standard for business interests involved in politics. Therefore, the new state of a hypocritical Ukraine is the most plausible scenario that we will have in the future.

Réflexions sur le péril démographique musulman russe

Alexandre Latsa:

Réflexions sur le péril démographique musulman russe

Ex: http://french.ruvr.ru

Nombre de commentateurs souvent proche de certains milieux d’extrême droite européens ou néoconservateurs américains mettent en avant comme faiblesse fatale pour la Russie le fait que le pays devrait rapidement devenir un Etat majoritairement musulman. Sa population comprendrait déjà de 13 % à 15 % de musulmans (soit 19 à 22 millions de personnes) et ce nombre devrait rapidement grossir puisque, toujours selon ces experts américains principalement, les femmes du Caucase musulman auraient 10 enfants !

Pour d’autres analystes journalistiques, la Russie comprendrait 30 à 40 millions de musulmans, soit jusqu’à 25 % de la population de Russie, condamnant de façon irréversible le pays à devenir un califat. Pour eux à l’horizon 2050 la Russie devrait se transformer en une sorte de Russabia, pendant russe de l’Eurabia de l’Ouest du continent.

Ces théories se sont brusquement développées lorsque durant les 2 ou3 dernières années sont apparues des vidéos sur les prières de rue de la communauté musulmane à Moscou qui selon certains sites laïcistes « submergeraient Moscou » comme Paris ou d’autres villes d’Europe.

En réalité il n’en est rien.

Ces prières ont lieu une fois par an dans la capitale de Russie et contrairement à la situation dans d’autres pays européens, elles sont organisées volontairement « par » les autorités municipales russes « pour » les croyants musulmans. La capitale de Russie comprend en effet quatre mosquées pour les quelques deux millions de musulmans que la ville connaît et dont la grande majorité sont issus d’Asie centrale mais travaillent dans la capitale. Il faut noter que les musulmans ne sont pas les seuls à être « mal logés » puisque selon Alexandre Boroda de la fédération des juifs de Russie, 500.000 juifs vivraient à Moscou alors que la ville ne comprendrait actuellement que quatre synagogues.

D’un point de vue des évolutions démographiques internes à la fédération de Russie, force est de constater que les chiffres et les faits vont aussi pour l’instant à l’encontre de ces prévisions catastrophistes.

Le recensement de 2002 annonçait le chiffre de 14,64 millions de musulmans en Russie soit un peu moins de 10 % de la population du pays à cette époque. Selon une analyse du Pew Research Center, un think-tank américain spécialisé sur les questions démographiques et sociales, on serait arrivé à 16,4 millions en 2010. Toujours selon ce think-tank, en 2030 on devrait arriver à 18,6 millions de musulmans en Russie (sur une population de plausiblement 150 millions soit 12 % de la population totale du pays) mais cela seulement si leur progression se maintient à 0,6 % / an selon Didier Chaudet. La population musulmane passerait donc de 9% de la totalité de la population du pays en 2002 à autour de 12 % en 2030.

Qu’en est-il des chiffres dont on dispose ?

Le district du Caucase du Nord qui représente 6,7 % de la population de Russie n’a « produit » (en 2013) « que » 8,7 % des naissances du pays, incluant les minorités russes présentes dans cette région. Les trois républiques les « moins russes» du grand Caucase Nord que sont la Tchétchénie, le Daghestan et l’Ingouchie (qui comprennent à elle trois moins de 3 % de Russes ethniques) ont connu à elle trois 98.801 naissances en 2013 (contre 99.909 en 2012 soit une baisse de 1,7 %) c’est à dire 5,5 % des naissances de toute la fédération de Russie, un taux presque identique à celui de 2006 comme on peut le constater ici.

L’ensemble de toutes les républiques musulmanes de Russie, du Caucase (Tchétchénie, Daguestan, Ingouchie, Adygué, Kabardino-Balkarie et Karatchaïévo-Tcherkessie) ainsi que de la Volga (Tatarstan et Bachokorstan) ont connu cette année 286.402 naissances pour 14.443.611 millions d’habitants, soit un total de 15 % du total des naissances du pays pour 13,2 % de la population de la fédération de Russie.

Il ne faut pas cependant pas oublier que nombre de ces républiques « musulmanes » ont en outre de fortes minorités russes (36 % au Bachokorstan, 33 % en Karatchaïévo-Tcherkessie, 30 % au Tatarstan, 25 % en Kabardino-Balkarie) voir une majorité russe comme c’est le cas en Adygué avec 63 % de russes.

Bien sûr, nombre de citoyens de ces républiques sont à Moscou et aussi de façon moindre à Saint-Pétersbourg, ce qui contrebalance un peu la tendance. Mais en même temps ce ne sont pas les minorités tatares ou caucasiennes moscovites (russifiées et urbanisées) qui ont dans leur intérêt de bâtir un nouveau califat ou de faire sécession bien au contraire.

En effet selon une étude de Gallup de 2007 49 % des Russes musulmans ne priaient jamais (66 % pour les jeunes générations), 46 % ne sauraient pas prononcer la profession de foi musulmane, 50 % boiraient de l'alcool et 27 % mangeraient du porc. Nulle surprise dés lors que selon les derniers sondages de 2013 « seulement » 7 % de la population se déclare musulmane (contre 4 % en 2002 et 6 % en 2007) pendant que 68% des sondés se déclarent eux orthodoxes contre 50 % en 2002.

Ce retour en religion des Russiens et des habitants de la Russie est sans doute l’une des principales raisons du renouveau démographique russe et de la hausse du nombre de naissances ces dernières années, avec la forte propagande d’Etat entamée en 2005 et évidemment la hausse continue de l’amélioration des conditions de vie, qui incluent l’obtention des primes à la naissance.

Par conséquent et à ce jour, une Russabia ne se profile vraisemblablement pas d’un point de vue démographique interne et sans une potentielle immigration extra-russienne soutenue comme cela pourrait cependant être le cas en provenance d’Asie centrale, comme abordé ici et là. N

Les opinions exprimées dans ce contenu n'engagent que la responsabilité de l'auteur

L’Allemagne, la Russie et la crise ukrainienne

L’Allemagne, la Russie et la crise ukrainienne

Ex: http://www.dedefensa.org

La nouvelle équipe mise en place au ministère des affaires étrangères allemand présente une perspective très intéressante, essentiellement au moment où la crise ukrainienne prend des dimensions internationales importantes. En effet, c’est tout aussi essentiellement du point de vue des relations avec la Russie, et cela dans le cadre de la tension ukrainienne, qu’il faut considérer cette nouvelle équipe.

Nous parlons d’une “nouvelle équipe”, dans le contexte que nous proposons, parce qu’il faut parler, à côté du ministre Frank-Walter Steinmeier qui a été nommé en décembre 2013, de Gernot Erler, nouveau chef des relations avec la Russie et les pays de l’ex-URSS dans ce ministère (titre de sa fonction : “Coordinateur responsable de la Russie, de l’Asie centrale et des pays de l’Eastern Partnership”). Erler est entré en fonction jeudi dernier et a aussitôt exposé aux journalistes ses conceptions (voir EUObserver, le 31 janvier 2014)

• Les deux hommes sont des SPD, ce parti ayant réclamé pour lui ce grand ministère des affaires étrangères comme une des conditions de sa participation à la coalition avec Merkel. La politique russe de Frank-Walter Steinmeier est très spécifique, comme il l’a montré dans les quatre années (2005-2009) qu’il a passées à ce poste, dans la premier gouvernement Merkel, également de coalition. On peut dire qu’il s’agissait, pour l’essentiel, d’une poursuite discrète de la politique Schröder (toujours pour les relations avec la Russie), en même temps que l’affirmation de Steinmeier de son peu de goût pour les pratiques-Système du politically correct. Cet extrait de l’article de Wikipédia qui lui est consacré est significatif, y compris avec citation de la réaction d’un extraordinaire cynisme inconscient du New York Times accusant, en parfait mode inverti, Steinmeier d’un “extraordinaire cynisme” parce que ce ministre-là avait observé (en 2008) qu’il fallait, comme lui-même l’avait fait, “beaucoup de courage par les temps qui courent pour ne pas rencontrer le Dalaï-Lama” quand il passait à portée de rencontre... (Donc, selon notre interprétation, il n’y a rien pour ce cas qui soit nécessairement contre le Dalaï-Lama, – autre débat, – mais beaucoup, sinon tout, contre l’obligation-Système très active en 2008-2009, – JO de Pékin et la suite, – d’aller faire ses dévotions aux Dalaï-Lama. L’extraordinaire “cynisme inconscient du New York Times” est bien de faire la bête à cet égard, et de négliger l’évidence qui aurait du l’éclairer et qui l’a plutôt aveuglé. L’aveuglement est donc avéré et le cynisme trouillard et inconscient du NYT est bien là ; mais quoi, rien de nouveau à cet égard depuis que règne le Système.)

«Russian opposition activists celebrated when Steinmeier lost elections in 2009, signaling their discontent with Steinmeier. Oleg Orlov, head of the Memorial human rights group, said that Steinmeier had prolonged Schröder's policies on Russia and that Germany's policies were “extremely bad for civil society, democracy and the country as a whole”.

»In 2008, Steinmeier refused to meet Dalai Lama. Instead, Steinmeier issued the statement “it takes a lot of courage not to meet with the Dalai Lama these days”, which the New York Times described as “extraordinarily cynical” and accused of Steinmeier of prioritizing money over human rights.»

• Merkel accepta la nomination de Erler au côté de Steinmeier le 9 janvier. On notait alors qu’il s’agissait de la reconstitution de l’équipe Schröder pour l’établissement de relations privilégiées avec la Russie  : «Erler coordinated German-Russian relations in the foreign ministry at the time when Steinmeier was chief of staff to Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. Together they secured the construction of a direct gas pipeline from Russia to Germany (Nord Stream) which bypassed Poland and the Baltic states, increasing their vulnerability to Moscow gas politicking.» (EUObserver, le 10 janvier 2014.)

• Dans le texte déjà référencé (EUObserver, le 31 janvier 2014), on a donc une excellente présentation des idées et des conceptions qui vont présider à la nouvelle équipe du ministère des affaires étrangères allemand vis-à-vis de la Russie et au moment où la crise ukrainienne place les relations avec la Russie au premier plan. Les déclarations de Erler sont d’autant plus significatives que son poste a pris l’ampleur qu’on a vue, alors qu’il était auparavant réservé aux seules relations de l’Allemagne avec la Russie. (Cela servit à son prédécesseur, Andreas Schockenhoff, pour en faire une tribune d’accusation constante de la situation des droits de l’homme et de la démocratie en Russie, sorte de base d’“agression douce” contre la Russie caractérisant alors pour une bonne part la temporairement “nouvelle” politique russe de l’Allemagne [voir le 8 avril 2013]. On mesure d’autant mieux le changement qu’apporte l’équipe Steinmeier-Erler.)

«The EU was wrong not to have analysed possible conflicts with Russia before offering the so-called Eastern Partnership to countries like Ukraine, Gernot Erler, Germany's new chief of relations with Russia and the eastern neighbourhood told journalists in Berlin on Thursday (30 January). [...]

»[Erler] said his name was floated to act as a mediator in Ukraine, where pro-EU protests in Kiev recently turned violent. But in the meantime, EU neighbourhood commissioner Stefan Fuele and EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton have taken on the task. “It is best for Germany not to seek a special role in Ukraine but rather to stick to the common European position and support the EU mediation efforts,” Erler said. [...]

»...Erler said the number one priority is to stop the violence. He said the second priority is to quickly create a functional government because “Ukraine is on the brink of bankruptcy, which would have immense consequences also for Europe.” But, looking further down the line, he said the EU must reconsider its Eastern Partnership and why the Ukraine fiasco arose. [...]

»“I am surprised that experts have been called to look into it only now – if there is a conflict between a Russian Customs Union and the Eastern Partneship. We need a solution as quickly as possible, because this is not only about Ukraine. Moldova and Georgia have finished the negotiations and want to sign the agreement this summer. How will Russia act if that happens?” Erler asked. “We have to ensure there is no tension between the Eastern Partnership and the Russian Customs Union,” he noted.

»He added that trade is just one element of concern from the Russian side, but did not elaborate on the point. But he said that if countries like Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova enter a “deep free trade agreement” with the EU, as currently envisaged by the Eastern Partnership, Moscow fears that these markets will be flooded with cheap Western products, which would undermine Russian exports. “I can understand this concern. I don't know what the solution will look like, but it seems possible and this is currently being assessed by experts,” he noted.»

On comprend évidemment l’intérêt que nous portons à cette nouvelle équipe de politique étrangère de l’Allemagne. Le terme “équipe” lui-même, au lieu de désigner le seul nouveau ministre, suffit à définir la cause de notre intérêt, puisqu’à côté du ministre l’importance de son coordinateur pour les relations avec la Russie et son “extérieur proche” est évidente et significative. Les relations de l’Allemagne avec la Russie et avec l’Ukraine, et justement les deux relations suivies et coordonnées par un seul homme, ont aujourd’hui une importance absolument considérable alors que nous sommes au cœur de la crise ukrainienne. Avec l’équipe Steinmeier-Erler, l’Allemagne sera poussée à déployer une tendance politique qui ira contre toutes les tendances activistes du bloc BAO, que ce soit celle de l’UE et de ses principaux membres (sauf l’Allemagne dans ce cas, bien entendu), que ce soit celle des USA, que ce soit celle des divers centres d’agitation et de subversion qui nous sont bien connus depuis les “révolutions de couleur”.

Nous n’entendons certainement pas porter ici un jugement de type géopolitique, puisque, nous le répétons une fois de plus pour tenter d'en instruire ceux qui nous lisent qu’il s’agit bien de notre ligne de pensée invariable, notre jugement rejette absolument cette référence dans une époque qui est installée décisivement et irréversiblement dans l’ère psychopolitique. C’est dire que nous n’apprécions nullement la nouvelle équipe Steinmeier-Erler du ministère des affaires étrangères comme un outil offensif de type géopolitique, par exemple pour établir des relations de puissance avec la Russie, ou pour toute autre entreprise du même genre. Pour nous, l’Allemagne reste un pays privé d’une véritable politique étrangère, sans la dimension de sécurité souveraine qui fait une telle politique ; par conséquent, l’Allemagne n’est pas dans une voie géopolitique d’affirmation, dans quelque orientation qu’on la considère.

Mais ce qui semblait une immense faiblesse de l’Allemagne dans l’ère précédente est devenu d’une piètre importance aujourd’hui. Si l’Allemagne ne s’est pas haussée au niveau d’un grand acteur souverain, comme le craignent les géopoliticiens qui voient constamment ces derniers temps une résurgence de la puissance allemande, les autres (USA et France en premier) se sont tous abaissés à son niveau en dissolvant leurs principes d’action dans la course effrénée pour rencontrer les consignes-Système, et opérationnaliser ce que nous nommons la politique-Système, avec l'importance primordiale accordée à la communication au détriment complet de l'action. Dans ces conditions qui sont celles d’un abaissement général qui ne saurait surprendre dans le contexte général, d’une absence totale d’action politique structurante, d’une paralysie conceptuelle à cause des pressions du système de la communication, il se trouve que l’Allemagne telle qu’elle se découvre avec l’équipe Steinmeier-Erler est parfaitement placée ; elle se retrouve à l’aise dans le jeu ordonné par l’ère psychopolitique, où les événements hors du contrôle humain ont pris le pas sur les desseins géopolitiques et les politiques qui vont avec, au profit (?) d’un immense désordre lorsqu’il s’agit de cette même appréciation géopolitique faite du point de vue des acteurs humains ignorant que l’enjeu central est désormais autour du Système et de l’affrontement Système versus antiSystème. Dans le cas qui nous occupe, l’équipe Steinmeier-Erler ressuscite indirectement, par le biais des obligations de l'ère psychopolitique, la politique Schröder des années 2001-2005, qu’on a faussement qualifiée d’antiaméricaniste à cause de l’affaire irakienne, qui fut essentiellement déployée selon une volonté de stabilité, en Europe d’abord avec les bonnes relations avec la Russie, d’une façon plus générale dans le reste du monde avec le refus de Schröder d’appuyer l’invasion de l’Irak (plutôt qu’une opposition directe). Ce sont les centres divers de pensée paranoïaque de Washington et des milieux atlantistes (think tanks et NGO diverses, des neocons à Soros) qui firent de cette politique Schröder une affirmation antiaméricaniste.

(De ce point de vue, la politique Schröder épousait parfaitement la politique française de 2002-2003, lorsque l’équipe Chirac-de Villepin retrouva les principes gaulliens de partage par universalité du principe de souveraineté nationale, au nom duquel la France s’opposa à l’expédition irakienne des USA, – et, là aussi, nullement par antiaméricanisme d'humeur ou de circonstance. (L'antiaméricanisme est là, simplement parce que les USA sont un centre-Système complètement anti-principie.) Ainsi faut-il également séparer, du côté allemand, les perspectives ouvertes par l’équipe Steinmeier-Erler de la brouille actuelle Allemagne-USA dans la crise Snowden/NSA. Le deuxième cas concerne, du côté allemand, la souveraineté intérieure allemande qui n’a rien à voir avec une politique extérieure, souveraine ou pas. La crise Snowden/NSA ne dépend certainement pas, dans sa composante allemande, des affaires étrangères mais de l’ensemble de sécurité intérieure, – ministère de l’intérieur, services de sécurité allemands, etc., – et, bien entendu, de Merkel elle-même.)

Dans les circonstances présentes, avec le bouillonnement ukrainien, avec cette nouvelle équipe Steinmeier-Erler et l’éventuelle politique qu’elle sera conduite à proposer, – Merkel ayant sont mot à dire, naturellement, – l’aspect non-géopolitique de l’activité allemande s’insère parfaitement dans le contexte général pour agir comme une pression antiSystème brutale et inattendue au milieu de l’élan général antirusse (et pro-opposition en Ukraine) du bloc BAO. (Nous irions même jusqu’à avancer que la seule présence de l’équipe Steinmeier-Erler constitue en soi une telle affirmation de communication que, même sans la nécessité d’actes politiques affirmés et sensationnels, elle imposera sa marque dans les événements en cours, notamment la crise ukrainienne.)

Nous apprécions donc l’importance fondamentale de cette nouvelle structure de la politique étrangère allemande, surtout avec le rôle élargie donné à Erler par rapport à son prédécesseur, qui lui permet de traiter directement de l’affaire ukrainienne par rapport aux liens de l’Allemagne, et de l’UE, avec la Russie, comme un élément de trouble et de contradiction plus que comme un élément constructif. Ce trouble et cette contradiction sont introduits au cœur de la politique-Système qui ne peut être qu’antirusse, et pour les circonstances plus opérationnelles, comme un élément de trouble et de contradiction au cœur de l’action de l’UE et dans les relations intra-bloc BAO, entre l’UE et les USA. Cela ne se comptabilise nullement en termes de “victoire” ou de “défaite”, encore moins en termes de stabilisation, mais en termes d’accentuation de la lutte antiSystème contre un Système en mode de surpuissance, et par conséquent en termes d’accentuation de la dynamique-Système définie par l’équation surpuissance-autodestruction, avec l’accentuation de la dynamique de surpuissance alimentant sa propre transmutation en autodestruction.

What Links the Threat of a U.S. Default with the Destabilization of Ukraine?

Nikolai MALISHEVSKI

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

At the Munich Security Conference the Ukrainian opposition and the U.S. essentially agreed on a plan to force Viktor Yanukovich to capitulate. Arseniy Yatsenyuk told of this plan of action, which was worked out with the direct participation of Western representatives, after a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and EU officials. While the «Euromaidan» is shoring up its tents, showing that it is there for the long haul, the State Department has appointed a time by which the regime change operation in Ukraine is to be finished: March 24. That is how the message which appeared on the official site of the U.S. State Department on January 24 could be interpreted:

«Ukraine Travel Alert. The U.S. Department of State alerts U.S. citizens of the potential risks of travel to Ukraine due to the ongoing political unrest and violent clashes between police and protesters. Protest-related violence, particularly in Kyiv, has escalated sharply since January 19, resulting in several deaths and hundreds of injuries.  Protesters have occupied Kyiv’s Independence Square and several government buildings in Kyiv and other cities throughout Ukraine.  Groups of young men, popularly called “titushky,” have attacked journalists and protesters and committed other random acts of violence in Kyiv and other cities.  U.S. citizens are advised to avoid all protests, demonstrations, and large gatherings.  U.S. citizens whose residences or hotels are located in the vicinity of the protests are cautioned to leave those areas or prepare to remain indoors, possibly for several days, should clashes occur.  This travel alert expires on March 24, 2014».

The start of implementation of the regime change plan most likely will coincide with February 7. Two significant events are to occur on this date: the start of the Olympic Games in Sochi and the deadline on suspension of the cap on the U.S. state debt agreed upon by the President and the Congress.

Today, as six months ago, when the situation in Syria abruptly deteriorated and everyone was expecting the beginning of a military campaign against that country, the masters of the dollar from the Federal Reserve and the U.S. government once again face the same self-destructive dilemma: to default and declare America bankrupt or to raise the debt ceiling once again and further toughen austerity measures. On the international arena this dilemma is directly linked with the need to reevaluate the status and role of American currency. 

The masters of the dollar are unable to resolve the problem which is making America's life difficult. In recent years they have merely been postponing a solution, making do with initiating cataclysms to distract attention from the dramatic situation with America's currency. Now a new flare-up in the problem has been postponed until February after something similar occurred last autumn amid the dramatic happenings which fastened the entire world's attention to Syria (the drama was instigated by America's allies among the Islamist terrorists who falsified a «chemical attack» in August 2013). A similar refocusing of the world media's attention is occurring today, but this time the role of the main «distraction» is being played by the disturbances and pogroms on the streets of Kiev and other Ukrainian cities.

Compare these two illustrations; they are identical. In the illustration framed in red are instructions in Arabic developed by American specialists during the first stage of the «popular protest» in Syria (2011). Framed in yellow are instructions in Ukrainian for Kiev's Maidan activists. 

The problem of a U.S. default first became a major issue in 2008, soon after Moscow's statement that Russia is setting a course toward economic integration of Eurasian countries. Then the Americans were able to distract the world's attention by shifting it to the slaughter in South Ossetia started by their Georgian puppets on the day of the opening of the Olympics in Beijing and to what the world media called «the beginning of the global economic crisis».

The default of the «global superpower» and the collapse of the currency system and the dollar will most likely not take place immediately after February 7 either, despite the most acute financial and economic crisis since the time of the Great Depression and the astronomical proportions of the aggregate debt of the United States. The masters of the American currency have initiated a whole series of crises which could give the dollar its next reprieve. 

The most «promising» crisis has been created around Ukraine, to whose shores the U.S. is already prepared to send its warships under the pretext of the Sochi Olympics. Thanks to the sensation surrounding the disturbances in Ukraine, key facts which testify to the acuteness of the problems facing Americans remain practically unnoticed in the world media. Such as information about the size of the drop in the real disposable income (RDI) of Americans since 1974 (the change is reflected in the following graph):

These events affect Europe as well. Even pro-American Polish politicians, such as former president of Poland A. Kwasniewski, who represents the European Parliament in Ukraine with regard to the Tymoshenko case, speak of this with alarm. «The situation in Ukraine,» says Kwasniewski, «could get completely out of the control of the authorities and the opposition and have extremely tragic consequences not only for Ukrainians, but for the European Union as well... The fact that innocent people are being killed in Ukraine could cause a wave of migration and economic problems... We truly are in danger of a great tragedy. I think that European diplomats, diplomats from neighboring countries and Poland should be very sensitive to these matters. We could end up in a spiral of events which we will no longer be able to stop..». 

Besides the crisis in Ukraine, which is distracting the international public from the upcoming battle for the future of the dollar on Capitol Hill, another three «backup» crises are being prepared in Thailand, Egypt and Syria. On the eve of the Olympics, Damascus is supposed to report on the liquidation of its chemical weapons. The plan adopted in November provides for the weapons to be completely removed from the country by February 5. However, Syria is clearly lagging behind schedule. But both Damascus's fulfillment (disarming before a potential aggressor) and non-fulfillment of its obligations with regard to chemical weapons give Washington a pretext to step up actions against Syria, Russia's last Middle Eastern frontier. It's not for nothing that at the Munich Security Conference the U.S. attempted once again to talk with Syria in the language of ultimatums, and the radical Islamists from the Caucasus Emirate, who are fighting on the side of the Syrian rebels, are already prepared to act in Ukraine after the recent call for their confederates to «go on jihad» both in Syria and in the Northern Caucasus.

Tags: European Union Federal Reserve Ukraine US

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