Ok

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

dimanche, 11 août 2013

Quelques notes sur le Pakistan

 

politique internationale,actualité,géopolitique,pakistan,inde,moyen orient,asie,affaires asiatiques

Robert Steuckers:

Quelques notes sur le Pakistan

Notes complémentaires à une conférence tenue à la tribune de l’ASIN (“Association pour une Suisse Indépendante et Neutre”), le 31 octobre 2012, à Genève, et à la tribune du “Cercle non-conforme”, le 14 novembre 2012, à Lille.

Les Etats-Unis ont donné au Pakistan, depuis les années 50, deux missions qui, au fil du temps, se sont avérées contradictoires: d’une part, demeurer un allié des Etats-Unis dans la politique d’endiguement de l’URSS et de la Chine (du moins jusqu’en 1972) et, d’autre part, soutenir les Talibans, soi-disant ennemis de l’Occident et des Etats-Unis, à partir de 1978-79, au moment où l’Iran tombe aux mains de Khomeiny et des pasadarans et où l’Afghanistan opte, après le départ de Zaher Shah, pour une politique pro-soviétique, que les puissances anglo-saxonnes ne peuvent tolérer en vertu de théories géopolitiques traduites sans faille dans la réalité politique mondiale depuis leur émergence dans l’oeuvre du stratégiste Homer Lea, rédigée dans la première décennie du 20ème siècle.

La politique pakistanaise a dès lors été fluctuante, fluctuations dont il faut retenir la chronologie pour ne pas se laisser duper par les médias dominants qui déploient leurs stratégies en pariant sur l’amnésie des peuples et des élites, mêmes académiques:

 

1.     Le Pakistan d’Ali Bhutto penchait quelque peu vers le non alignement, raison pour laquelle cet homme politique a été éliminé et pendu pour être remplacé par le Général Zia ul-Hak; Ali Bhutto avait aussi le désavantage, dans une république islamique comme le Pakistan, structurée par le mouvement sunnite “déobandi”, fondé en 1867, sous la domination britannique, d’avoir été chiite et partisan de la laïcité; il s’opposait au mouvement Jamaat-e-Islami fondé par le théologien Mawdoudi en 1941, très critique à l’égard du fondateur de la future république Islamique du Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, trop “laïque” à ses yeux, trop inspiré par des modèles européens, dont l’Italie mussolinienne;

 

2.     Zia ul-Hak suit les ordres des Etats-Unis et s’aligne sur la géopolitique préconisée par Zbigniew Brzezinski: il coopère avec les Mudjahiddins puis les Talibans en leur prêtant l’appui des services secrets pakistanais, l’ISI; le raisonnement de Zia ul-Hak n’est pas seulement pro-occidental; il ne s’inscrit pas entièrement, du point de vue national pakistanais, dans le cadre de la coopération américano-pakistanaise, en vigueur depuis les années 50: pour ce militaire arrivé au pouvoir par un coup de force, Islamabad doit se doter d’une “profondeur stratégique”, en coopérant avec les Talibans d’ethnie pachtoune, pour faire face à l’ennemi héréditaire indien, doté de l’arme nucléaire. Cette coopération armée/talibans vise à terme à unir stratégiquement les territoires afghan et pakistanais, avec l’appui stratégique des Etats-Unis et la manne financière islamique-saoudienne (versée essentiellement aux “medressahs” déobandies, chargées par le mouvement “déobandi” de ré-islamiser les masses dans l’ancien Raj indien sous domination britannique; depuis l’indépendance et depuis l’entrée des troupes de Brejenev à Kaboul en 1979, il forme des combattants de la foi, actifs au Cachemire et, très probablement, en Afghanistan). Le raisonnement de Zia ul-Hak est historique: c’est au départ du territoire afghan que les armées musulmanes ont lancé leurs offensives en direction du bassin du Gange et se sont rendues maîtresses du sous-continent indien jusqu’à l’arrivée des Britanniques au 18ème siècle; le fondateur de la République islamique du Pakistan, Mohamed Ali Jinnah rêvait d’ailleurs de reconstituer l’ancien Empire moghol; de ce fait, les intérêts musulmans traditionnels et les intérêts américains coïncidaient; pour les Pakistanais, il fallait reconstituer le glacis offensif de l’islam sunnite d’antan et menacer ainsi l’Inde, leur ennemi n°1, en disposant des mêmes atouts territoriaux (la “profondeur stratégique”) que leurs ancêtres spirituels depuis le 10ème siècle; pour les Etats-Unis, il fallait une base opératoire en marge de l’Afghanistan en voie de soviétisation, quelle qu’elle soit, pour contrôler à terme l’Afghanistan et menacer indirectement l’Inde, alliée de l’URSS puis de la Russie, et encercler l’Iran chiite, le coincer entre un bloc sunnite-wahhabite saoudien et un bloc afghano-pakistanais, également sunnite; d’autres menaces, par terrorisme interposé, étaient articulées par les services pakistanais contre l’Inde, notamment par le soutien apporté aux mouvements islamistes “Lashkar-e-Taiba” (“Armée des Purs”) ou “Jaish-e-Mohammad” (“Armée du Prophète”), actifs dans toute l’Inde mais surtout au Cachemire-et-Jammu, province himalayenne disputée entre les deux pays depuis la partition de 1947; après le 11 septembre 2001, la stratégie d’appui aux talibans n’est plus poursuivie par les Etats-Unis, qui demandent donc aux services pakistanais de cesser tout appui aux fondamentalistes afghans, ce qui ruine d’office la volonté pakistanaise de faire d’un Afghanistan fondamentaliste l’hinterland géostratégique nécessaire face à la masse territoriale indienne et ce qui disloque simultanément le dispositif pakistanais de guerre indirecte (contre l’Inde) par mouvements islamo-terroristes interposés;

 

3.     Zia ul-Hak mort, le pouvoir revient, par le biais d’élections, à la fille de sa victime, Ali Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto, présidente du “Mouvement pour la restauration de la démocratie”; en dépit de sa réputation de chiite modérée et moderniste et de son démocratisme hostile aux militaires putschistes, Benazir Bhutto ne change pas fondamentalement la politique engagée par Zia ul-Hak: elle découple l’ISI de l’état-major, le rendant plus indépendant encore, et appuie les opérations militaires des talibans en Afghanistan, visant à chasser un gouvernement trop favorable aux Russes, même après l’effondrement définitif de l’URSS;

 

4.     Musharaf —successeur de Zia ul-Hak après la mort de ce dernier en 1988 dans un accident (?) d’avion et de Mian Nawaz Sharif, renversé par un nouveau coup d’Etat en 1999— s’est retrouvé, passez-moi l’expression, le “cul entre deux chaises”, dès que la politique américaine est devenue ambigüe à l’égard des talibans, leurs anciens alliés, puis franchement hostile après le 11 septembre 2011; Musharaf devait lutter contre ses propres services, contre un ISI découplé de l’état-major général des armées par Benazir Bhutto et, par conséquent, devenu beaucoup plus “opaque”, contre les talibans (héritiers directs des Mudjahiddins anti-soviétiques) et contre le parti MMA fondamentaliste, très puissant au parlement, au nom d’une alliance américaine ancienne qui, à un certain moment, avait parié sur l’islamo-terrorisme pour chasser les Soviétiques ou les gouvernements afghans pro-soviétiques ou pro-russes, avant de se retourner contre leur propre golem; de plus, Musharaf, arrivé au pouvoir suite à un coup d’Etat, devait donner des gages à ses “alliés” américains, et promouvoir un semblant de démocratie, système qui était refusé par de larges strates de l’opinion publique, sous la forte influence des fondamentalistes, soucieux de rétablir une “sharia” pure et dure, foncièrement hostile aux idées occidentales; par ailleurs, les forces démocratiques luttaient, elles aussi, contre un pouvoir mis en place par les militaires au nom de la clause de “nécessité”; Musharaf devait constamment prouver aux Américains que le “pouvoir fort” des militaires était le seul rempart possible contre les fondamentalistes, alliés aux talibans et hostiles à toute alliance occidentale; son successeur Asif Ali Zardari a hérité de cette situation difficile, où les groupes armés fondamentalistes et la puissante caste militaire du pays n’aiment pas la “transition démocratique” imposée par Washington; Zardari souhaite aussi une “paix en Afghanistan” qui aille dans le sens des intérêts pakistanais et non indiens;

 

5.     Ralph Peters, colonel de l’armée des Etats-Unis, face à ce Pakistan fragilisé, brandit indirectement une menace, qui s’adresse aussi à l’Arabie Saoudite, à l’Iran et à la Turquie: celui de réduire leurs territoires nationaux respectifs en pariant sur les séditions et les particularismes religieux et ethniques. Si le Pakistan ne joue pas le jeu que Washington lui impose, en dépit des contradictions que ce jeu implique, les Etats-Unis feront miroiter l’émergence d’un Patchounistan indépendant regroupant les régions afghanes et pakistanaises où vivent les tribus pachtounes et l’émergence d’un Beloutchistan, également indépendant et regorgeant de matières premières importantes, qui regrouperait les territoires iraniens et pakistanais où vit le peuple beloutche (5 à 10% seulement de la population pakistanaise).

Ralph Peters: faire chanter le Pakistan

Le soutien potentiel de Washington et des autres Etats occidentaux à d’éventuels indépendantistes pachtounes ou beloutches, que fait entrevoir le Colonel Peters en commentant sa cartographie prospective du Proche- et du Moyen-Orient, sert à faire chanter le Pakistan et à l’obliger à réduire les activités trop “talibanistes” et anti-occidentales des éléments pachtouns dans les provinces frontalières bordant l’Afghanistan, ruinant du même coup toute la stratégie de soutien à des mouvements islamo-terroristes, d’abord entraînés pour combattre les Indiens au Cachemire ou pour déstabiliser l’Inde de l’intérieur. Les talibans pachtouns/afghans tout comme les islamistes en lutte contre l’Inde forment un tout, contrôlé en dernière instance par l’ISI, un tout pourvu de nombreuses passerelles: le Pakistan ne peut trancher dans le vif de cet ensemble sans se défaire de l’arme indirecte qu’il s’est forgée au fil des décennies pour lutter contre son voisin indien, notamment en manipulant le “Hizb ul-Mujahidin” et le “Jaish-e-Muhammad” au Cachemire. Participer à la “guerre contre la terreur”, voulue par les deux présidents néo-conservateurs, le père et le fils Bush, équivaut, pour le Pakistan à se faire la guerre à lui-même, à démanteler son système offensif de défense, dont certains éléments forts se révoltent, notamment en créant le TTP (“Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan” ou “Mouvement des Talibans du Pakistan”), dont le porte-paroles Eshanullah Ehsan déclare que, désormais, “Zardari et l’armée sont nos premières cibles” et que “l’Amérique viendra en second”.

Réduire le Pakistan à une bande territoriale sans profondeur stratégique?

Quant aux tentatives de rapprochement entre l’Inde et les Etats-Unis, elles fragilisent le Pakistan, soucieux de sa profondeur stratégique, qu’il perdrait automatiquement, et de manière particulièrement dangereuse, si un Patchounistan et un Beloutchistan indépendants s’inscrivaient sur la carte politique du monde, comme y ont récemment été inscrits de nouveaux Etats sécessionistes, comme le Kosovo ou le Sud-Soudan, avec l’appui de Washington. On commence à entrevoir pourquoi l’indépendance du Kosovo et celle du Sud-Soudan servent surtout à créer des précédents à répéter, le cas échéant, dans des zones de turbulences encore plus chaudes... Un Pakistan privé de ses provinces pachtounes et beloutches et réduit au Punjab et au Sindh ne serait d’ailleurs plus qu’une bande territoriale étroite et surpeuplée, s’étirant du Sud (Karachi) au Nord (Islamabad et Rawalpindi), cette fois sans aucune “profondeur stratégique”, à la merci de son ennemi héréditaire indien. Islamabad veut intervenir dans le processus de paix en Afghanistan, de manière à y faire valoir ses intérêts stratégiques, quitte à absorber tacitement, et sur le long terme, les régions pachtounes et beloutches de l’Afghanistan, de façon à former un Etat “quadri-ethnique” des Pachtouns, Beloutches, Punjabis et Sindhis: en effet, les relations cordiales entre le nouveau pouvoir afghan, mis en place par les Américains dès octobre 2011, et l’Inde inquiètent fortement Islamabad, angoissé à l’idée d’un encerclement potentiel aux conséquences désastreuses. L’Afghanistan n’a jamais reconnu le tracé de la “ligne Durand”, séparant l’Afghanistan du Pakistan depuis 1893, à l’époque de la plus grande gloire de l’Inde britannique. Cette non reconnaissance de la frontière actuelle permet d’inciter toutes les formes d’irrédentisme pachtoun. Pour y faire face, le Pakistan opte pour une alliance inter-pachtoun (mieux vaut prévenir que guérir...), regroupant les Pachtouns du Pakistan et d’Afghanistan, soustraits à toute influence indienne et dont l’armée serait encadrée par des officiers pakistanais.

Le Pakistan quitte-t-il l’orbite occidentale?

Face à la menace de “balkanisation” théorisée par Peters, le Pakistan ne reste toutefois pas inactif, comme le resterait un pays européen complètement émasculé: il a demandé le statut d’observateur dans le “groupe de Shanghaï”; il a renforcé ses liens anciens avec la Chine, noués lors de leur inimitié commune contre l’Inde dans la zone himalayenne et renforcés dès la signature des accords sino-américains forgés par Kissinger au début des années 70; le Pakistan tente d’entretenir de nouveaux rapports bilatéraux avec la Russie depuis juin 2009, qui auraient pour corollaire que le Pakistan abandonnerait à terme son inféodation à la géopolitique américaine héritée de la Guerre Froide et oublierait les effets négatifs du soutien soviétique puis russe à l’Inde. Lavrov est partisan d’un changement dans ce sens, souhaite de bons rapports russo-pakistanais mais sans rien lâcher de l’amitié russo-indienne. L’objectif russe est clair sur ce chapitre: il faut consolider le “Groupe de Shanghaï” et l’alliance informelle des “BRICS”. Derrière cette politique se profile un objectif évident et pacifiant: plus de conflits sur la masse continentale eurasienne! Les conseiles russes ont permis un rapprochement très timide avec le voisin indien (que n’admettent évidemment pas les extrémistes du TTP, susceptibles de s’y opposer par la manière forte).

Enfin, en dépit de la vieille hostilité entre Chiites et Sunnites, qui faisait du Pakistan un ennemi de l’Iran depuis la chute du Shah, Islamabad renforce ses liens avec Téhéran, ce qui inquiète non seulement les Américains mais aussi et surtout les Saoudiens: le tandem américano-saoudien parie sur le gazoduc “TAPI” (Turkménistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Inde), qui évite les territoires iranien et russe, alors que les accords irano-pakistanais visent à finaliser le gazoduc “IPI” (Iran, Pakistan, Inde), passant par le territoire des ethnies beloutches, projet qui pourrait aussi, à plus long terme, atténuer l’inimitié entre lslamabad et New Delhi, comme l’avait d’ailleurs voulu le Shah d’Iran dès la fin des années 60.

La nouvelle Realpolitik indienne et le conflit sous-jacent avec la Chine

La nouvelle Realpolitik indienne ne peut plus être considérée comme un avatar lointain du non-alignement théorisé jadis par Nehru. En dépit du rapprochement sino-indien par le truchement du “groupe de Shanghaï”, l’ennemi principal de l’Inde est aujourd’hui la Chine: ce clivage est d’ailleurs celui qui fragilise le plus l’ensemble BRICS, outre les problèmes que connait le Brésil depuis quelques mois. Face à l’ennemi héréditaire pakistanais, l’Inde peut désormais compter sur une certaine mansuétude américaine, qu’il convient toutefois de relativiser car cette “mansuétude”, toute de façade, ne sert qu’à faire chanter Islamabad ou à irriter les Chinois; lors de la visite d’Obama à New Delhi en novembre 2010, le Président américain a dicté indirectement ses conditions, en un langage faussement feutré qui relève plutôt, comme d’habitude, de l’injonction pure et simple: l’Inde doit s’engager davantage dans la propagation universelle des “droits de l’homme” (version américaine/occidentale), revenir à une forme plus idéologique du non-alignement émancipateur du tandem Gandhi/Nehru, à une sorte de tiers-mondisme revu et corrigé qui pourrait aider les Etats-Unis à damer le pion des Européens et des Chinois en Afrique subsaharienne, par exemple. Si l’Inde ne participe pas à la diplomatie subversive, dite des “droits de l’homme”, elle ne pourra pas compter sur l’appui des Etats-Unis pour faire partie du Conseil de Sécurité de l’ONU, position à laquelle elle aspire. Mais l’Inde prend surtout ombrage des relations sino-pakistanaises, se souvient de la guerre (perdue) de 1962 contre la Chine maoïste, prend au sérieux les menaces chinoises sur l’ancien Assam britannique (Arunachal Pradesh), aujourd’hui divisé en plusieurs entités administratives indiennes, soupçonne le Pakistan de favoriser l’immigration de musulmans du Bengla Desh dans le Bodoland, une entité subétatique et administrative de l’Union indienne, située dans le “Nord-Est assamite” et peuplée d’une ethnie tibéto-birmane de deux millions d’âmes, animiste, hindouisée voire christianisée et très hostile aux immigrés musulmans, accusés de faire le jeu des Pakistanais, surtout quand un tiers de la population de l’ancien Assam est désormais musulman. L’ethnie bodo craint la submersion dans une future majorité bengladaise.

L’affaire du gaz birman

Les Etats-Unis reprochent à l’Inde, quand elle articule sa double stratégie de contrer et le Pakistan et la Chine, de chercher l’alliance des Chiites iraniens et des militaires birmans, hostiles, bien entendu, à toute ingérence américaine sur le pourtour de l’Océan Indien. Quand l’Inde avait écouté les Américains et s’était éloignée de la Birmanie voisine au nom de l’idéologie occidentale des droits de l’homme, la Chine avait avancé ses pions en direction de l’Océan Indien et de la sphère d’influence indienne et avait tiré grand profit de l’isolement diplomatique imposé aux Birmans. Pire: l’affaire birmane a porté un coup dur à l’approvisionnement énergétique de l’Inde. Outre l’utilisation prévue du gazoduc IPI, saboté par tous les moyens par les Etats-Unis, contre les intérêts des trois pays concernés, l’Inde prévoyait l’acheminement de gaz birman pour ses industries en plein développement: le boycott de la Birmanie/Myanmar couplé au sabotage perpétré par le Bengla Desh, qui exige des droits de passage exorbitants, et aux troubles incessants qui secouent l’Assam (Arunachal Pradesh), a fait que les Chinois ont raflé le marché du gaz birman, désormais acheminé vers le Yunnan chinois. De plus, la Chine déploie son “collier de perles”, soit une chaîne d’installations portuaires et navales dans l’Océan Indien, du Détroit d’Ormuz au Sri Lanka et du Bengla Desh au détroit de Malaka, avec au moins quatre stations en territoire birman. L’Inde, lésée par ces avancées chinoise dans son environnement géographique immédiat, veut dorénavant défendre ses intérêts nationaux, ses intérêts vitaux et ne plus les sacrifier à des chimères idéologiques et irréalistes occidentales. Outre sa nouvelle politique positive à l’égard de la Birmanie, elle spécule sur les ressentiments anti-chinois au Vietnam ou au Japon, pratiquant dès lors une Realpolitik qui ne coïncide ni avec les intérêts américains ni avec la volonté russe d’annuler tous les conflits sur la masse continentale eurasiatique.

Trois axiomes géopolitiques à déduire des événements

Trois axiomes géopolitiques doivent être déduits de cette analyse brève de la situation fragilisée et paradoxale du Pakistan:

1)     Pas de conflits inutiles sur la masse eurasienne;

2)     Aucun soutien aux politiques américaines et saoudiennes visant à envenimer de tels conflits sur ce même vaste territoire;

3)     Liberté totale des peuples dans l’organisation de l’acheminement des hydrocarbures et d’autres matières premières, sans ingérence de puissances extérieures à leur espace (Carl Schmitt, Karl Haushofer).

 

Robert STEUCKERS.

(Rédigé à Fessevillers, Genève, Nerniers, Villeneuve-d’Asq et Forest/Flotzenberg, d’octobre 2012 à août 2013).

Bibliographie sommaire:

-          Mariam ABOU ZAHAB, “Pakistan”, in L’état du monde – 2002, La Découverte, Paris, 2001.

-          Frédéric BOBIN, “Le Pakistan veut avoir son mot à dire sur la paix afghane”, in Le Monde Hors série - Bilan géostratégique, édition 2013.

-          Gérard CHALIAND, Atlas du Nouvel Ordre Mondial, Robert Laffont, Paris, 2003.

-          Eric DENECE & Frédérique POULOT, Dico-Atlas des conflits et des menaces – Guerres, terrorisme, crime, oppression, Belin, Paris, 2010.

-          Guy SPITAELS, La triple insurrection islamique, Luc Pire/Fayard, Bruxelles/Paris, 2005.

-          Praveen SWAMI, “Le djihad au pays de Gandhi”, in Courrier international Hors-série, L’atlas du Terrorisme – Géographies, religions, politique, esthétiques, mars-avril-mai 2008.

-          Jean-Christophe VICTOR, Le dessous des cartes – Itinéraires géopolitiques, Arte Editions/Tallandier, 2012.

Articles anonymes:

-          “Afghanistan: quel avenir après 2014?”, in Diplomatie – Les Grands dossiers, n°13, février-mars 2013.

-          “Pakistan: entre le marteau et l’enclume”, in Diplomatie – Les Grands dossiers, n°13, février-mars 2013.

dimanche, 14 juillet 2013

Eu-Rus. Il protagonismo dei popoli europei e una nuova sinergia con la Russia

Eu-Rus. Il protagonismo dei popoli europei e una nuova sinergia con la Russia

da Alfonso Piscitelli
Ex: http://www.barbadillo.it
 

eu-russia-summit-l

Aymeric Chauprade è uno degli autori di geopolitica più importanti della nuova generazione. Animatore della Revue française de géopolitique  è anche presidente della Accademia Internazionale di Geopolitica. Chauprade afferma le ragioni del multipolarismo: sostiene che per riequilibrare il sistema di rapporti internazionale sia necessario un nuovo protagonismo dei popoli europei, che solo può avvenire in virtù di  una forte intesa con la Russia.

La Russia appunto. La vecchia rappresentazione secondo la quale Mosca esprimeva un potere “asiatico” ed ostile, separato dal nostro vivere occidentale da un limes invalicabile (la cortina di ferro) appare vecchia. Una rappresentazione ossidata e tossica. Archiviata per sempre l’ideologia marxista, la Russia torna ad essere nazione europea, per paesaggio, etnia, lingua, cultura e religione. Ed è naturale che gli spiriti più intuitivi del nostro tempo si prodighino per sostenere la vera, autentica  “integrazione” per la quale valga la pena di battersi. L’integrazione tra Est e Ovest dell’Europa; il respiro simultaneo dei “due polmoni dell’Europa”, come li definiva con parola ispirata  Giovanni Paolo II.

Il 13 giugno Chauprade  ha rivolto un’allocuzione ai deputati della Duma russa. “Signore e signori della Federazione Russa – ha esordito l’autore – è un grande onore essere qui per un patriota francese che come me guarda al popolo russo come a un alleato storico”. Poi Chauprade ha proseguito  con affermazioni forti di stampo sovranista: “Il nuovo bipolarismo mette di fronte, in un confronto che si amplificherà, da un lato questo totalitarismo globale, che ha distrutto la famiglia e la nazione, riducendo la persona ad un consumatore schiavo di pulsioni mercantili e sessuali e dall’altro i popoli traditi dalle loro elite, assopiti davanti alla perdita di sovranità e all’immigrazione di massa, ma che di fronte all’attacco contro la famiglia iniziano a risvegliarsi”.

Nel clou dell’intervento l’elogio di Vladimir Putin:  “Signore e signori deputati, è con il presidente Putin e tutte le forze vive della Russia, che il vostro paese ha intrapreso una ripresa senza precedenti, militare, geopolitica, economica, energetica e spirituale che ispira ammirazione nei patrioti francesi! I patrioti del mondo intero, gelosi dell’indipendenza dei popoli e delle fondamenta della nostra civiltà, in questo momento hanno gli occhi puntati verso Mosca”.

L’idea che la Russia di Putin rappresenti oggi “il polo” per coloro che si riconoscono nel retaggio e nel futuro della civiltà europea è una impressione condivisa.

Chi scrive, nel suo piccolo, ha concepito l’idea di un progetto denominato Eu-Rus e ne ha cominciato a parlare, alla maniera dei ragazzini … su facebook[1].

La “Eu” di Eu-Rus contiene le stesse lettere  della sigla UE (Unione Europea) sia pur in un ordine diverso ed  evoca anche la radice greca “eu” che nella lingua di coloro che per primi pensarono l’Eu-r-opa[2] significa bene (come nelle parole composte “eudemonia”, “euritmia”, “euforia”, “eucaristia” e – si spera di no –  “eutanasia”).

L’intenzione è quella  di realizzare con gli amici che sono interessati un network di intellettuali motivati dall’ideale della integrazione Europa – Russia.

Gli spunti di riflessione e di impegno sono tanti:

1. Affermare l’esigenza di una comunità energetica  comune, attraverso la realizzazione dei gasdotti North Stream e South Stream.

2. Battersi affinché  in tutto il continente si affermi il  programma portato avanti da Putin  di socializzazione delle  fonti energetiche. Socializzazione versus privatizzazione selvaggia.

3. Auspicare il sorgere  di un area di libero scambio comune tra Europa e Russia,  di integrazione delle  risorse tecnologiche e imprenditoriali. I grandi corridoi orizzontali che in questi anni si stanno costruendo devono essere prolungati fino a Mosca  e devono diventare  strade  a doppia corsia: sulla corsia che va verso Occidente scorrono le  risorse energetiche e del sottosuolo, sulla corsia che va verso Oriente scorre il Know How che l’Europa Occidentale oggi può mettere a disposizione.

4. Riaffermare i principi della rivoluzione nazional-democratica gaullista: capi di  governo eletti direttamente dal popolo, come oggi avviene in Francia e in Russia; con un radicale ridimensionamento di tutti i poteri non-eletti  (commissari UE, governi tecnici, ONG …)

5. Rilanciare la  politica di coesistenza pacifica con i paesi arabo-islamici secondo la linea perseguita sia pur tra difficoltà e/o incertezza dall’Italia con Mattei, Moro, Craxi, Andreotti.

6. Sviluppare anche l’idea di una graduale  integrazione militare delle nazioni europee, una integrazione che coinvolga tutte e due le potenze dotate di arsenale nucleare del continente: la Francia e la Russia.

7. Sostenere un ideale di multipolarismo basato sul principio del Balance of Power per evitare le derive belliciste che inevitabilmente derivano dal predominio mondiale di una “Unica Superpotenza”.

8. Affermare una politica sull’emigrazione corrispondente alle esigenze dei lavoratori e dei disoccupati europei, una politica che non segua gli interessi di coloro che mirano ad abbassare il costo del lavoro con l’immissione continua di nuovi soggetti nel sistema economico, ma che segua le indicazioni del formidabile discorso alla Duma di Vladimir Putin del 4 febbraio 2013.

9. Auspicare l’adozione di una politica per la famiglia corrispondente alle esigenze demografiche dell’Europa.

10. Approfondire il dialogo culturale meditando sulle esperienze spirituali  dei grandi pensatori russi: Soloviev, Bulgakov, Dostoevskij, Florensky.

11. Per la stessa ragione contribuire al dialogo ecumenico tra chiesa cattolica romana e chiese ortodosse d’Oriente.

12. Rimeditare  in chiave post-moderna il tema della III Roma.

Due sono gli errori da non commettere nello svolgimento di questa impostazione:

1. sviluppare i temi con un taglio “estremista”. La geopolitica autentica confina con la diplomazia e non con l’ideologia. La calma, la moderazione, l’equilibrio sono una sostanza migliore rispetto ai fumi dell’ideologia.

2. sviluppare il progetto con una foga polemica contro altri soggetti internazionali. Qui non si vuole essere  anti islamici o antioccidentali o anticinesi. Si vuole semplicemente essere nietzschianamente  “buoni europei” e dunque elaborare il tema della fratellanza naturale e storica tra i popoli che sono figli della Grande Madre Europa.

Siamo felici che questo progetto possa partire a bordo della nave pirata di Barbadillo. Ne parleremo nelle prossime settimane con gli amici che condividono, nella piena libertà delle loro equazioni personali, le idee di fondo del progetto.



[2] Europa era la splendida fanciulla orientale amata da Zeus (nella radice etimologia,Eu-Op, il riferimento ai grandi occhi splendenti). Il grande dio del cielo per sedurla si trasformò in Toro e condusse la fanciulla dalla sponda orientale a quella occidentale del Mediterraneo, nella terra che avrebbe preso da lei il nome

@barbadilloit

A cura di Alfonso Piscitelli

mercredi, 03 juillet 2013

LIBYE : L’Italie revient sur la « quatrième rive »

LIBYE : L’Italie revient sur la « quatrième rive »

L’art de la guerre

Dans sa rencontre avec le premier ministre Letta pendant le G8, le président Obama « a demandé un coup de main à l’Italie pour résoudre les tensions en Libye ». Et Letta, en élève modèle, a sorti de son cartable le devoir déjà fait : « un plan pour la Libye ». La ministre Bonino, fière de tant d’honneur, jure : « nous ferons le maximum, la Libye est un pays que nous connaissons bien historiquement ».Aucun doute à ce sujet. L’Italie occupa la Libye en 1911, en étouffant dans sang la révolte populaire, en utilisant dans les années 30 des armes chimiques contre les populations qui résistaient, en internant 100mille personnes dans des camps de concentration. Et, quand trente années plus tard elle perdit sa colonie, elle soutint le roi Idriss pour conserver les privilèges coloniaux. Idriss tombé, elle passa un accord avec Kadhafi pour avoir accès aux réserves énergétiques de la République libyenne mais, quand la machine de guerre USA/Otan s’est mise en marche en 2011 pour démolir l’Etat libyen, le gouvernement a déchiré, avec un consensus bipartisan du parlement, le Traité d’amitié signé trois années plus tôt avec Tripoli, en fournissant des bases et des forces militaires pour la guerre. Une histoire dont on peut être fiers. Qui continue avec le plan italien pour la « transition démocratique » de la Libye, où – comme même le Conseil de sécurité de l’Onu a été obligé de le reconnaître- se produisent « de continuelles détentions arbitraires, tortures et exécutions extra-judiciaires ». Se trouvent en jeu, explique Bonino, « non seulement l’intérêt des Libyens mais notre intérêt national » : d’où « le ferme engagement du gouvernement italien pour la stabilité du pays nord-africain ». Stabilité nécessaire à l’Eni et aux autres compagnies  occidentales pour exploiter, à des conditions beaucoup plus avantageuses qu’avant, les réserves pétrolifères libyennes (les plus grandes d’Afrique) et celles de gaz naturel (au quatrième rang en Afrique). Mais ce sont justement les champs pétrolifères qui sont  au centre des affrontements armés entre factions et groupes, dont la rivalité a explosé une fois l’Etat libyen démoli.

Le chef d’état-major libyen, Salem al-Gnaidy, a invité les groupes armés à se mettre sous le commandement de l’armée, disposée à accueillir « n’importe quelle force ». Mais ceci risque de faire exploser les affrontements à l’intérieur de l’armée, en grande partie encore à construire. L’Otan a convoqué à Bruxelles le premier ministre libyen Ali Zeidan pour établir les modalités d’entraînement de l’armée libyenne, qui -a précisé le secrétaire général Rasmussen- sera effectué « hors de la Libye ». En Libye, ceux qui tireront les marrons du feu, seront des envoyés militaires et des fonctionnaires italiens, accompagnés d’ « opérateurs humanitaires » militarisés. Personne ne sait combien coûtera cette opération, qui provoquera une nouvelle saignée d’argent public. Peu importe si augmente ainsi la dépense publique de l’Italie, qui se monte déjà à 70 millions d’euros par jour. L’essentiel est de « faire le maximum » pour que la coalition USA/Otan puisse contrôler la Libye, dont l’importance ne réside pas que dans sa richesse énergétique, mais dans sa position géostratégique dans l’aire nord-africaine et moyen-orientale. Confirmé par le fait –d’après une enquête du New York Times- que des armes des anciens arsenaux gouvernementaux sont transportées par des avions cargos qatari de la Libye à la base d’Al Udeid au Qatar, où sont déployées les forces aériennes du Commandement central étasunien, et de là envoyées en Turquie pour être fournies aux « rebelles » en Syrie. Une photo prise dans un dépôt des « rebelles » montre des caisses de munitions de 106mm pour canons sans recul M-40 et M-40 A1, avec une marque  attestant la provenance libyenne. Avec son plan pour la Libye, l’Italie contribue ainsi à la « transition démocratique » de la Syrie.

Manlio Dinucci

Edition de mardi 25 juin 2013 de il manifesto

Traduit de l’italien par Marie-Ange Patrizio

 « Quatrième rive » était une expression de la période fasciste pour désigner la colonie italienne de l’époque, la Libye, qui venait s’ajouter aux trois autres rives -adriatique, tyrrhénienne et ionique- du territoire italien.

Manlio Dinucci est géographe et journaliste

samedi, 29 juin 2013

Les guerres d'Afrique

enfants_soldat_ouganda.1194288393.jpg

Les guerres d'Afrique

Des origines à nos jours

Entretien avec Bernard Lugan

Africaniste renommé, récemment auteur entre autres ouvrages d'une Histoire de l'Afrique, d'une Histoire de l'Afrique du Sud et d'une Histoire du Maroc, expert auprès du TPI-Rwanda et éditeur de la lettre d'information L'Afrique Réelle, Bernard Lugan signe aujourd'hui une nouvelle somme.

Son livre est très logiquement divisé selon un plan chronologique en quatre grandes parties : "Guerres et sociétés guerrières en Afrique avant la colonisation", "Les guerres de conquête coloniale", "Les guerres de la période coloniale" et "Les guerres contemporaines, 1960-2013", tous conflits dont il fait le récit chronologique et factuel. On voit bien l'ampleur du sujet et Bernard Lugan nous fait plusieurs fois traverser le continent de part en part au fil des époques. La grande région sahélienne, celle des Grands Lacs et l'Afrique australe reviennent bien sûr à plusieurs reprises et certaines situations résonnent en écho jusqu'à aujourd'hui. Tous les chapitres, agrémentés d'encarts qui précisent des situations locales ou des données chiffrés, sont intéressants et l'on ne retiendra à titre d'exemple que quelques titres de la dernière partie (sait-on que pour la période 2000-2010 70% des décisions de l'ONU sont relatives aux conflits africains ?) : "La guerre civile algérienne (1992-2002)", "Les guerres de Somalie : clans contre clans (depuis 1977)", "Nigeria : de la guerre du Biafra au conflit ethno-religieux Nord-Sud", "La deuxième guerre du Kivu (depuis 2007)" : autant de coups de projecteur extrêmement utiles et souvent pertinents sur des zones crisogènes dont l'Europe ne peut pas se désintéresser (même si elle le voulait, de toute façon).

L'ensemble de ces chapitres, rédigés d'une plume alerte et toujours référencés, est complété par un cahier central d'une soixantaine de cartes en couleurs, parfaitement lisibles et pédagogiques, et le livre se termine sur un index complet et une bibliographie significative. Ceux qui connaissent déjà tel ou tel engagement pourront regretter que certaines campagnes ne soient pas traitées davantages en détail, mais aborder autant d'opérations et de combats en 400 pages témoigne d'un bel esprit de synthèse. Au total, un ouvrage appelé à devenir très rapidement de référence et que liront avec le plus grand intérêt les étudiants et tous ceux qui soit s'intéressent à l'histoire du continent, soit se préoccupent de l'avenir. 

Editions du Rocher, Monaco, 2013, 403 pages, 32 euros.
ISBN : 978-2-268-97531-0.


Bernard Lugan a bien voulu répondre à quelques questions pour nos lecteurs :

Question : Votre livre dresse un impressionnant tableau des conflits en Afrique de la plus haute Antiquité aux guerres actuelles. Par grande période, une introduction présente un résumé des évolutions, mais vous ne tentez pas d'en tirer des enseignements généraux en conclusion. Pourquoi ?

Réponse : Parce que nous ne devons par parler de l’Afrique, mais des Afriques, donc des guerres africaines. Mon livre est construit sur cette multiplicité, sur ces différences irréductibles les unes aux autres et sur leur mise en perspective. Dans ces conditions, il est vain de faire une typologie, sauf pour les guerres de la période contemporaine, ce que j’ai fait, et encore moins une classique conclusion de synthèse.

Question : La grande région saharienne-Sahel est présente dans chaque partie, des "Origines de la guerre africaine" aux "Guerres contemporaines". Pouvez-vous nous en dire davantage sur ce qui semble bien être une zone de conflits quasi-permanents ?

Réponse : Cette zone qui court de l’Atlantique à la mer Rouge en couvrant plus de dix pays, est un véritable rift racial et ethnique en plus d’être une barrière géographique. Ce fut toujours une terre convoitée car elle fut à la fois le point de départ et le point d’arrivée -hier du commerce, aujourd’hui des trafics transsahariens, une zone de mise en relation entre l’Afrique « blanche » et l’Afrique des savanes, un monde d’expansion des grands royaumes puis de l’islam.

Aujourd’hui, cette conflictualité ancienne et résurgente tout à la fois est exacerbée par des frontières cloisonnant artificiellement l’espace et qui forcent à vivre ensemble des populations nordistes et sudistes qui ont de lourds contentieux. Le tout est aggravé par le suffrage universel fondé sur le principe du « un homme, une voix », qui débouche sur une ethno mathématique donnant automatiquement le pouvoir aux plus nombreux, en l’occurrence les sudistes. Voilà la cause de la guerre du Mali, mais ce problème se retrouve dans tout le Sahel, notamment au Niger et au Tchad. Au Mali, le fondamentalisme islamiste s’est greffé sur une revendication politique nordiste de manière récente et tout à fait opportuniste. Or, comme le problème nord-sud n’a pas été réglé, les causes des guerres sahéliennes subsistent.

Question : On a dit beaucoup de choses sur le retentissement de l'échec italien lors de la première tentative de conquête de l'Ethiopie à la fin du XIXe siècle. Si les conséquences en politique intérieure à Rome sont compréhensibles, ces événements ont-ils un écho réel dans les autres capitales européennes et sur le sol africain lui-même ?

Réponse : L’originalité de la défaite d’Adoua est qu’elle a, sur le moment, mis un terme au projet colonial italien. Ce fut une défaite stratégique. Français, Anglais et Allemands connurent eux aussi des défaites, les premiers, notamment au Sahara, mais cela n’interrompit pas la prise contrôle de ces immensités ; les Britanniques furent battus à Isandhlawana, ce qui n’empêcha pas la conquête du royaume zulu ; quant aux Allemands, ils subirent plusieurs déconvenues contre les Hehe et les Maji Maji, mais l’Est africain fut néanmoins conquis. Le désastre italien fut d’une autre nature, d’une autre échelle, alors que, à l’exception d’Isandlhawana, Anglais, Français et Allemands ne perdirent en réalité que des combats à l’échelle d’une section, au pire, d’une compagnie. Quant aux Espagnols, même après leurs sanglantes déroutes lors de la guerre du Rif, leur présence dans le Maroc septentrional ne fut pas remise en cause et, dès qu’ils décidèrent d’utiliser leurs troupes d’élite comme le Tercio et non plus des recrues tant métropolitaines qu’indigènes, ils reprirent le contrôle de la situation. Il faut cependant remarquer qu’avant son éviction par Pétain, Lyautey avait, comme je le montre dans mon livre, rétabli la situation sur le front de l’Ouergha et de Taza, ce qui enlevait toute profondeur d’action aux Riffains.

Autre conséquence, auréolée par sa victoire de 1896, puis par sa résistance sous Mussolini, l’Ethiopie eut un statut particulier d’Etat leader du mouvement indépendantiste et ce fut d’ailleurs pourquoi, dès sa création en 1963, le siège de l’Organisation de l’unité africaine fut établi à Addis-Abeba.

Question : Vous décrivez "Un demi-siècle de guerres au Zaïre/RDC", et l'on a finalement le sentiment qu'une amélioration de la situation reste très hypothétique. Comment l'expliquez-vous ?

Réponse : Ici le problème est sans solution car il n’est pas économique mais ethnique et politique. Nous sommes en effet en présence d’un Etat artificiel découpé au centre du continent à la fin du XIX° afin de retirer le bassin du Congo à la convoitise des colonisateurs et cela afin d’éviter une guerre européenne pour sa possession. Cet Etat artificiel, désert humain en son centre forestier, englobe sur ses périphéries de vieux Etats comme le royaume Luba, l’empire Lunda ou encore le royaume de Kongo. Ces derniers ont une forte identité et leurs peuples ne se reconnaissent pas dans l’artificielle création coloniale qu’est la RDC. Quant à l’impérialisme rwandais qui s’exerce au Kivu, il entretient un foyer permanent de guerre dans tout l’est du pays. La raison en est claire : étouffant sous sa surpopulation, le « petit » Rwanda doit trouver un exutoire humain s’il veut éviter le collapsus. De plus, comme 40% du budget du pays provient de l’aide internationale et le reste, à plus de 90% du pillage des ressources du Congo, pour le Rwanda, la fin de la guerre signifierait donc la mort économique du pays. Appuyé par les Etats-Unis qui en ont fait le pivot de leur politique régionale, le Rwanda exploite avec habileté ce que certains ont appelé la « rente génocidaire » pour dépecer sans états d’âme la partie orientale du pays.

Question : Vous intitulez la partie dans laquelle vous traitez de la décolonisation : « Des guerres gagnées, des empires perdus », pouvez-vous nous expliquer pourquoi ?

Réponse : Parce que la parenthèse coloniale fut refermée sans affrontements majeurs, sans ces combats de grande intensité qui ravagèrent l’Indochine. En Afrique, les guérillas nationalistes ne furent jamais en mesure de l’emporter sur le terrain, pas plus en Algérie où les maquis de l’intérieur n’existaient quasiment plus en 1961, qu’au Kenya où les Britanniques avaient éradiqué les Mau Mau, ou encore que dans le domaine portugais -à l’exception de la Guinée Bissau-, où, et mes cartes le montrent bien, l’armée de Lisbonne était maîtresse du terrain. En Rhodésie, la pugnace et efficace petite armée de Salisbury avait réussi à tenir tête à une masse d’ennemis coalisés, massivement aidés par l’URSS et la Chine avant d’être trahie par l’Afrique du Sud qui pensa naïvement acheter son salut en abandonnant les Blancs de Rhodésie. Partout, la décolonisation fut un choix politique métropolitain ; elle ne fut nulle part imposée sur le terrain. Les combats de grande intensité apparurent après les indépendances, dans le cadre de la guerre froide, et je les décrits dans mon livre : Angola, South African Border War, Corne de l’Afrique, Congo etc.

Merci très vivement pour toutes ces précisions et plein succès pour votre ouvrage. A très bientôt.

 

 
 

Africa in the Context of BRICS and Geopolitical Turbulence

afr.png

Africa in the Context of BRICS and Geopolitical Turbulence

by Leonid SAVIN

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

After the terrorist attacks on the WTC in New York, the US began to implement a new foreign policy vision and strategy for global order. Its elements synchronized with the doctrine of ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’ that was detailed in the 1996 Defense Department policy directive “Joint Vision 2010”[1]. In accordance with this concept, US armed forces should be "persuasive in peace, decisive in war, pre-eminent in any form of conflict"[2]. The militarization of the Africa continent is to be conducted hand-in-hand with the exploitation of African resources by Western corporate interests. The terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre on September 11th 2001 opened US eyes to the strategic advantage of  creating a relatively ‘safer’ West and West-Central African, in particular Nigeria, whose sources of high quality crude oil are rapidly transportable across the Atlantic Ocean to refineries in populous cities on the North American eastern industrial seaboard[3]. For example, 92.3 % of African imports to U.S in 2008 consisted of oil[4]. The ‘War on Terror’ has also provided US-NATO command with justification for securitising the ‘dangerous’ West African Muslim states.

In 2006 the US began military exercises on land and sea in different African countries. Since 2008, AFRICOM, the US military Command Center responsible  for Africa, has been officially operational. In 2010 the Pentagon began active military cooperation with several governments in the region (Senegal, Cape Verde, Ghana, Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of São Tomé e Príncipe, Mali, and Niger) and has established a military presence in the southern and northern states of Nigeria where the oil fields are located.

The argument that AFRICOM is primarily designed to provide humanitarian support has largely disappeared. Yet the United States still struggles to persuade the African people of the benefits of AFRICOM. To most observers, Africa has never been the intended beneficiary of AFRICOM. Based on the historical record, including direct comments from National Security Advisor James Jones, co-founder of AFRICOM, the goal of the new command is to protect U.S. access to oil and to protect U.S. corporate interests in Africa. Many African countries certainly have serious security concerns. But the behaviour of the states and the national militaries in question, combined with international economic interests, are often the catalysts for that insecurity. The question is whether the United States supports the forces of democracy and rule of law in Africa or whether, by treating dissent with military force rather than traditional law enforcement techniques, the United States has undermined democratic movements and encouraged extremism and the growth of anti-Americanism[5]. Another strategic goal of AFRICOM is to counter and roll-back Chinese economic expansion in the region[6].      

The other reason that African policy is a US priority for the next decade is geopolitical and strategic order. In the midst of the current economic-financial crisis, Washington should, as a major global player, direct its efforts in maintaining its positions in global zones, penalty to pay, in the best outcome, a rapid reorganization in regional power, or in the worst, a disastrous collapse, difficult to overcome in the short term. Instead, in line with the traditional geopolitical expansion that has always marked its relations with other parts of the planet, Washington chose Africa with its ample space to manoeuvre, from which to relaunch its military weight on the global plane in order to contest the Asian powers for world supremacy[7]

Another tool of US penetration into Africa is economic-financial structures and programs (seen in the case of sanctions against Sudan and the interference of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in the relationship between the Democratic Republic of Congo and China) with such initiatives like the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).  Communication strategy should also be seen as a vector for US interest promotion in Africa, such as Obama’s speeches, already considered “historic”, in Cairo and Accra[8].

Attempts to establish control over Africa runs under the guise of new generation partnership and dialogue as well[9]. Africa underdevelopment is also a strategic concern for US geopolitical designs. U.S. military strategist Thomas Barnett has spoke about the ‘non-integrated gap’ of Africa and Middle Asia that must be integrated into the functional global core[10].

The Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), as an influential instrument of U.S. foreign policy also provides the US government with recommendations for dealing with African states. In Contingency Planning Memorandum No.11 "Crisis in the Congo" issued in May 2011 CFR advocated Washington to take several bilateral and multilateral steps to reduce the risk of violent instability, including: to improve Regional Engagement, use its influence through the office of the World Bank's American executive director, ensure a UN Presence, increase support for basic military training , etc.[11].

The US’s military presence in Africa also facilitates control over the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, particularly in light of the emergence of new phenomena and threats such as piracy, the spreading of information technologies that can to be used for destabilization, water crises, and demographic crises.

The potential threat of conflicts rooted in ethnicity, religion, and tribal politics is a serious challenge for Africa. For example, in Nigeria with a population of 150 million, there are about 250 different ethnic groups, the population is divided between Christians and Muslims, and there are several active rebel groups. Out-of-the-box Western principles of parliamentary democracy based on class divisions do not function in societies divided in terms of identity on these lines[12]. A more complex and tailored approach taking into account regional history, culture, and identity divisions is needed. African critics claim that Europe and the US do not understand the nature and needs of social mobilization in Africa, where economic concerns coexist with ethnic and other divides.

But the economic crisis also demonstrates the contradictions and instability of the neoliberal global economic system, because of which, on the one hand African countries are threatened by transnational capital and re-colonialism, and on the other hand alternatives open to the issues of multilateral cooperation and self governance[13].

An important strategic initiative is the bloc of BRICS countries that have the possibility to turn African policy into a new paradigm. Geopolitically, Russia, India, Brasil and China are Land Powers (Not excluding of course, the necessity to have strategic sea lines of communication for transportation of goods, energy and natural resources).

China, India and Brazil are building relationships that take place within the framework of interaction between post-colonial countries[14], and therefore, these States inspire a higher degree of confidence and trust in Africa, than does the EU and the US with their colonial legacies The most successful foreign policy has been demonstrated by China, through the mechanisms of soft power for economic, industrial and cultural penetration.

 One possible alternative trend also is the possibility of the strengthening of the East African Community – a regional economic group with a population of more than 126 million people, whose members include Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. South Sudan with its huge oil reserves also has the potential to join this group[15]

Italian geopolitician Tiberio Graziani notes that,

Africa, in order to safeguard its own resources and stay out of disputes between the US, China, and probably Russia and India – disputes that could be resolved on its own territory – needs to get organised, at least regionally, along three principal lines that pivots with the Mediterranean basin, the Indian Ocean, and the Atlantic Ocean.

The activation of economic and strategic cooperation policies, at least regarding security, between the countries of North Africa and of Europe, on the one hand and similarly with India (to that aim note the Delhi Declaration, drawn up in the course of Summit 2008 India-Africa), on the other, besides making the African regions more interconnected, sets up the basis for a potential future unification of the continent along regional poles and entered in the broadest Euro-Afro-Asian context. Likewise, the Atlantic line, that is the pursuit of strategic south-south cooperation  between Africa and Indo-Latin America, would foster, in this case, the cohesion of western African nations and would contribute to the unification of the continent.  In particular, the development of the Atlantic line would reinforce the weight of Africa relative to Asia, and to China in the first place[16].

But this plan is based on the old geopolitical scenario of the political game. We have proposed to look at this situation from another point of view. Besides the established concept for global order of unipolarity and multilateralism, there exists the alternative concept of multipolarity (or pluripolarity).

In the unipolar world model, the BRICS countries are thought of separately, as intermediates zones between the core and the periphery of the world or between the centre of globalization and the non-integrated gap. With this approach, the elite of these countries must integrate into the global elite and the masses be consumed in a global melting pot with other lower social strata, including through migration flows and in so doing, lose their cultural and civilizational identity.

But in terms of the multipolar world view, the BRICS can be conceived fundamentally differently. If these countries can develop a common strategy, form a consolidated approach to major global challenges, and develop a joint political bloc, there will come into being a powerful international institution capable of birthing the multipolar world, with enormous technical, diplomatic, demographic and military resources[17].

This project should change the structure of the BRICS to that of a powerful global organization that will be able to dictate their demands to other participants (three countries of BRICS have armed with own nuclear weapons).

  So, with the economic and intellectual potential of the BRICS countries and the experience of intercultural and interethnic relations of complementarity, the only true geopolitical strategy for the African continent and in relation to it will be multipolarity.




[1] Joint Vision 2010. Pentagon. Washington, DC. 1996. [Электронный ресурс] URL: http://www.dtic.mil/jv2010/jv2010.pdf (дата обращения 01.09.2010).

[2] Ibid. P. 2.

[3] Ifeka C. AFRICOM, the kleptocratic state and under-class militancy. 2010-07-22, Issue 491. [Электронный ресурс] URL: http://pambazuka.org/en/category/features/66140 (дата обращения 12.03.2011).

[4] U.S. - African Trade Profile. Dept. of Commerce of  the U.S. [Электронный ресурс] http://www.agoa.gov/resources/US_African_Trade_Profile_2009.pdf (дата обращения 15.12.2010).

[5] Africa Action and FPIF Staff. Africa Policy Outlook 2010. January 22, 2010. [Электронный ресурс] URL: http://www.fpif.org/articles/africa_policy_outlook_2010 (дата обращения 04.03.2011).

[6] Энгдаль У. АФРИКОМ, Китай и война за ресурсы Конго. 06.12.2008. [Электронный ресурс] URL:  http://www.warandpeace.ru/ru/exclusive/view/30290/ (дата обращения 15.12.2010).

[7] Graziani T. L’Africa nel sistema multipolare. 27 novembre, 2009. [Электронный ресурс] URL:  http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/lafrica-nel-sistema-multipolare/2311/ (дата обращения 15.05.2011).

[8] Ibidem.

[9] Molefe M. Oxford opens a New Chapter on Pan-Africanism. 2011.03.16. [Электронный ресурс] URL:  http://pambazuka.org/en/category/Announce/71762 (дата обращения 15.12.2010).

[10] Barnett T. The Pentagon's New Map. Putnam Publishing Group, 2004.

[11] Marks, Joshua. Crisis in Congo. Contingency Planning Memorandum No. 11. N.Y.: C.F.R. May 2011. [Электронный ресурс] URL: http://www.cfr.org/democratic-rep-of-congo/crisis-congo/p25031?cid=nlc-rfpbulletin-memorandum_crisis_congo-051911 (дата обращения 15.05.2011).

[12] Amin S. Eurocentrism. Modernity, Religion and Democracy: A Critique of Eurocentrism and Culturalism. Fahamu books, 2010.

[13] Dani Wadada Nabudere. The Crash of International Finance-Capital and its Implications for the Third World. Fahamu books, 2009.

[14] Emma Mawdsley, Gerard McCann (ed.). India in Africa: Changing Geographies of Power. Pambazuka Press, 2011.

[15] Marco Picardi and Hamish Stewart. Building Africa: Where's The United States? May 27, 2010. [Электронный ресурс] URL: http://www.fpif.org/articles/building_africa_wheres_the_united_states (дата обращения 15.12.2010).

[16] Graziani T. L’Africa nel sistema multipolare. 27 novembre, 2009. [Электронный ресурс] URL: http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/lafrica-nel-sistema-multipolare/2311/ (дата обращения 15.05.2011).

[17] Дугин А.Г. Геополитика. – М: Академический проект, 2011. С. 511.

 

Регион: 

jeudi, 27 juin 2013

Énigme turque et ours russe

bosphore-peinture-L-4uNxJe.png

Énigme turque et ours russe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mardi, 25 juin 2013

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

“L’Occident s’allie avec Al-Qaeda”

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

Entretien avec Peter Scholl-Latour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propos recueillis par Bernhard Tomaschitz.

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

Выпуск XIX. Индия

Выпуск XIX. Индия

 

 

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

Файл в формате pdf: 

mercredi, 19 juin 2013

Élection d’Hassan Rohani

cheikh-hassan-rohani1.jpg

Élection d’Hassan Rohani : vers un rééquilibrage géopolitique de l’Iran ?

 
Le résultat des élections est il une surprise ?

A l’évidence, aucun analyste n’avait prévu la victoire d’Hassan Rohani au premier tour de l’élection présidentielle [vendredi dernier]. Mais il ne faut pas oublier que l’Iran est un pays imprévisible qui puise sa créativité et son esprit d’innovation dans une culture poétique inaccessible aux prévisions mathématiques.

Les réformateurs l’ont ils emporté ?
 
Contrairement à ce que l’on pourrait penser, la distinction entre réformateurs et conservateurs s’avère peu opérante en Iran. La preuve en est que parmi les six candidats en lice, cinq étaient classés ultraconservateurs ou conservateurs pragmatiques. Il s’agit de Saïd Jalili, d’Ali-Akbar Velayati, de Mohsen Rezaï d’Hassan Rohani et de Mohammad Ghalibaf. Seul un candidat, Seyed Mohammad Gharazi, était qualifié de modéré. A ce compte, les Iraniens avaient mathématiquement 83% de chances d’élire un conservateur. C’est oublier que le monde iranien est marqué depuis des siècles par un rêve qui n’a rien de conservateur, celui de réformer le monde musulman en prenant sa tête. Mais ce rêve souterrain, qui hante la plupart des hommes d’État iraniens se heurte à deux obstacles : l’Iran n’est ni Sunnite ni Arabe. Il est par conséquent tenu à l’écart par les pays musulmans qui s’effraient de son inépuisable créativité. Devant ce rejet, les Iraniens sont tiraillés entre deux types d’évolutions : soit un basculement vers l’Occident ou à l’inverse une consolidation des liens avec l’Asie. Même si les Iraniens se perçoivent comme des Occidentaux, ils ont été contraints par les sanctions récentes à se rapprocher simultanément de la Russie et de la Chine pour former une alliance plastique que l’on pourrait qualifier de Nouvel Empire Mongol.

Il conviendrait, par conséquent, de repenser la distinction entre réformateurs et conservateurs au profit d’un nouveau gradient Occident/Orient. Or cette nouvelle distinction bouleverse les schémas établis car il n’est pas plus conservateur de se tourner vers la Chine que vers l’Europe. La véritable question est par conséquent la suivante : qui l’a emporté entre les Océanides – partisans d’un rapprochement avec la puissance maritime américaine – et les Gengiskhanides – qui souhaitaient un rapprochement avec la Russie et la Chine. Les Iraniens nous ont répondu aujourd’hui de façon totalement inattendue avec la victoire des Iranides un tiers parti qui souhaite le retour à une politique d’équilibre internationale. Aujourd’hui, le Nouvel Empire Mongol connaît un vacillement et ce n’est pas tout à fait un hasard si les chancelleries russe et chinoise ont du mal à se positionner ce soir sur le résultat de l’élection.

Quel est le profil du nouveau président ?

Parmi les six candidats, les hommes ayant exercé des fonctions diplomatiques importantes étaient surreprésentés : il s’agissait de Saïd Jalili, ancien Vice-Ministre des Affaires Étrangères, d’Akbar Velayati ancien Ministre des affaires étrangères, et d’Hassan Rohani qui a une grande expérience de la diplomatie puisqu’il a été personnellement en charge du dossier nucléaire. A l’évidence, ces diplomates l’ont emporté sur les spécialistes de l’ordre intérieur

Peut on espérer un règlement de la question nucléaire ?

Il faut s’attendre à une inflexion sur ce point. Nous avons aujourd’hui un signe fort. Même s’il est improbable qu’Hassan Rohani remette en cause la volonté de l’Iran de mettre en place une filière nucléaire, les négociations peuvent avancer. Leur échec actuel s’explique en partie par la très grande difficulté pour les Occidentaux à prendre au sérieux les spécificités culturelles et juridiques de l’Iran. A la différence de la France, l’Iran a été occupé pendant près de mille ans par des puissances étrangères. Cette occupation a marqué en profondeur ses élites qui ont mis au point des procédés de négociation extrêmement sophistiqués afin d’assurer leur survie politique. Or, depuis la découverte des hydrocarbures, l’Iran est devenu le centre géopolitique de la planète contrôlant simultanément les richesses énergétiques de la mer Caspienne et du Golfe Persique. Cela amène les négociateurs iraniens à réfléchir à chaque mouvement diplomatique. Contrairement à ce que l’on pourrait penser, l’Iran n’a pas donné le signal d’une proche normalisation. D’un point de vue intérieur, il a opéré un rééquilibrage en se repositionnant au centre. Dans ces circonstances, il ne fait guère de doute qu’Hassan Rohani n’acceptera de ralentir la nucléarisation de l’Iran qu’à condition que la communauté internationale accorde à l’Iran le statut de puissance régionale. Car au fond, par delà ses difficultés économiques, l’Iran aspire par dessus tout à une dignité retrouvée sur la scène internationale.

Thomas Flichy

Historien du droit et des institutions
Source : Realpolitik.tv.

vendredi, 14 juin 2013

M. Drac : Enjeux géopolitiques pour l'avenir

Entretien avec Michel Drac :

Enjeux géopolitiques pour l'avenir

War and Water

War and Water: Hydropolitics Propel Balkanization in Africa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jeudi, 13 juin 2013

Europe, Globalization and Metapolitics

 

Robert Steuckers:

Europe, Globalization and Metapolitics

Questions by Leonid Savin (April/May 2013)

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

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

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

Interviewed by Leonid Savin

samedi, 08 juin 2013

Euro-Atlantism must be replaced by Eurasianism

Euro-Atlantism must be replaced by Eurasianism

by Gabor VONA

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Thank you for the opportunity.

By Leonid Savin

Finnish-Caucasian Emirate

Finnish-Caucasian Emirate

by Nikolai MALISHEVSKI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lundi, 03 juin 2013

John Morgan: The Fourth Political Theory

The Fourth Political Theory

An interview with John Morgan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

vendredi, 24 mai 2013

Infoavond met Fernand Keuleneer in Leuven

Infoavond

met Fernand Keuleneer

in Leuven

31 mei 2013



0

.

Vrijdag 31 mei 2013 om 20 uur

Infoavond

Syrië, een typisch 21ste-eeuws conflict?

Beschouwingen over internationaal recht, mensenrechten, republiek en religie

Met als gastspreker:

Fernand KEULENEER

Advocaat aan de balie te Brussel

.

201008191849-1_parket-misleidt-bevolking-over-operatie-kelk.

Plaats: Stellazaal Café Tempo

Baron August de Becker Remyplein 52

3010 Kessel-Lo.

Aan de achterkant van het station van Leuven.

Vrije toegang mits twee consumpties per persoon.

Organisatie: Mediawerkgroep Syrië – Email: info@MWSyria.com – Blog: http://MWSyria.com – Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/MWSyria – Twitter: @MWSyria

 

dimanche, 19 mai 2013

Les Russes vent arrière

SYRIA1_G_20120207181843.jpg

Les Russes vent arrière

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

samedi, 18 mai 2013

The System Against Syria . . . & Russia

Putin Assad.jpg

The Hollow Empire
The System Against Syria . . . & Russia

By Gregory Hood 

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

In the wake of the Boston bombing, there was some hope among the dwindling number of true believing conservatives that the long awaited Grand Alliance Against Jihad would finally come to fruition.

The news that Russian intelligence had warned [2] the FBI about Tamerlan Tsarnaev and subsequent raids [3] on Muslim “extremists” within Russia prompted a flurry of activity on conservative websites. The emerging motif within the American Right is that Vladimir Putin may be a sinister tyrant and anti-American (and a Communist from the KGB!), but he’s at least a serious and competent national leader who recognizes the threat of Islamic terrorism. The reaction at the grassroots forum FreeRepublic to the news that Secretary of State John Kerry was kept waiting in Moscow was laughter [4], rather than patriotic fury. As President Putin patiently lectures Barack Obama to the delight [5] of conservative chatterers, at least some of the hoi polloi of the American Right are dreaming about the Red Army and the 101st Airborne joining forces to romp through Grozny.

Keep dreaming.

The result of the Boston bombing will not be a Russian-American rapprochement. Instead, it will lead to an acceleration of The System’s efforts to encircle Russia, especially by increasing aid to “rebels” opposed to Russian ally and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

More importantly, it is the foreign policy experts of Conservatism Inc. that are leading the way. Senator John McCain, taking a break from his work pushing a nation-breaking amnesty as part of the “Gang of Eight,” is calling for “game-changing [6]” aid to the rebels in Syria. Senator Lindsey Graham is going further, calling for ground troops to secure supposed chemical [7] weapons.

Meanwhile, among the conservative press, the talking heads are sensing an opportunity to attack President Barack Obama for being “weak.” Charles Krauthammer repeatedly mocks [8] Obama’s impotence in the face of Syria crossing his “red line” by using weapons of mass destruction. National Review has called [9] for military aid to the rebels, but don’t worry, only the “secular,” non-militant ones. And of course, the Weekly Standard moans [10] that Obama has failed to “topple an Iranian ally,” but rejoices that our “strategic ally” Israel has begun bombing the country. If Conservatism Inc. has a core message, it’s that President Obama is not “strong” enough.

What makes it almost funny is that it’s Bashar al-Assad who explicitly laid out what is likely to happen. Assad warned that the West paid heavily for supporting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and it is now supporting it in Syria. The cost will come in the “heart of Europe and the United States.” This is precisely what happened in Boston, when years of extensive American support [11] for Muslim rebels in Chechnya evidently did nothing to endear Chechnyan immigrants to the American way of life, any more than tens of thousands of dollars in welfare.

The truth is that whatever one says about Bashar al-Assad, the opposition at this point in time is precisely who he said it was at the beginning – Muslim extremists allied with Al Qaeda, openly hostile to the West. Furthermore, Assad’s stubborn hold on power is fueled by his stalwart defense of minority communities within Syria, especially Christians. Finally, while the best the United States can say is that it has “varying degrees of confidence” that Assad used chemical weapons, the United Nations is hearing testimony that it was the rebels [12] who used sarin gas on civilians. Not surprisingly, it’s also the rebels who have heroically taken UN peacekeepers hostage [13], to the utter indifference of those who usually care about such things.

American hawks, led by the supposedly anti-jihadist conservatives, seem blithely unconcerned about all of this. Of course, we just saw this movie in Libya. The glorious Libyan revolution led to the outright murder of an American ambassador and other American officials. Only Congressional Republicans seem to care, and are widely mocked by the media for doing so. Muammar al-Gaddafi of course, was a largely secular dictator who had openly declared his allegiance with the United States during the War on Terrorism. This didn’t stop America from helping his enemies butcher him and anally rape his corpse with a knife. Today, Islamic radicals are far more powerful in Libya than they were before Gaddafi’s fall. Bernard-Henri Lévy, the “French” Jew who helped lead the effort to overthrow the government, is today banned from the country because he is a Jew [14].

It’s not about terrorism, or democracy, or even Israel. American foreign policy is already post-American, designed to break down any centers that show signs of independence from the international financial system of Wall Street and London. It is no coincidence that Gaddafi suddenly fell from favor when he began to move away [15] from trading oil in dollars. Syria also represents a territory that still has a degree of real independence from the global banking system. It is for that reason it must be broken. Geopolitically, Russia is the final target, as its large energy reserves and nationally conscious ruling class prevent it from being simply absorbed into the system of financial control that rules the West.

But what do American neoconservatives, the true believers of Empire, think about all this? On the surface, Barack Obama has actually strengthened the “jihad,” presiding over the fall of largely secular governments in states like Egypt, welcoming the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to power, and actively continuing American military aid. Sure enough, accusations that Obama is naive at best and malevolent at worst are a largely consistent feature of the American Right’s take on his foreign policy. However, this paranoia about a Muslim Brotherhood caliphate supposedly uniting the Middle East misses the reality that these states are actually far weaker, and less independent, than they were previously.

A leader like Assad or Saddam Hussein is able to use his personality and ideology to make his regime the focus of loyalty among the population. In Egypt, while the Muslim Brotherhood has achieved political power, it has having a hard time [16] consolidating its rule. While Iran represents a unity of political, religious, and economic sovereignty under an ideologically oriented and permanent regime, Egypt is still up for grabs. Under the “open society,” the controlled media, civil society groups under the control of George Soros or the U.S. State Department, and an army of international activists are free to manipulate the system from the top down. Even if there are short term gains for so called “radical” Islam, the growth of sharia law in Egypt does not threaten the power of international finance, any more than the growth of sharia law in neighborhoods of Copenhagen or Denmark. What does threaten international finance is a nationally (or worse, ethnically) conscious people, united under nationally conscious leadership that is willing and able to wield state power.

On a global scale, Russia is leading this resistance. Putin’s decision to ban the “pro-democracy” groups and foreign activists responsible for the “color coded” revolutions in Eastern Europe marked his transition to an anti-American “bad guy” in the eyes of the media. Whatever his (many) failings, Putin insists on his idea of “sovereign democracy” and the survival of Russia as a self-conscious entity. This is echoed in Assad’s pronouncement that he has no alternative but victory, as if he loses, “Syria is finished” in the same way that Iraq today is simply a geographic expression. Talk of Islamization, terrorism, or who is “pro-Western” or “anti-Western” conceals the real agenda. In the world of the future, peoples are to have no collective existence, aside from a token form allowed to non-whites who are incapable of maintaining any real independence.

While it’s comforting to believe that the American Empire is on its last legs, there’s little to suggest that the geopolitical position of the United States is actually growing weaker. Serbia has long since fallen, stripped of Kosovo, and voted into the anti-European Union after an international propaganda campaign. Iraq has fallen. Syria is on the brink. Despite the drones patrolling entire regions of the world, the American military is actually remarkably restrained considering the country’s actual potential. The country’s current military expenditures of about 4.5 percent of GDP is well below [17] the 45 year average. If pressed, the United States could easily expand its military.

Patriotic American conservatives are the essential bulwark to this system. They fight the wars, as the combat arms and Special Forces are still overwhelmingly white. They provide the intellectual justification for interventions around the world. They salute the flag and promote the idea of the military as an honorable profession. Nonetheless, what is driving American foreign policy is something beyond imperialism, capitalism, or even the frenzy for white dispossession. We are moving towards an end game that is openly discussed and openly defended. That end game is precisely what was defined in Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man, the “Open Society,” rule by finance and media, worldwide, forever.

Such an agenda has nothing to do with any recognizable form of American patriotism, but this does not stop American conservatives from seeking to marshal what is left of the traditional American nation for one final democratic crusade. As Mitt Romney maintained, Russia is our “number one geopolitical foe.” Perhaps the most important reason that American conservatives must never be allowed to regain power is that they truly believe their own propaganda when it comes to foreign policy. After all, the only things the American conservative movement has to show for its unlimited control of the American government in the early 21st century are upper class tax cuts, and the Iraq War.

Where does leave the North American New Right? The system is anti-White, but it is more than that. As Noam Chomsky said [18],

Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist — just because its anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic — there’s no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangable cogs who will purchase all the junk that’s produced — that’s their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevent, and usually a nuisance. (Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky [New York: The New Press, 2002], pp. 88–89)

The critical divide between the System and those forces against it is the question of sovereignty. The System seems to break apart any collective identity or defense by peoples against the global power structure of finance and media. America is the iron fist that facilitates this transition, enabled by the useful idiots of the American Right. Israel, as the nationalist state of the “Chosen” is the one permitted exception, but even their ethnostate may be caught in the larger pattern and break down in the long term. In the end, Muslim or Christian, white or black, you will be assimilated [19].

Russia is not some lost ideal for the North American New Right, Putin is not some nationalist paragon, and Russian exports like the Fourth Political Theory are not some glorious path to victory for us. Nonetheless, the only geopolitical imperative that matters today is the ability of states and abilities to secure an independent existence from this system. Without this potential, even talking about ethnostates and White Republics misses the point. For that reason, states as diverse as Chávez’s Venezuela [20], Iran, and above all Syria deserve our attention. Breaking patriotic American conservatives away from their minders at Conservatism Inc. is a critical strategic objective. The Boston bombing is an opening.

Syria is not just fighting against Al Qaeda and hypocritical Zionism in defense of Christian minorities. It’s fighting in defense of the idea that peoples – any peoples at all – have the right to exist. White American conservatives [21] have to decide if they would rather be the vanguard of the Hollow Empire – or a people in their own right.

 


Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/05/the-hollow-empirethe-system-against-syria-and-russia/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/AssadPutin.jpg

[2] warned: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2013/April/Russia-Warned-US-Boston-Suspect-a-Follower-of-Islam/

[3] raids: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3013410/posts

[4] laughter: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3016778/posts

[5] delight: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/04/vladamir-putin-lectures-obama-on-radical-islam-during-phone-call/

[6] game-changing: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/05/mccain-syria-rebels-aid_n_3218839.html

[7] chemical: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/28/mccain-boots-on-the-ground-in-syria-the-worst-thing-the-united-states-could-do/

[8] mocks: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/30/krauthammer_on_obamas_response_to_chemical_weapons_in_syria_chain_of_custody_what_is_this_csi_damascus.html

[9] called: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347270/al-assad-crosses-red-line

[10] moans: http://www.weeklystandard.com/keyword/Syria

[11] support: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/chechens-and-american-hawks-an-interesting-alliance/

[12] rebels: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505

[13] hostage: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/07/4-un-peackeepers-detained-by-armed-men-in-syria/

[14] because he is a Jew: http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/03/26/prominent-jew-banned-from-libya-he-helped-make/

[15] move away: http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/markets/item/4630-gadhafi-s-gold-money-plan-would-have-devastated-dollar

[16] hard time: http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/70632/Egypt/Politics-/Hundreds-protest-Brotherhoodisation-of-Alexandria-.aspx

[17] below: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/defense-spending-and-gdp.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/03/12/how-health-care-spending-strains-the-u-s-military/&h=340&w=750&sz=14&tbnid=vd4URV-1Uvml1M:&tbnh=63&tbnw=138&zoom=1&usg=__1QyLeRBzLPrBuUM4v-Fc78kZXBc=&docid=KVwmIU-HhnzHhM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sLmLUeyrObO50QHSzoHYBg&ved=0CGAQ9QEwBg&dur=351

[18] said: http://www.newrightausnz.com/2005/11/28/big-business-as-a-supporter-of-anti-racism-noam-chomsky/

[19] you will be assimilated: http://alternativeright.com/blog/2013/4/30/resistance-is-futile

[20] Venezuela: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/03/two-cheers-for-chavez/

[21] White American conservatives: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/11/a-white-nationalist-memo-to-white-male-republicans/

jeudi, 09 mai 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

L'Iran contre la diplomatie saoudienne au Liban

par Jean Aziz,  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

syroil177061743.jpg

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

Global Research

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

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

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

International law and its violators.

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

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

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

The 1981 UN document explicitly condemns:

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

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

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

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

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

EU governments colluding with terrorists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Syria’s Oil Geopolitics

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

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

Dinucci writes:

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

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

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

The closing of the European mind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grotius again:

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

samedi, 04 mai 2013

Die Krise in Griechenland und verborgene Ölkriege

Die Krise in Griechenland und verborgene Ölkriege

F. William Engdahl

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

 

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

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

jeudi, 02 mai 2013

Vers une dislocation géopolitique mondiale

LA FIN D’UN MONDE OCCIDENTALO-CENTRISTE

Vers une dislocation géopolitique mondiale

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

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

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

qulph.jpg

Irak, Afghanistan, Libye, Syrie…

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

Rony Brauman*

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

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

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

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

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

dimanche, 28 avril 2013

The Secret Financial Network Behind "Wizard" George Soros

george-soros.jpg

The Secret Financial Network Behind "Wizard" George Soros

 

by William Engdahl

Ex: http://balder.org/  

EIR Investigation Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), November 1, 1996

The dossier that follows is based upon a report released on Oct. 1 by EIR's bureau in Wiesbaden, Germany, titled "A Profile of Mega-Speculator George Soros." Research was contributed by Mark Burdman, Elisabeth Hellenbroich, Paolo Raimondi, and Scott Thompson.

............................................................................

  George Soros - Barack Hussein Obama - Cartoon
  Obama - George Soros (György Schwartz)

Time magazine has characterized financier George Soros as a "modern-day Robin Hood," who robs from the rich to give to the poor countries of eastern Europe and Russia. It claimed that Soros makes huge financial gains by speculating against western central banks, in order to use his profits to help the emerging post-communist economies of eastern Europe and former Soviet Union, to assist them to create what he calls an "Open Society."

The Time statement is entirely accurate in the first part, and entirely inaccurate in the second. He robs from rich western countries, and uses his profits to rob even more savagely from the East, under the cloak of "philanthropy."

His goal is to loot wherever and however he can. Soros has been called the master manipulator of "hit-and-run capitalism."

As we shall see, what Soros means by "open," is a society that allows him and his financial predator friends to loot the resources and precious assets of former Warsaw Pact economies. By bringing people like Jeffrey Sachs or Sweden's Anders Aslund and their economic shock therapy into these economies, Soros lays the groundwork for buying up the assets of whole regions of the world at dirt-cheap prices.

The man who broke the Bank of England?

An examination of Soros's secretive financial network is vital to understand the true dimension of the "Soros problem" in eastern Europe and other nations.

Following the crisis of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism of September 1992, when the Bank of England was forced to abandon efforts to stabilize the pound sterling, a little-known financial figure emerged from the shadows, to boast that he had personally made over $1 billion in speculation against the British pound. The speculator was the Hungarian-born George Soros, who spent the war in Hungary under false papers working for the Nazi government, identifying and expropriating the property of wealthy fellow Jews. Soros left Hungary after the war, and established American citizenship after some years in London. Today, Soros is based in New York, but that tells little, if anything, of who and what he is.

Following his impressive claims to possession of a "Midas touch," Soros has let his name be publicly used in a blatant attempt to influence world financial markets---an out-of-character act for most financial investors, who prefer to take advantage of situations not yet discovered by rivals, and keep them secret. Soros the financier is as much a political animal, as a financial speculator.

Soros proclaimed in March 1993, with great publicity, that the price of gold was about to rise sharply; he said that he had just gotten "inside information" that China was about to buy huge sums of gold for its booming economy. Soros was able to trigger a rush into buying gold, which caused prices to rise more than 20% over four months, to the highest level since 1991. Typically for Soros, once the fools rushed in to push prices higher, Soros and his friend Sir James Goldsmith secretly began selling their gold at a huge profit.

Then, in early June 1993, Soros proclaimed his intent to force a sell-off in German government bonds in favor of the French, in an open letter to London Times Financial Editor Anatole Kaletsky, in which Soros proclaimed, "Down with the D-Mark!" Soros has at various times attacked the currencies of Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Mexico, coming into newly opened financial markets which have little experience with foreign investors, let alone ones with large funds like Soros. Soros begins buying stocks or bonds in the local market, leading others to naively suppose that he knows something they do not. As with gold, when the smaller investors begin to follow Soros, driving prices of stocks or whatever higher, Soros begins to sell to the eager new buyers, cashing in his 40% or 100% profits, then exiting the market, and often, the entire country, to seek another target for his speculation. This technique gave rise to the term "hit and run." What Soros always leaves behind, is a collapsed local market and financial ruin of national investors.

The secret of the Quantum Fund NV

Soros is the visible side of a vast and nasty secret network of private financial interests, controlled by the leading aristocratic and royal families of Europe, centered in the British House of Windsor. This network, called by its members the Club of Isles, was built upon the wreckage of the British Empire after World War II.

Rather than use the powers of the state to achieve their geopolitical goals, a secret cross-linked holding of private financial interests, tied to the old aristocratic oligarchy of western Europe, was developed. It was in many ways modeled on the 17th-century British and Dutch East India Companies. The heart of this Club of the Isles is the financial center of the old British Empire, the City of London. Soros is one of what in medieval days were called Hofjuden, the "Court Jews," who were deployed by the aristocratic families.

The most important of such "Jews who are not Jews," are the Rothschilds, who launched Soros's career. They are members of the Club of the Isles and retainers of the British royal family. This has been true since Amschel Rothschild sold the British Hessian troops to fight against George Washington during the American Revolution.

Soros is American only in his passport. He is a global financial operator, who happens to be in New York, simply because "that's where the money is," as the bank robber Willy Sutton once quipped, when asked why he always robbed banks. Soros speculates in world financial markets through his offshore company, Quantum Fund NV, a private investment fund, or "hedge fund." His hedge fund reportedly manages some $11-14 billion of funds on behalf of its clients, or investors---one of the most prominent of whom is, according to Soros, Britain's Queen Elizabeth, the wealthiest person in Europe.

The Quantum Fund is registered in the tax haven of the Netherlands Antilles, in the Caribbean. This is to avoid paying taxes, as well as to hide the true nature of his investors and what he does with their money.

Legal headquarters moved to tax heaven Curacao

   
   
 

 

 


 

In order to avoid U.S. government supervision of his financial activities, something normal U.S.-based investment funds must by law agree to in order to operate, Soros moved his legal headquarters to the Caribbean tax haven of Curacao. The Netherlands Antilles has repeatedly been cited by the Task Force on Money Laundering of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as one of the world's most important centers for laundering illegal proceeds of the Latin American cocaine and other drug traffic. It is a possession of the Netherlands.

Soros has taken care that the none of the 99 individual investors who participate in his various funds is an American national. By U.S. securities law, a hedge fund is limited to no more than 99 highly wealthy individuals, so-called "sophisticated investors." By structuring his investment company as an offshore hedge fund, Soros avoids public scrutiny.

Soros himself is not even on the board of Quantum Fund. Instead, for legal reasons, he serves the Quantum Fund as official "investment adviser," through another company, Soros Fund Management, of New York City. If any demand were to be made of Soros to reveal the details of Quantum Fund's operations, he is able to claim he is "merely its investment adviser." Any competent police investigator looking at the complex legal structure of Soros's businesses would conclude that there is prima facie evidence of either vast money laundering of illicit funds, or massive illegal tax evasion. Both may be true.

To make it impossible for U.S. tax authorities or other officials to look into the financial dealings of his web of businesses, the board of directors of Quantum Fund NV also includes no American citizens. His directors are Swiss, Italian, and British financiers.

George Soros is part of a tightly knit financial mafia---"mafia," in the sense of a closed masonic-like fraternity of families pursuing common aims. Anyone who dares to criticize Soros or any of his associates, is immediately hit with the charge of being "anti-Semitic"----a criticism which often silences or intimidates genuine critics of Soros's unscrupulous operations. The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith considers it a top priority to "protect" Soros from the charges of "anti-Semites" in Hungary and elsewhere in Central Europe, according to ADL National Director Abraham Foxman. The ADL's record of service to the British oligarchy has been amply documented by EIR (e.g. The Ugly Truth About the Anti-Defamation League [Washington, D.C., Executive Intelligence Review: 1992]).

According to knowledgeable U.S. and European investigators, Soros's circle includes indicted metals and commodity speculator and fugitive Marc Rich of Zug, Switzerland and Tel Aviv; secretive Israeli arms and commodity dealer Shaul Eisenberg, and "Dirty Rafi" Eytan, both linked to the financial side of the Israeli Mossad; and, the family of Jacob Lord Rothschild.

Understandably, Soros and the Rothschild interests prefer to keep their connection hidden far from public view, so as to obscure the well-connected friends Soros enjoys in the City of London, the British Foreign Office, Israel, and the U.S. financial establishment. The myth, therefore, has been created, that Soros is a lone financial investment "genius" who, through his sheer personal brilliance in detecting shifts in markets, has become one of the world's most successful speculators. According to those who have done business with him, Soros never makes a major investment move without sensitive insider information.

On the board of directors of Soros's Quantum Fund N.V. is Richard Katz, a Rothschild man who is also on the board of the London N.M. Rothschild and Sons merchant bank, and the head of Rothschild Italia S.p.A. of Milan. Another Rothschild family link to Soros's Quantum Fund is Quantum board member Nils O. Taube, the partner of the London investment group St. James Place Capital, whose major partner is Lord Rothschild. London Times columnist Lord William Rees-Mogg is also on the board of Rothschild's St. James Place Capital.

A frequent business partner of Soros in various speculative deals, including in the 1993 gold manipulation, although not on the Quantum Fund directly, is the Anglo-French speculator Sir James Goldsmith, a cousin of the Rothschild family.

>From the very first days when Soros created his own investment fund in 1969, he owed his success to his relation to the Rothschild family banking network. Soros worked in New York in the 1960s for a small private bank close to the Rothschilds, Arnhold & S. Bleichroeder, Inc., a banking family which represented Rothschild interests in Germany during Bismarck's time. To this day, A. & S. Bleichroeder, Inc. remains the Principal Custodian, along with Citibank, of funds of Soros's Quantum Fund. George C. Karlweiss, of Edmond de Rothschild's Switzerland-based Banque Privee SA in Lugano, as well as of the scandal-tainted Rothschild Bank AG of Zurich, gave Soros financial backing. Karlweiss provided some of the vital initial capital and investors for Soros's Quantum Fund.

Union Banque Privee and the 'Swiss connection'

Another member of the board of Soros's Quantum Fund is the head of one of the most controversial Swiss private banks, Edgar de Picciotto, who has been called "one of the cleverest bankers in Geneva"---and is one of the most scandal-tainted. De Picciotto, from an old Portuguese Jewish trading family, who was born in Lebanon, is head of the Geneva private bank CBI-TDB Union Bancaire Privee, a major player in the gold and offshore hedge funds business. Hedge funds have been identified by international police agencies as the fastest-growing outlet for illegal money laundering today.

De Picciotto is a longtime friend and business associate of banker Edmond Safra, also born in Lebanon, whose family came from Aleppo, Syria, and who now controls the Republic Bank of New York. Republic Bank has been identified in U.S. investigations into Russian organized crime, as the bank involved in transferring billions of U.S. Federal Reserve notes from New York to organized crime-controlled Moscow banks, on behalf of Russian organized crime figures. Safra is under investigation by U.S. and Swiss authorities for laundering Turkish and Columbian drug money. In 1990, Safra's Trade Development Bank (TDB) of Geneva was merged with de Picciotto's CBI to create the CBI-TDB Union Banque Privee. The details of the merger are shrouded in secrecy to this day. As part of the deal, de Picciotto became a board member of American Express Bank (Switzerland) SA of Geneva, and two American Express Bank of New York executives sit on the board of de Picciotto's Union Banque Privee. Safra had sold his Trade Development Bank to American Express, Inc. in the 1980s. Henry Kissinger sits on the board of American Express, Inc., which has repeatedly been implicated in international money-laundering scandals.

De Picciotto's start as a Geneva banker came from Nicholas Baring of the London Barings Bank, who tapped de Picciotto to run the bank's secret Swiss bank business. Barings has for centuries been private banker to the British royal family, and since the bank's collapse in March 1995, has been overhauled by the Dutch ING Bank, which is reported to be a major money-laundering institution.

De Picciotto is also a longtime business partner of Venetian businessman Carlo De Benedetti, who recently was forced to resign as head of Olivetti Corp. Both persons sit on the board of the Societe Financiere de Geneve investment holding company in Geneva. De Benedetti is under investigation in Italy for suspicion of triggering the collapse of Italy's Banco Ambrosiano in the early 1980s.The head of that bank, Roberto Calvi, was later found hanging from the London Blackfriar's Bridge, in what police believe was a masonic ritual murder.

De Picciotto and his Union Banque Privee have been implicated in numerous drug and illegal money-laundering operations. In November 1994, U.S. federal agents arrested a senior official of de Picciotto's Geneva bank, Jean-Jacques Handali, along with two other UBP officials, on charges of leading a multimillion-dollar drug-money-laundering ring. According to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami, Handali and Union Banque Privee were the "Swiss connection" in an international drug-money-laundering ring tied to Colombian and Turkish cocaine and heroin organizations. A close business and political associate of de Picciotto is a mysterious arm dealer, Helmut Raiser, who is linked in business dealings with reputed Russian organized crime kingpin Grigori Luchansky, who controls the Russian and Swiss holding company Nordex Group.

Another director of Soros's Quantum Fund is Isodoro Albertini, owner of the Milan stock brokerage firm Albertini and Co. Beat Notz of the Geneva Banque Worms is another private banker on the board of Soros's Quantum Fund, as is Alberto Foglia, who is chief of the Lugano, Switzerland Banca del Ceresio. Lugano, just across the Swiss border from Milan, is notorious as the financial secret bank haven for Italian organized crime families, including the heroin mafia behind the 1980s "Pizza Connection" case. The Banca del Ceresio has been one of the secret Swiss banks identified in the recent Italian political corruption scandals as the repository of bribe funds of several Italian politicians now in prison.

The sponsorship of the Rothschilds

Soros's relation to the Rothschild finance circle represents no ordinary or casual banking connection. It goes a long way to explain the extraordinary success of a mere private speculator, and Soros's uncanny ability to "gamble right" so many times in such high-risk markets. Soros has access to the "insider track" in some of the most important government and private channels in the world.

Since World War II, the Rothschild family, at the heart of the financial apparatus of the Club of the Isles, has gone to great lengths to create a public myth about its own insignificance. The family has spent significant sums cultivating a public image as a family of wealthy, but quiet, "gentlemen," some of whom prefer to cultivate fine French wines, some of whom are devoted to charity.

Since British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour wrote his famous November 1917 letter to Lord Rothschild, expressing official British government backing for establishment of a Palestinian national home for the Jewish people, the Rothschilds were intimately involved in the creation of Israel. But behind their public facade of a family donating money for projects such as planting trees in the deserts of Israel, N.M. Rothschild of London is at the center of various intelligence operations, and more than once has been linked to the more unsavory elements of international organized crime. The family prefers to keep such links at arm's length, and away from its London headquarters, via its lesser-known outposts such as their Zurich Rothschild Bank AG and Rothschild Italia of Milan, the bank of Soros partner Richard Katz.

N.M. Rothschild is considered by City of London sources to be one of the most influential parts of the British intelligence establishment, tied to the Thatcher "free market" wing of the Tory Party. Rothschild and Sons made huge sums managing for Thatcher the privatization of billions of dollars of British state industry holdings during the 1980s, and today, for John Major's government. Rothschilds is also at the very heart of the world gold trade, being the bank at which twice daily the London Gold Fix is struck by a group of the five most influential gold trade banks. Gold constitutes a major part of the economy of drug dealings globally.

N.M. Rothschild and Sons is also implicated in some of the filthiest drugs-for-weapons secret intelligence operations. Because it is connected to the highest levels of the British intelligence establishment, Rothschilds managed to evade any prominent mention of its complicity in one of the more sordid black covert intelligence networks, that of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). Rothschilds was at the center of the international web of money-laundering banks used during the 1970s and 1980s by Britain's MI-6 and the networks of Col. Oliver North and George Bush, to finance such projects as the Nicaraguan Contras.

On June 8, 1993 the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Banking, Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D-Tex.), made a speech charging that the U.S. government, under the previous Bush and Reagan administrations, had systematically refused to prosecute the BCCI, and that the Department of Justice had repeatedly refused to cooperate with Congressional investigations of both the BCCI scandal and what Gonzalez claims is the closely related scandal of the Atlanta, Georgia Banca Nationale del Lavoro, which was alleged to have secured billions in loans from the Bush administration to Saddam Hussein, just prior to the Gulf War of 1990-91.

Gonzalez charged that the Bush administration had "a Justice Department that I say, and I repeat, has been the most corrupt, most unbelievably corrupt justice system that I have seen in the 32 years I have been in the Congress."

The BCCI violated countless laws, including laundering drug money, financing illegal arms traffic, and falsifying bank records. In July 1991, New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau announced a grand jury indictment against BCCI, charging it with having committed "the largest bank fraud in world financial history. BCCI operated as a corrupt criminal organization throughout its entire 19-year history."

The BCCI had links directly into the Bush White House. Saudi Sheik Kamal Adham, a BCCI director and former head of Saudi Arabian intelligence when George Bush was head of the CIA, was one of the BCCI shareholders indicted in the United States. Days after his indictment, former top Bush White House aide Edward Rogers went to Saudi Arabia as a private citizen to sign a contract to represent Sheikh Adham in the United States.

But, what has never been identified in a single major Western press investigation, was that the Rothschild group was at the heart of the vast illegal web of BCCI. The key figure was Dr. Alfred Hartmann, the managing director of the BCCI Swiss subsidiary, Banque de Commerce et de Placement SA; at the same time, he ran the Zurich Rothschild Bank AG, and sat in London as a member of the board of N.M. Rothschild and Sons, Hartmann was also a business partner of Helmut Raiser, friend of de Picciotto, and linked to Nordex.

Hartmann was also chairman of the Swiss affiliate of the Italian BNL bank, which was implicated in the Bush administration illegal transfers to Iraq prior to the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The Atlanta branch of BNL, with the knowledge of George Bush when he was vice president, conduited funds to Helmut Raiser's Zug, Switzerland company, Consen, for development of the CondorII missile program by Iraq, Egypt, and Argentina, during the Iran-Iraq War. Hartmann was vice-chairman of another secretive private Geneva bank, the Bank of NY-Inter-Maritime Bank, a bank whose chairman, Bruce Rappaport, was one of the illegal financial conduits for Col. Oliver North's Contra drugs-for-weapons network during the late 1980. North also used the BCCI as one of his preferred banks to hide his illegal funds.

Rich, Reichmann, and Soros's Israeli links

According to reports of former U.S. State Department intelligence officers familiar with the Soros case, Soros's Quantum Fund amassed a war chest of well over $10 billion, with the help of a powerful group of "silent" investors who let Soros deploy the capital to demolish European monetary stability in September 1992.

Among Soros's silent investors, these sources say, are the fugitive metals and oil trader Marc Rich, based in Zug, Switzerland; and Shaul Eisenberg, a decades-long member of Israeli Mossad intelligence, who functions as a major arms merchant throughout Asia and the Near East. Eisenberg was recently banned from doing business in Uzbekistan, where he had been accused by the government of massive fraud and corruption. A third Soros partner is Israel's "Dirty Rafi" Eytan, who served in London previously as Mossad liaison to British intelligence.

Rich was one of the most active western traders in oil, aluminum, and other commodities in the Soviet Union and Russia between 1989 and 1993. This, not coincidentally, is just the period when Grigori Luchansky's Nordex Group became a multibillion-dollar company selling Russian oil, aluminum, and other commodities.

Canadian real estate entrepreneur Paul Reichmann, formerly of Olympia and York notoriety, a Hungarian-born Jew like Soros, is a business partner in Soros's Quantum Realty, a $525-million real estate investment fund.

The Reichmann tie links Soros as well with Henry Kissinger and former Tory Foreign Minister Lord Carrington (who is also a member of Kissinger Associates, Inc. of New York). Reichmann sits with both Kissinger and Carrington on the board of the influential British-Canadian publishing group, Hollinger, Inc. Hollinger owns a large number of newspapers in Canada and the United States, the London Daily Telegraph, and the largest English-language daily in Israel, the Jerusalem Post. Hollinger has been attacking President Clinton and the Middle East peace process ever since Clinton's election in November 1992.

Soros and geopolitics

Soros is little more than one of several significant vehicles for economic and financial warfare by the Club of the Isles faction. Because his affiliations to these interests have not previously been spotlighted, he serves extremely useful functions for the oligarchy, as in 1992 and 1993, when he launched his attack on the European Rate Mechanism.

Although Soros's speculation played a role in finally taking the British pound out of the ERM currency group entirely, it would be a mistake to view that action as "anti-British." Soros went for the first time to London, where he studied under Karl Popper and Friedrich von Hayek at the London School of Economics.

Soros's business ties to Sir James Goldsmith and Lord Rothschild place him in the inner circles of the Thatcher wing of the British establishment. By helping the "anti-Europe" Thatcherites pull Britain out of the ERM in September 1992 (and making more than $1 billion in the process at British taxpayer expense), Soros helped the long-term goal of the Thatcherites in weakening continental Europe's economic stability. Since 1904 , it has been British geopolitical strategy to prevent by all means any successful economic linkage between western continental European economies, especially that of Germany, with Russia and the countries of eastern Europe.

Soros's personal outlook is consonant with that of the Thatcher wing of the Tory Party, those who three years ago launched the "Germany, the Fourth Reich" hate campaign against unified Germany, comparing Chancellor Helmut Kohl with Adolf Hitler. Soros is personally extremely anti-German. In his 191 autobiography, Underwriting Democracy, Soros warned that a reunited Germany would "upset the balance of Europe .... It is easy to see how the interwar scenario could be replayed. A united Germany becomes the strongest economic power and develops Eastern Europe as its Lebensraum ... a potent witches' brew." Soros's recent public attacks on the German economy and the deutsche mark are fundamentally motivated by this geopolitical view.

Soros is quite close to the circles of George Bush in the U.S. intelligence community and finance. His principal bank custodian, and reputed major lender in the 1992 assault on Europe's ERM, is Citicorp NA, the nation's largest bank. Citicorp is more than a lending institution; it is a core part of the American liberal establishment. In 1989, as it became clear that German unification was a real possibility, a senior official at Citicorp, a former adviser to Michael Dukakis's Presidential campaign, told a European business associate that "German unity will be a disaster for our interests; we must take measures to ensure a sharp D-Mark collapse on the order of 30%, so that she will not have the capability to reconstruct East Germany into the economic engine of a new Europe."

While Soros was calling on world investors to pull down the deutsche mark in 1993, he had been making a strong play in the French media, since late 1992, to portray himself as a "friend of French interests." Soros is reported to be close to senior figures of the French establishment, the Treasury, and in particular, Bank of France head Jean-Claude Trichet. In effect, Soros is echoing the old Entente Cordiale alliance against Germany, which helped precipitate World War 1.

Soros admits that he survived in Nazi Hungary during the war, as a Jew, by adopting what he calls a double personality. "I have lived with a double personality practically all my life," Soros recently stated. "It started at age fourteen in Hungary, when I assumed a false identity in order to escape persecution as a Jew." Soros admitted in a radio interview that his father gave him Nazi credentials in Hungary during the war, and he looted wealthy Jewish estates. Further research showed that this operation was probably run by the SS.

Soros did not leave the country until two years after the war. Though he and his friends in the media are quick to attack any policy opponent of Soros, especially in eastern Europe, as being "anti-Semitic," Soros's Jewish identity apparently has only utilitarian value for him, rather than providing moral foundations. In short, the young Soros was a cynical, ambitious person, the ideal recruit for the British postwar intelligence network.

Soros savages Eastern Europe

Soros has established no fewer than 19 "charitable" foundations across eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. He has sponsored "peace" concerts in former Yugoslavia with such performers as Joan Baez. He is helping send young east Europeans to Oxford University. A model citizen, is the image he broadcasts.

The reality is something else. Soros has been personally responsible for introducing shock therapy into the emerging economies of eastern Europe since 1989. He has deliberately fostered on fragile new governments in the east the most draconian economic madness, policies which have allowed Soros and his financial predator friends, such as Marc Rich and Shaul Eisenberg, to loot the resources of large parts of eastern Europe at dirt-cheap prices. Here are illustrative case histories of Soros's eastern "charity":

Poland: In late 1989, Soros organized a secret meeting between the "reform" communist government of Prime Minister Mieczyslaw Rakowski and the leaders of the then-illegal Solidarnosc trade union organization. According to well-informed Polish sources, at that 1989 meeting, Soros unveiled his "plan" for Poland: The communists must let Solidarnosc take over the government, so as to gain the confidence of the population. Then, said Soros, the state must act to bankrupt its own industrial and agricultural enterprises, using astronomical interest rates, withholding state credits, and burdening firms with unpayable debt. Once thie were done, Soros promised that he would encourage his wealthy international business friends to come into Poland, as prospective buyers of the privatized state enterprises. A recent example of this privatization plan is the case of the large steel facility Huta Warsawa. According to steel experts, this modern complex would cost $3-4 billion for a western company to build new. Several months ago, the Polish government agreed to assume the debts of Huta Warsawa, and to sell the debt-free enterprise to a Milan company, Lucchini, for $30 million!.

Soros recruited his friend, Harvard University economist Jeffery Sachs, who had previously advised the Bolivian government in economic policy, leading to the takeover of that nation's economy by the cocaine trade. To further his plan in Poland, Soros set up one of his numerous foundations, the Stefan Batory Foundation, the official sponsor of Sach's work in Poland in 1989-90.

Soros boasts, "I established close personal contact with Walesa's chief adviser, Bronislaw Geremek. I was also received by [President Gen Wojciech] Jaruzelski, the head of State, to obtain his blessing for my foundation." He worked closely with the eminence gris of Polish shock therapy, Witold Trzeciakowski, a shadow adviser to Finance Minister Leszek Balcerowicz. Soros also cultivated relations with Balcerowicz, the man who would first impose Sach's shock therapy on Poland. Soros says when Walesa was elected President, that "largely because of western pressure, Walesa retained Balcerowicz as minister." Balcerowicz imposed a freeze on wages while industry was to be bankrupted by a cutoff of state credits. Industrial output fell by more than 30% over two years.

Soros admits he knew in advance that his shock therapy would cause huge unemployment, closing of factories, and social unrest. For this reason, he insisted that Solidarnosc be brought into the government, to help deal with the unrest. Through the Batory Foundation, Soros coopted key media opinion makers such as Adam Michnik, and through cooperation with the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw, imposed a media censorship favorable to Soros's shock therapy, and hostile to all critics.

Russia and the Community of Independent States (CIS): Soros headed a delegation to Russia, where he had worked together with Raisa Gorbachova since the late 1980s, to establish the Cultural Initiative Foundation. As with his other "charitable foundations," this was a tax-free vehicle for Soros and his influential Western friends to enter the top policymaking levels of the country, and for tiny sums of scarce hard currency, but up important political and intellectual figures. After a false start under Mikhail Gorbachov in 1988-91, Soros shifted to the new Yeltsin circle. It was Soros who introduced Jeffery Sachs and shock therapy into Russia, in late 1991. Soros describes his effort: "I started mobilizing a group of economists to take to the Soviet Union (July 1990). Professor Jeffery Sachs, with whom I had worked in Poland, was ready and eager to participate. He suggested a number of other participants: Romano Prodi from Italy; David Finch, a retired official from the IMF [International Monetary Fund]. I wanted to include Stanley Fischer and Jacob Frenkel, heads of research of the World Bank and IMF, respectively; Larry Summers from Harvard and Michael Bruno of the Central Bank of Israel."

Since Jan. 2, 1992, shock therapy has introduced chaos and hyperinflation into Russia. Irreplaceable groups from advanced scientific research institutes have fled in pursuit of jobs in the West. Yegor Gaidar and the Yeltsin government imposed draconian cuts in state spending to industry and agriculture, even though the entire economy was state-owned. A goal of a zero deficit budget within three months was announced. Credit to industry was ended, and enterprises piled up astronomical debts, as inflation of the ruble went out of control.

The friends of Soros lost no time in capitalizing on this situation. Marc Rich began buying Russian aluminum at absurdly cheap prices, with his hard currency. Rich then dumped the aluminum onto western industrial markets last year, causing a 30% collapse in the price of the metal, as western industry had no way to compete. There was such an outflow of aluminum last year from Russia, that there were shortages of aluminum for Russian fish canneries. At the same time, Rich reportedly moved in to secure export control over the supply of most West Siberian crude oil to western markets. Rich's companies have been under investigation for fraud in Russia, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal of May 13, 1993.

Another Soros silent partner who has moved in to exploit the chaos in the former Soviet Union, is Shaul Eisenberg. Eisenberg, reportedly with a letter of introduction from then-European Bank chief Jacques Attali, managed to secure an exclusive concession for textiles and other trade in Uzbekistan. When Uzbek officials confirmed defrauding of the government by Eisenberg, his concessions were summarily abrogated. The incident has reportedly caused a major loss for Israeli Mossad strategic interests throughout the Central Asian republics.

Soros has extensive influence in Hungary. When nationalist opposition parliamentarian Istvan Csurka tried to protest what was being done to ruin the Hungarian economy, under the policies of Soros and friends, Csurka was labeled an "anti-Semite," and in June 1993, he was forced out of the governing Democratic Forum, as a result of pressure from Soros-linked circles in Hungary and abroad, including Soros's close friend, U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos.

Lighting the Balkan Fuse

In early 1990, in what was then still Yugoslavia, Soros's intervention with shock therapy, in cooperation with the IMF, helped light the economic fuse that led to the outbreak of war in June 1991. Soros boasted at that time, "Yugoslavia is a particularly interesting case. Even as national rivalries have brought the country to the verge of a breakup, a radical monetary stabilization program, which was introduced on the same date as in Poland---January 1, 1990-----has begun to change the political landscape. The program is very much along the Polish lines, and it had greater initial success. By the middle of the year, people were beginning to think Yugoslav again."

Soros is friends with former Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, the former U.S. ambassador to Belgrade and the patron of Serbian Communist leader Slobodan Milosevic. Eagleburger is a past president of Kissinger Associates, on whose board sits Lord Carrington, whose Balkan mediations supported Serbian aggression into Croatia and Bosnia.

Today, Soros has established his Foundation centers in Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, and a Soros Yugoslavia Foundation in Belgrade, Serbia. In Croatia, he has tried to use his foundation monies to woo influential journalists or to slander opponents of his shock therapy, by labeling them variously "anti-Semitic" or "neo-Nazi." The head of Soros's Open Society Fund---Croatia, Prof. Zarko Puhovski, is a man who has reportedly made a recent dramatic conversion from orthodox Marxism to Soros's radical free market. Only seven years ago, according to one of his former students, as professor of philosophy at the University of Zagreb, Puhovski attacked students trying to articulate a critique of communism, by insisting, "It is unprincipled to criticize Marxism from a liberal standpoint." His work for the Soros Foundation in Zagreb has promoted an anti-nationalist "global culture," hiring a network of anti-Croatian journalists to propagandize, in effect, for the Serbian cause.

These examples can be elaborated for each of the other 19 locations across eastern Europe where George Soros operates. The political agenda of Soros and this group of financial "globalists" will create the conditions for a new outbreak of war, even world war, if it continues to be tolerated.

00:05 Publié dans Actualité | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : george soros, actualité, géopolitique, finances, états-unis | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

mardi, 23 avril 2013

Nessuno tocchi la Siria