Destituer Dilma Rousseff, liquider Lula, le PT [et les BRICS]

Destituer Dilma Rousseff, liquider Lula, le PT [et les BRICS]

Auteur : Eric Nepomuceno

Traduction Florence Olier-Robine

Ex: http://zejournal.mobi

Des appels à manifestations dans tout le Brésil ont été lancés pour ce dimanche. L'objectif : la révocation de la présidente Dilma Rousseff, réélue en octobre dernier pour un second mandat, qui prit effet il y a exactement 73 jours. Il y a deux jours, des manifestations avaient déjà eu lieu pour réclamer le maintien en fonctions de Dilma, dans 23 des 26 capitales de provinces brésiliennes, de même qu'à Brasilia, capitale fédérale. Elles avaient rassemblé quelques 150 mille personnes à travers tout le pays. Celles de dimanche prévoient des chiffres beaucoup plus élevés, bien au-delà de centaines de milliers.

C'est en réponse à l'appel de la CUT, la Centrale Unique des Travailleurs (Central Única de Trabajadores), des fédérations syndicales, des mouvements syndicaux, tous plus ou moins liés au PT, parti de Lula da Silva et de la présidente, que se sont déroulées les protestations de vendredi. Celles de dimanche se vantent d'être « spontanées », autrement dit, représenteraient le véritable ressenti de l'immense population brésilienne.

Mensonges. Elles ont été organisées, et même de manière grossière, par les perdants des élections présidentielles d'octobre dernier. Et, par perdants, il faut entendre non seulement les partis politiques et les candidats, mais surtout, les intérêts. Le système politico-économique qui a dominé le pays pendant de longues années se refuse à admettre un fait concret : il a été tenu en échec de façon accablante et répétitive aux présidentielles de 2002, 2006, 2010, et 2014.

Par delà les défaites successives des représentants de l'élite, on peut parler d'échec d'un système de contrôle de la société. D'un projet de classes sociales face à une ambition de nation, de société, de pays. Et, pour ces élites, c'est un phénomène inadmissible.

Le Brésil connaît une période de nervosisme et de tension où un curieux mélange de contradictions et de révélations voit le jour. Un exemple de prise de conscience : jamais auparavant les plaintes pour corruption n'avaient été autant prises au sérieux. Conclusion : c'est comme si le pays découvrait la nouveauté de la corruption alors qu'elle règne en maître depuis toujours, quelque soit le gouvernement.

Un exemple de contradictions : les manifestations de vendredi dernier. D'un côté, elles soutenaient Pétrobras (compagnie pétrolière), tant contre les accusations de corruption révélée, toujours objet d'une enquête approfondie, que des pressions qui tentent de détourner la législation mise en place par Lula da Silva et conservée par Dilma.

Revenir en arrière reviendrait à, non seulement faire le jeu des multinationales de manière quasi absolue, mais plus encore, dans les faits, ouvrir une brèche à la privatisation de l'entreprise. Par ailleurs, les manifestants défendaient une évidence, à savoir, que le résultat des urnes soit respecté et que Dilma aille au bout de son mandat présidentiel. Mais, d'un autre côté, ils protestaient aussi contre certaines initiatives prises par le gouvernement de la même Dilma, qui, selon les organisateurs, portent atteinte aux droits du travail, et plus particulièrement, contre les mesures prévues dans le cadre du remaniement budgétaire annoncé.

C'est ainsi que l'on proteste contre le gouvernement que l'on défend. Certains pensent que c'est cela qu'on appelle démocratie. Que c'est une chose de se plaindre ou de revendiquer, et que c'en est une autre, totalement différente, d'attaquer les institutions.

Ce dimanche, ce sont les opposants déclarés au gouvernement constitutionnel de Dilma Roussef et au maintien du PT au pouvoir, qui descendront dans la rue. Derrière ce mouvement se cache, outre les principaux partis d'opposition et les groupes radicaux de droite, le gros des élites, principalement dans les villes où le néolibéral Aecio Neves était parvenu à l'emporter l'année dernière.

Mais avant tout, et par-dessus tout, on y trouve les grands conglomérats des médias oligopolistiques. Le Brésil n'avait jusqu'alors qu'en de rares occasions, manié à ce point l'art de la manipulation.

Personne ne peut nier qu'il existe concrètement une bonne dose d'insatisfaction générale dans la société brésilienne, y compris chez ceux qui ont porté Dilma au pouvoir au mois d'octobre.

Cependant, c'est la première fois depuis le retour à la démocratie, après la période du régime civilo militaire qui étouffa le pays entre 1964 y 1985, que jaillit en pleine lumière un sentiment jusque-là assez éloigné de la scène politique : la haine.

Ou, plus exactement, la haine de classe. Le préjugé de classe. Les élites et les classes moyennes traditionnelles se dressent, indirectement, avec une fureur débridée, contre l'objet de leurs préjugés : cette classe sociale ignare et mollassonne qui soudain envahit les aéroports, achètent des frigos neufs, submergent les rues avec leurs petites « citadines », exigent des normes de qualité en matière d'éducation, de santé, de transports, et donc contre ceux qui ont permis ce bouleversement drastique du cadre social brésilien.

Si le Brésil a su ou a cru savoir dissimuler des doses massives de préjugés raciaux, en revanche, personne ne se soucie de contenir ses ardeurs de préjugés sociaux. Les élites brésiliennes haïssent la pauvreté, et plus encore, ceux qui ont cessé d'être pauvres. Les élites brésiliennes revendiquent le maintien de leurs privilèges de toujours, et prétendent être menacées par une crise économique déclenchée par des gouvernements qui ont gaspillé des torrents d'argent à faire en sorte que les misérables deviennent pauvres, et que les pauvres accèdent à l'échelon supérieur, de citoyens intégrés à une économie de consommation, c'est-à-dire, au marché.

En fin de compte, il ne s'agit que d'une seule et unique chose : Dilma, dehors, le PT, aux orties, exit Lula ! Aux oubliettes le projet de pays ! Le peuple, au rencart !

- Source : Eric Nepomuceno-Traduction Florence Olier-Robine

Russia Under Attack

Russia Under Attack

By Paul Craig Roberts

PaulCraigRoberts.org

While Washington works assiduously to undermine the Minsk agreement that German chancellor Merkel and French president Hollande achieved in order to halt the military conflict in Ukraine, Washington has sent Victoria Nuland to Armenia to organize a “color revolution” or coup there, has sent Richard Miles as ambassador to Kyrgyzstan to do the same there, and has sent Pamela Spratlen as ambassador to Uzbekistan to purchase that government’s allegiance away from Russia. The result would be to break up the Collective Security Treaty Organization and present Russia and China with destabilization where they can least afford it. For details go here.

Thus, Russia faces the renewal of conflict in Ukraine simultaneously with three more Ukraine-type situations along its Asian border.

And this is only the beginning of the pressure that Washington is mounting on Russia.

On March 18 the Secretary General of NATO denounced the peace settlement between Russia and Georgia that ended Georgia’s military assault on South Ossetia. The NATO Secretary General said that NATO rejects the settlement because it “hampers ongoing efforts by the international community to strengthen security and stability in the region.” Look closely at this statement. It defines the “international community” as Washington’s NATO puppet states, and it defines strengthening security and stability as removing buffers between Russia and Georgia so that Washington can position military bases in Georgia directly on Russia’s border.

In Poland and the Baltic states Washington and NATO lies about a pending Russian invasion are being used to justify provocative war games on Russia’s borders and to build up US forces in NATO military bases on Russia’s borders.

We have crazed US generals on national television calling for “killing Russians.”

The EU leadership has agreed to launch a propaganda war against Russia, broadcasting Washington’s lies inside Russia in an effort to undermine the Russian people’s support of their government.

All of this is being done in order to coerce Russia into handing over Crimea and its Black Sea naval base to Washington and accepting vassalage under Washington’s suzerainty.

If Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, and the Taliban would not fold to Washington’s threats, why do the fools in Washington think Putin, who holds in his hands the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, will fold?

European governments, apparently, are incapable of any thought. Washington has set London and the capitals of every European country, as well as every American city, for destruction by Russian nuclear weapons. The stupid Europeans rush to destroy themselves in service to their Washington master.

Human intelligence has gone missing if after 14 years of US military aggression against eight countries the world does not understand that Washington is lost in arrogance and hubris and imagines itself the ruler of the universe who will tolerate no dissent from its will.

We know that the American, British, and European media are whores well paid to lie for their master. We know that the NATO commander and secretary general, if not the member countries, are lusting for war. We know that the American Dr. Strangeloves in the Pentagon and armaments industry cannot wait to test their ABMs and new weapons systems in which they always place excessive confidence. We know that the prime minister of Britain is a total cipher. But are the chancellor of Germany and the president of France ready for the destruction of their countries and of Europe? If the EU is of such value, why is the very existence of its populations put at risk in order to bow down and accept leadership from an insane Washington whose megalomania will destroy life on earth?

The Best of Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how americans lost the protection of law, has been released by Random House. Visit his website.

Copyright © 2015 Paul Craig Roberts

Previous article by Paul Craig Roberts: The Empire Is Cracking Up

 

Europe also pivots – to China

By M K Bhadrakumar 

Ex: http://blogs.rediff.com

The decision by Britain to seek admission to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank [AIIB] as a founding member apparently took Washington by surprise. The State Department spokesperson admitted that there was “virtually no consultation with the US” and that it was “a sovereign decision made by the United Kingdom.” In the coming weeks, it is going to be even harder for the US to reconcile with Australia following Britain’s footsteps, since President Barack Obama had personally intervened with Prime Minister Tony Abbott last October not to do any such thing. South Korea and France too are likely to join the AIIB. (Guardian)

Britain maintains that the decision was taken in the “national interest” and that the underlying considerations are purely economic. But, surely, Britain cannot but be aware that the AIIB is a dagger aimed at the heart of the Bretton Woods system. Worse still, China practically aims to enter the Bretton Woods system as a presiding deity. As a commentary by Xinhua put it,

“Rising to become the second largest economy in the world, China is advocating and working on revising the current international system… China has no intention of knocking over the chessboard, but rather in trying to help shape a more diverse world playing board… China wishes to see its currency included in the IMF basket in accordance with the weight the yuan now exerts on international goods and services trade. China welcomes cooperation from every corner of the world to achieve shared prosperity based on common interest, but will go ahead anyway when it believes it is in the right.”

The European countries understand that the AIIB provides an essential underpinning for China’s Silk Road strategy (known as the ‘Belt and Road’ initiatives). The former French prime minister Dominique de Villepin wrote recently in the French business daily Les Echos that China’s Silk Road offered France and other European countries opportunities to harness lucrative agreements in the transport sector and urban services. “It is a task that should mobilize the European Union and its Member States, but also local authorities, chambers of commerce, and businesses, not to mention universities and think tanks,” De Villepin suggested.

Do the European minds fail to comprehend the geopolitics? Of course, they perfectly well understand. To quote De Villepin, in diplomatic terms, the Silk Road is “a political vision which paves the way to European countries to renew dialogue with partners on the Asian continent which could help to find, for instance, flexible projects between Europe and Russia, in particular, to find [the funds] necessary for the stabilization of Ukraine. The thread between the East and West has yet to take hold.”

Russia too has grasped the strategic significance of China’s Silk Road. Moscow has reportedly drafted a 10-year strategy for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to be taken up at the forthcoming summit of the body in July in Ufa, which, according to the current SCO secretary general (a Russian diplomat, by the way), “will be the SCO’s proclamation for deeper and wider participation in global affairs”, combining the national economic strategies of SCO member countries with China’s Silk Road project.

To be sure, the US’ European allies Britain, France and Germany are finding their own pathways to China (and Russia). Britain’s trade volume with China has touched $70 billion and the Chinese investments in the past 3-year period have exceeded the entire amount invested until then.

As De Villepin put it eloquently in his article, haunted by volatile financial markets and economic woes, and challenged by security threats, France and its European partners have to join China’s efforts to re-build the Silk Road. De Villepin acknowledged that China’s Silk Road strategy is crafted to suit China’s interests as it offers “a flexible framework to meet the major challenges facing the country,” including the globalization of the Asian powerhouse’s domestic economy and strengthening the global role of its currency in world trade, and, domestically, to re-balance the provinces’ development and household consumption as well.

Nonetheless, Europe doesn’t see it in zero sum terms, because the fresh approach to economic development and the proposed diplomatic boost would “fill the void” between Asia and Europe by creating a link between the nations’ infrastructure, financial, and communication industries. “It is an economic vision which adapts Chinese planning to international economic cooperation. In a volatile and unstable financial world, it is necessary to take the right approach to long-term projects using new multilateral tools,” De Villepin wrote.  

Germany sees things the same way as Britain and France. Chancellor Angela Merkel said yesterday at the inaugural of the Hanover Fair that German economy views China not only as the most important trading partner outside Europe, but also as a partner in the development of complex technologies. China is the official partner country of CeBIT 2015. Merkel welcomed Chinese companies coming to CeBIT 2015, saying they embody innovation and China’s role as partner country of the fair is an essential component of China-Germany innovation cooperation.

The Obama administration is missing the plot. How could this happen to a cerebral president — getting marooned in Mesopotamia in an indeterminate war and in Eurasia in chasing objectives that by no means directly impact the US’ vital interests — while such a momentous reconfiguration of the Asian Drama is unfolding right under his nose?

Beijing has knocked the bottom out of the US’s ‘pivot’ strategy to contain China — not only in intellectual terms but also in political and diplomatic terms. Beijing plans to unveil the implementation plan for ‘Belt and Road’ shortly at the 2015 Boao Forum later this month. Sources in Beijing told Xinhua that “hundreds” of infrastructure projects are being identified.

Ukraine, fissure sur la façade ouest

Ukraine, fissure sur la façade ouest

Ex: http://zejournal.mobi

Situé à l’Ouest de l’Ukraine, l’Oblast de Transcarpatie est peuplée par les Ruthènes, population majoritairement tournée vers la Hongrie. Cette population semble apprécier avec beaucoup de modération le fait de devoir revêtir l’uniforme de l’armée ukrainienne pour aller se battre dans le Sud-est du pays contre un groupe de population dont les droits sont plus niés encore que ceux des Ruthènes. Le texte ci-dessous a pour but de donner un instantané de la situation actuelle. Il est composé à partir de trois articles originaux. Le premier est paru le 14 mars 2015 sur le portail de l’Agence d’Information Politnavigator, le deuxième, le 01 février 2015 sur le portail d’information Novorossia, le troisième, le 02 février 2015 sur le portail Novorossia également.

Les Ruthènes de l’Oblast de Transcarpatie veulent que Kiev leur octroie l’autonomie.

Ce samedi 14 mars 2015, un congrès rassemblant les principales organisations ruthéniennes s’est fixé pour objectif d’obliger Kiev a admettre les résultats du référendum de 1991, selon lesquels 80% des habitants de l’oblast ont affirmé vouloir un statut autonome pour leur région.

L’assemblée au cours de laquelle fut prise cette décision se tenait à Moukatchevo et réunissait les représentants de L’Association des Ruthènes de Transcarpatie, du Mouvement Ruthène, de l’Association Doukhovnitcha, des Ruthènes Transcarpatiques de Soïm, etc. Les organisations concernées représentent environ 40000 personnes ont déclaré leurs dirigeants.

Les Ruthènes ont également l’intention de forcer Kiev à reconnaître leur qualité de minorité nationale. Contrairement aux pays européens, l’Ukraine ne reconnaît pas l’existence de la nation Ruthène. Dès 2006, le Comité de l’ONU pour l’Élimination de la Discrimination Raciale a recommandé à l’Ukraine de reconnaître les Ruthènes. Afin de pouvoir adresser leur requête au Président de l’Ukraine et aux députés de la Rada, les organisations ont rassemblé les 10000 signatures requises. Le document mentionne également la nécessité de reconnaître la langue ruthène, de pouvoir l’enseigner dans les écoles, d’ouvrir une chaire de langue ruthène à l’Université Nationale d’Oujgorod et de diffuser des programmes en langue ruthène sur les chaînes de radio et télévision locales.

Par ailleurs, les organisations ruthènes ont pris la décision de constituer un syndicat transcarpatique des travailleurs migrants afin de défendre les intérêts de ces derniers. [Les travailleurs migrants ukrainiens constituent une catégorie importante de travailleurs, caractéristique du pays. N.d.T.] La prochaine session du Conseil de coordination des organisations ruthènes se tiendra du 8 au 10 avril. Les organisateurs du congrès ont lancé un appel visant à unir à leur lutte des représentants d’autres minorités nationales. Source.

En Transcarpatie, on exige que l’Ukraine s’explique.

En Transcarpatie sont apparues des réactions aux pressions provocantes de la part de la junte de Kiev. Il fut affirmé que les habitants de la région resteront là où ils sont. Les Transcarpatiens souhaitent savoir ce que l’Ukraine a réellement fait pour eux afin qu’ils commencent à la considérer comme leur patrie, et plus encore, acceptent de combattre pour elle. C’est l’association patriotique et d’éducation «Kroton» qui, ayant reçu le soutien des compatriotes de la région, a soulevé ces questions dans le cadre d’une déclaration officielle, a annoncé l’agence d’informations karpatnews.in.ua.

La déclaration de cette organisation précise exactement ceci :«Chez nous, jusque maintenant, les gens ne comprennent pas comment est apparue la confrontation militaire dans l’Est . S’agit-il d’une guerre ou d’une opération anti-terroriste ? Tous les citoyens d’Ukraine doivent-ils prendre part à cette confrontation, ou seulement des militaires ou des spécialistes des organismes de protection ? Pourquoi le pouvoir parle-t-il d’une agression de la Russie ? Pourquoi continue-t-on alors à commercer activement avec l’agresseur ?

En outre les habitants de Transcarpatie veulent savoir, comme tous les ukrainiens, quelles garanties sociales ils recevront s’ils participent à la confrontation militaire. Ce sont des gens pragmatiques et ils veulent savoir comment l’État est prêt à les remercier de leur participation à cette guerre. Pour terminer, au cours d’un siècle à peine, le territoire de Transcarpatie a connu au moins quatre États de types différents. Nos compatriotes veulent savoir ce que l’Ukraine a fait pour qu’ils la considèrent comme leur patrie et soient prêts à combattre pour elle».

Cette déclaration fut la réponse à une information publiée le 27 janvier 2015 par Oleg Boïko, responsable du Département de la Mobilisation du Quartier général des Forces Armées de l’Ukraine. Monsieur Boïko a déclaré que la plus forte résistance à la mobilisation avait été observée en Transcarpatie. Les conscrits potentiels locaux essaient d’éviter la campagne de conscription, même au moyen de longs séjours à l’étranger, et ce, en masse.

Dans toutes ses déclarations, l’organisation « Kroton » souligne l’isolement de l’oblast subcarpatique. En août, ils ont ainsi prévenu qu’ils exigeraient la reconnaissance des résultats du référendum de 1991 dans le cadre duquel plus de 78% des votants avaient choisi le statut de district autonome. Source.

La Hongrie prête à accueillir les habitants de Transcarpatie qui fuient la conscription.

Un site hongrois a annoncé la possibilité d’une aide gratuite aux hongrois de Transcarpatie disposant d’un passeport hongrois et ne souhaitant pas combattre au sein de l’armée ukrainienne. Les organisateurs de l’aide veulent apporter assistance à tous ceux qui disposent d’un permis de résidence en Hongrie, annonce le site « Valrad ». De nombreux Hongrois prêts à accueillir des conscrits hongrois de Transcarpatie fuyant la mobilisation se sont manifestés auprès des organisateurs de cette démarche. Source.

- Source : Russie Sujet Géopolitique

Wesley Clark: «L’EI a été fondé grâce au financement de nos alliés les plus proches»

Le général Wesley Clark: «L’EI a été fondé grâce au financement de nos alliés les plus proches»

Auteur : Daniel McAdams

Ex: http://zejournal.mobi

De nombreuses personnes connaissent le général Wesley Clark comme l’homme qui a quasiment déclenché la troisième Guerre mondiale, lorsqu’il a donné l’ordre aux Britanniques de tirer sur les forces de maintien de la paix russes qui avaient atterri à Pristina, la capitale du Kosovo, avant l’arrivée des Américains. On rapporte que le commandant britannique de la KFOR, le général Sir Mike Jackson, aurait répondu: «Je ne commencerai pas la troisième Guerre mondiale pour vous».

Toutefois, une des caractéristiques les plus intéressantes du général Clark est sa tendance à laisser échapper, de temps à autre, des propos surprenants.

Comment pourrait-on oublier l’entretien qu’il a accordé à Amy Goodman en 2007 et dans lequel il a dévoilé qu’un des officiers généraux du Pentagone lui avait montré, peu après les attentats du 11 septembre 2001, une note de service de Donald Rumsfeld, le secrétaire à la Défense de l’époque, qui exposait les grandes lignes des projets mondiaux militaires des Etats-Unis. Selon Clark, le général avait déclaré:

«Nous allons détruire sept pays en cinq ans, en commençant par l’Irak, ensuite la Syrie, le Liban, la Libye, la Somalie, le Soudan et, pour terminer l’Iran.» J’ai demandé: «Est-ce que c’est secret?» Il a répondu: «Oui.» Moi, j’ai dit: «Alors ne me le montrez pas.» Quand je l’ai revu, il y a environ un an, j’ai demandé: «Vous vous souvenez?» Et il a répliqué: «Monsieur, je ne vous avait pas montré cette note de service-là! Je ne vous l’avait pas montrée!» [Général Wesley Clark lors d’un entretien accordé à Amy Goodman de Democracy Now, 2/3/15]

Maintenant, Clark est de retour avec d’autres propos étonnants.

Loin d’être une organisation qui aurait surgit de manière spontanée en tant que la cause de tous les maux, au moins selon le général Wesley Clark, l’EI a été créé et financé par nos «alliés les plus proches». Le général a affirmé: l’EI s’est développé grâce aux financements de la part de nos amis et alliés… afin de lutter à mort contre le Hezbollah.

Il n’a pas expliqué de quels amis et alliés il parlait, il a néanmoins indiqué que la situation s’est transformée en un «monstre de Frankenstein». [Général Wesley Clark lors d’un entretien avec CNN Newsroom, 17/2/15]

En effet, notre initié, le général Wesley Clark, nous fait savoir que nos alliés les plus proches au Moyen-Orient ont contribué à la création de l’EI – l’organisation pour la lutte contre laquelle nous dépensons des milliards de dollars.

On sait que Israël, l’Arabie saoudite et d’autres Etats du Golfe sont depuis longtemps obsédés par la lutte contre le Hezbollah et Assad. De la même manière, ces deux Etats s’appliquent pour que les Etats-Unis continuent à lutter dans la région pour leur compte. Et si c’était eux qu’il avait en tête?

Au lieu de continuer à renforcer sa présence militaire dans la région afin de lutter contre l’EI, il est probablement grand temps que les Etats-Unis parlent sérieusement avec leurs «alliés» au Moyen-Orient.

- Source : Daniel McAdams

L’AUSTRIA TRA PASSATO E PRESENTE

L’AUSTRIA TRA PASSATO E PRESENTE

Cristiano Puglisi

Ex: http://www.eurasia-rivista.org

Le relazioni austro-russe hanno costituito una costante dello scenario geopolitico dell’Europa centrale fin dal XVIII secolo. Ai tempi in cui l’Austria era parte dell’allora Sacro Romano Impero, le relazioni tra le due corone imperiali (quella degli zar e quella della casata d’Asburgo) furono centrali nel costituire una barriera cristiana all’espansione dell’Impero Ottomano verso nordest e nordovest. A testimonianza di quanto strategiche a livello territoriale fossero considerate queste relazioni da parte della corona d’Asburgo, va ricordato che le prime notizie di carattere etnografico sul popolo russo, entrarono in Europa occidentale nel XVI secolo grazie al Rerum Moscoviticarum Commentarii, opera del diplomatico imperiale Sigmund Von Heberstein, che fu due volte ambasciatore del Sacro Romano Impero in Russia(1).

Peraltro è curioso osservare come, già ai tempi di Von Heberstein, sul piano ideale e spirituale le due corone fossero unite non solo da interessi strategici, ma anche dalla stretta correlazione di stampo tradizionale tra il potere politico e il potere religioso. Il termine slavo “Tsar” derivava infatti dal latino “Caesar”(2), utilizzato quindi per indicare una monarchia di stampo imperiale nel senso medioevale del termine. Tre secoli più tardi tale unità ideale trae nuova linfa nell’ambito delle guerre napoleoniche, quando fu lo zar Alessandro I a farsi promotore di quella Santa Alleanza che includeva anche l’Austria e la Prussia e il cui compito, sconfitto Napoleone, era quello di prevenire il riemergere di focolai di carattere antimonarchico in Europa occidentale, ponendovi come argine un significativo blocco mitteleuropeo(3). A suggellare la sacralità di tale missione era venuta in soccorso, già dal biennio 1806-1807, la presa di posizione della Chiesa Ortodossa russa, da parte della quale il Bonaparte era frequentemente presentato come l’Anticristo(4). Tale affinità ideologica tra Russia ed Austria perdurò in maniera significativa fino alla conclusione dei moti del 1848.

Dalla seconda metà del XIX secolo, le pulsioni panslaviste dell’impero russo, che minavano le sostanziali fondamenta dell’impero austroungarico, accesero un periodo di ostilità intermittente tra i due Paesi che si concluse solamente al termine del secondo conflitto mondiale, quando l’Austria fu suddivisa in quattro zone d’influenza (americana, francese, inglese e sovietica), salvo recuperare pienamente la propria sovranità nel 1955. Fu allora che le relazioni tra due Paesi (l’Austria democratica e l’Unione Sovietica) ripresero quota, questa volta su un filo conduttore per certi aspetti diametralmente opposto a quello che aveva caratterizzato il sodalizio di un secolo prima, dato che all’opposizione al liberalismo si sostituì, quale collante, il socialismo. Primo cancelliere, già dal 1945, dell’Austria liberata dai nazisti fu infatti il socialista Karl Renner, il quale godeva del favore di Stalin(5) e che per questo solo dopo diversi mesi fu riconosciuto quale legittimo governante dalle altre forze alleate.

Proprio Karl Renner fu uno dei leader della corrente cosidetta “austromarxista” che, formatasi nella polveriera culturale dell’ultimo impero austroungarico, sviluppò all’interno del Partito Socialdemocratico (SPO) una propria e autonoma visione del socialismo che tentava di realizzare una sintesi tra il rispetto dell’autodeterminazione delle comunità etniche locali e il concetto di stato nazionale(6). Tale terzietà di pensiero rispetto alle posizioni politiche dominanti a livello globale (gli austromarxisti si opponevano decisamente alla critica dell’interesse nazionale quale “stratagemma borghese”(7)), all’interno del mondo politico austriaco non fu tuttavia esclusiva del fronte socialista. Basti qui citare la figura di Julius Raab, cancelliere del Partito Popolare Austriaco (OVP) dal 1953 al 1961 e precedentemente membro del Governo di Engelbert Dollfuss (1934-38). Raab nel 1955 si fece promotore della Commissione congiunta dei prezzi e dei salari, una chiara rievocazione del pensiero corporativista, che era appunto alla base dell’esecutivo Dollfuss ma anche, come è noto, della dottrina economica fascista(8). E proprio in una prospettiva di collaborazione consociativa e corporativa, a differenza di altri Paesi europei, l’Austria si caratterizzò nel dopoguerra per una coalizione tra le due principali forze politiche (socialisti e popolari) che fino agli anni ’60 produssero governi di unità nazionale che procedettero alla nazionalizzazione di comparti industriali strategici e alla costruzione di un moderno sistema di welfare.

Sia tale carattere di terzietà, che la presenza di un forte partito socialista come il SPO, ebbero un ruolo non secondario nel determinare il comportamento dell’Austria durante la Guerra Fredda. Il 26 ottobre del 1955, il giorno seguente all’abbandono del territorio austriaco da parte delle ultime truppe alleate, il parlamento approvò infatti la neutralità del Paese, che è ancor oggi parte del diritto internazionale(9). Questo fu un successo della diplomazia di Mosca, che, tramontato definitivamente nel 1950 il tentativo di inglobare il Paese nella sua orbita con l’appoggio di socialisti e comunisti, evitò in questo modo una “nuova Germania” contesa tra il blocco atlantico e quello sovietico. Che il sentimento di indipendenza rispetto ai principali attori geopolitici fosse sentito realmente dalla classe dirigente austriaca è del resto ben rappresentato dal fatto che il 26 ottobre è tutt’ora celebrato come giorno festivo.

Dalla fine degli anni ’80, con il progressivo venir meno della pressione di Mosca a Est per il mantenimento di una rigida posizione di neutralità, si ripropose la questione di un ingresso del Paese nella Comunità Europea(10), che fu infine formalizzato nel 1995 e, salvo eccezioni nell’ala sinistra dell’SPO, appoggiato trasversalmente negli anni dalle forze politiche di Governo. Un’integrazione del Paese alla NATO, opzione questa tradizionalmente vista, soprattutto a partire dagli anni ’60 che videro la fine dei governi di coalizione, con favore dai popolari dell’OVP e invece osteggiata dai socialdemocratici del SPO(11). Il ruolo del SPO nei rapporti con l’Unione Sovietica meriterebbe una trattazione più approfondita. Basti però citare come, negli anni ’50 e ’60, il partito fosse frequentemente sospettato di lassismo nei confronti dell’intelligence sovietica(12).

Tali atteggiamenti restarono sostanzialmente immutati fino ai primi anni 2000. Gli eventi subirono un’accelerazione con la guerra in Bosnia Erzegovina, che vide l’Austria siglare il documento Partnership for Peace (1995) per poi inviare le proprie truppe a sostegno dei contingenti NATO nei balcani e di nuovo nel 1999 in Kossovo. Nel luglio 2002, il presidente austriaco Thomas Klestil incontrò il Segretario Generale della NATO, Lord Robertson, incontro che precedette l’invio di truppe austriache a supporto del contingente atlantico in Afghanistan. Nel giugno 2011 si registrò la visita ufficiale di Anders Fogh Rasmussen (Segretario Generale della NATO) a Vienna(13). Politicamente significativo è infine stato il processo di valutazione svoltosi dal 21 al 30 maggio del 2013 alla base di Allentsteig, dove funzionari NATO hanno supervisionato il livello di preparazione delle truppe destinate al progetto PfP per verificare che fossero compatibili con gli standard dell’alleanza per il progetto EURAD13(14). D’altra parte è bene dire che, se da un lato i servizi di intelligence sovietica ebbero per l’Austria un interesse particolare, dall’altro sebbene al di fuori della NATO oggi il Paese ha sul suo territorio due basi militari americane: si tratta di Neulengbach e Konigswarte, gestite e coordinate dal Comando generale statunitense della National Security Agency di Fort Meade (nel Maryland) e organizzate in cooperazione con i servizi segreti britannici, canadesi, australiani e neozelandesi(15).

Il processo di integrazione europea non ha però troncato le relazioni dell’Austria con la Federazione Russa. Anzi. Secondo un analista della The Jamestown Foundation, lo scomparso austro-americano Roman Kupchinski, anche dopo la fine della Guerra Fredda, l’Austria è rimasto uno degli hub favoriti dall’intelligence di Mosca tanto che, secondo il medesimo autore, l’SVR (servizio di intelligence russo all’estero) avrebbe proprio a Vienna la sua centrale più importante in Europa(16). Quel che è certo tuttavia, è la presenza proprio in Austria di numerose compagnie legate al mercato delle commodities e connesse con la compagnia di stato russa Gazprom. Proprio il comparto energetico è centrale nell’attuale assetto di relazioni commerciali tra Austria e Russia. Il 24 aprile del 2010, la partecipata statale OMV, prima tra le aziende dei Paesi europei a siglare accordi commerciali con l’Unione Sovietica nel 1968, siglò un accordo di cooperazione con Gazprom per la costruzione della sezione austriaca di South Stream mentre il 29 aprile del 2014, già in piena crisi ucraina, il CEO di OMV, Gerhard Roiss siglò con Gazprom un memorandum che prevedeva la partecipazione della compagnia russa nel Central European Gas Hub, situato nel piccolo comune di Baumgarten, nello stato federato del Burgenland(17). Un luogo quasi simbolico: governato dal 1964 da esponenti dell’SPO, il Burgenland, trovandosi al confine con l’Ungheria, Paese del quale ospitava un significativa minoranza etnica, era negli anni della “cortina di ferro” strategicamente significativo.

Lungi dal rappresentare un atto di sudditanza, l’accordo tra OMV e Gazprom rientrava in una logica di mutuale convenienza. Dipendente per il 60% dalle forniture di gas provenienti dalla Federazione Russa, OMV aveva avviato nel 2012 un progetto per estrarre gas dalle coste rumene del Mar Nero attraverso una partnership tra la Petrom (compagnia rumena controllata a maggioranza da OMV) ed Exxon Mobil. In questo modo OMV, qualora South Stream avesse visto la luce, avrebbe paradossalmente potuto utilizzare le infrastrutture realizzate con la collaborazione di Gazprom per ridurre la propria dipendenza dal mercato russo, come osservato anche dal New York Times in un articolo dello scorso 22 luglio(18).

Visto lo scenario, non sorprende dunque che nel mese di dicembre, anche in seguito all’annuncio da parte del presidente russo Vladimir Putin della cancellazione del progetto South Stream, il cancelliere austriaco del PSO Werner Faymann abbia preso rigidamente posizione sia contro le sanzioni alla Russia (17 dicembre)(19), sia contro il Trattato transatlantico di libero scambio (TTIP)(18 dicembre)(20), che prevede un’integrazione tra il mercato europeo e quello nordamericano. Relativamente al TTIP, Faymann ha spiegato come l’Austria non intenda avallare una concessione di privilegi alle affermato multinazionali americane, mentre relativamente alle sanzioni, il cancelliere ha che l’Unione Europea non deve essere “una versione in abiti civili della NATO”.

Tale dichiarazione, più che la prima, è significativa in quanto rappresenta non solo una presa di posizione squisitamente pratica, ma anche e soprattutto ideologica (per il rifiuto di un trattato estremamente liberomercatista) rispetto ai rapporti di Vienna con l’alleanza atlantica che, come abbiamo visto, dalla metà degli anni ’90 si sono evoluti in un sostanziale crescendo. Tale presa di posizione dimostra come l’Austria, sebbene oggi integrata nel contesto dell’Europa comunitaria, sia ancora pronta a tornare a svolgere, all’occorrenza, un ruolo di autonomia, terzietà e alterità nel contesto politico europeo. Una possibilità questa che, rispetto ad altri Paesi europei, deriva, oltre che dal diritto internazionale, anche da una ridotta presenza militare straniera sul proprio territorio. L’Austria può dunque appresentare, nell’ambito dell’attuale momento di forte criticità nei rapporti tra la Federazione Russa, l’Unione Europea e la NATO, un cuscinetto in grado di ammorbidire in seno all’Europa le posizioni atlantiste più intransigenti, rappresentando così per Mosca un potenziale partner di primissimo piano anche per gli anni a venire e, data la sua lunga storia, un punto di riferimento strategico per il panorama mitteleuropeo.

NOTE
1. http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/germanica/Chronologie/16Jh/Sigismund/sig_intr.html
2. G.Davidson, Coincise English Dictionary, Wordsworth Editions Ltd. 2007, ISBN 1840224975, pag.1000
3. cfr. H.Troyat, Alessandro I. Lo zar della Santa Alleanza, Bompiani, 2001, ISBN 8845291170, 9788845291173
4. P.G.Dwyer, Napoleon and Europe, Routledge, 2014, ISBN 1317882717, 9781317882718, pag.255
5. H.Picks, Guilty victims: Austria from the holocaust to Haider, I.B.Tauris, 2000, ISBN 1860646182, 9781860646188, pag.35
6. M.Cattaruzza, La nazione in rosso: socialismo, comunismo e questione nazionale, 1889-1953, Rubbettino Editore, 2005, ISBN, 8849811772, 9788849811773, pag.17
7. M.Lallement, Le idee della sociologia, volume 1, EDIZIONI DEDALO, 1996, ISBN 8822002024, 9788822002020, pag.108
8. P.S.Adams, The Europeanization of the Social Partnership: The Future of Neo-corporatism in Austria and Germany, ProQuest, 2008, ISBN 0549663916, 9780549663911, pag.171
9. J.A.K.Hey, Small States in World Politics: Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003, ISBN 1555879438, 9781555879433, pag.96
10. R.Luther – W.C.Mueller, Politics in Austria: Still a Case of Consociationalism, Routledge, 2014, ISBN 1135193347, 9781135193348, pag.203
11. G.Bischof-A.Pelinka-M.Gehler, Austrian Foreign Policy in Historical Context, Transaction Publishers, 2006, ISBN 1412817684, 9781412817684, pag.212
12. B.Volodarsky, The KGB’s Poison Factory, Frontline Books, 2013, ISBN 1473815738, 9781473815735 , pag.118
13. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_75912.htm?selectedLocale=en
14. http://www.aco.nato.int/nato-evaluates-the-capability-of-the-austrian-armed-forces.aspx
15. http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/dal-mare-nostrum-al-gallinarium-americanum-basi-usa-in-europa-mediterraneo-e-vicino-oriente/15230/
16. http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=34516#.VJ2_KV4BY
17. http://www.south-stream.info/press/news/news-item/south-stream-returning-to-austria/
18. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/business/energy-environment/an-austrian-company-in-gazproms-grip.html?_r=0
19. http://derstandard.at/2000009627760/Faymann-zieht-EU-Sanktionen-in-Zweifel
20. http://www.krone.at/Oesterreich/Faymann_droht_im_Ernstfall_mit_TTIP-Klage-Auch_im_Alleingang-Story-432130

A Green Light for the American Empire

 

 

A Green Light for the American Empire

By Ron Paul

Ron Paul Institute

Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com

The American Empire has been long in the making. A green light was given in 1990 to finalize that goal. Dramatic events occurred that year that allowed the promoters of the American Empire to cheer. It also ushered in the current 25-year war to solidify the power necessary to manage a world empire. Most people in the world now recognize this fact and assume that the empire is here to stay for a long time. That remains to be seen.

Empires come and go. Some pop up quickly and disappear in the same manner. Others take many years to develop and sometimes many years to totally disintegrate. The old empires, like the Greek, Roman, Spanish and many others took many years to build and many years to disappear. The Soviet Empire was one that came rather quickly and dissipated swiftly after a relatively short period of time. The communist ideology took many decades to foment the agitation necessary for the people to tolerate that system.

Since 1990 the United States has had to fight many battles to convince the world that it was the only military and economic force to contend with. Most people are now convinced and are easily intimidated by our domination worldwide with the use of military force and economic sanctions on which we generously rely. Though on the short term this seems to many, and especially for the neoconservatives, that our power cannot be challenged. What is so often forgotten is that while most countries will yield to our threats and intimidation, along the way many enemies were created.

The seeds of the American Empire were sown early in our history. Natural resources, river transportation, and geographic location all lent itself to the development of an empire. An attitude of “Manifest Destiny” was something most Americans had no trouble accepting. Although in our early history there were those who believed in a powerful central government, with central banking and foreign intervention, these views were nothing like they are today as a consequence of many years of formalizing the power and determination necessary for us to be the policeman of the world and justify violence as a means for spreading a particular message. Many now endorse the idea that using force to spread American exceptionalism is moral and a force for good. Unfortunately history has shown that even using humanitarian rhetoric as a justification for telling others what to do has never worked.

Our move toward empire steadily accelerated throughout the 20th century. World War I and World War II were deadly for millions of people in many countries, but in comparison the United States was essentially unscathed. Our economic power and military superiority steadily grew. Coming out of World War II we were able to dictate the terms of the new monetary system at Bretton Woods as well as the makeup of all the international organizations like NATO, the United Nations, and many others. The only thing that stood in America’s way between 1945 and 1990 was the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Significant events of 1990 sealed the fate of the Soviet Empire, with United States enjoying a green light that would usher in unchallenged American superiority throughout the world.

Various names have been given to this war in which we find ourselves and is which considered necessary to maintain the empire. Professor Michael Rozeff calls it the “Great War II” implying that the Great War I began in 1914 and ended in 1990. Others have referred to this ongoing war as “The Long War.” I hope that someday we can refer to this war as the “The Last War” in that by the time this war ends the American Empire will end as well. Then the greatness of the experiment in individual liberty in our early history can be resumed and the force of arms can be replaced by persuasion and setting an example of how a free society should operate.

There are several reasons why 1990 is a significant year in the transition of modern day empires. It was a year that signaled the end of the USSR Empire and the same year the American Empire builders felt vindicated in their efforts to assume the role of the world’s sole superpower.

On February 7, 1990 the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union met and ceded its monopoly political power over its empire. This was followed in a short period of time with the breakup of the Soviet system with 15 of the 17 republics declaring their independence from Moscow. This was not a total surprise considering the fact that the Soviets, in defeat, were forced to leave Afghanistan in February 1989. Also later that year, on November 9, 1989, the Berlin wall fell. Obviously the handwriting was on the wall for the total disintegration of the Soviet system. The fact that the Communist Party’s leaders had to concede that they no longer could wield the ominous power that the Communist Party exerted for 73 years was a seminal event. None of this could have been possible without significant policy changes instituted by Mikhail Gorbachev after his assuming power as president in 1985, which included Glasnost and Perestroika—policies that permitted more political openness as well as significant economic reforms. These significant events led up to the Soviet collapse much more so than the conventional argument that it was due to Ronald Reagan’s military buildup that forced the Soviets into a de facto “surrender” to the West.

The other significant event of 1990, and not just a coincidence, was the “green light” message exchanged between April Glaspie and Saddam Hussein on July 25, 1990. Though the details of this encounter have been debated, there is no doubt that the conclusion of it was that Saddam Hussein was convinced that the United States would not object to him using force to deal with a dispute Iraq had with Kuwait. After all, the US had just spent eight years aligning itself with him in his invasion and war with the Iranians. It seemed to him quite logical. What he didn’t realize was the significance of the changes in the world powers that were ongoing at that particular time. The Soviets were on their way out and the American Empire was soon to assert its role as the lone super power. The US was anxious to demonstrate its new role.

When one reads the communications between Washington and Iraq, it was not difficult to believe that a green light had been given to Saddam Hussein to march into Kuwait without US interference. Without this invasion, getting the American people to support a war with Iraq would have been very difficult. Before the war propaganda by the US government and the American media began, few Americans supported President Bush’s plans to go to war against an ally that we assisted in its eight-year war against Iran. After several months of propaganda, attitudes changed and President Bush was able to get support from the US Congress, although he argued that that was unnecessary since he had obtained a UN resolution granting him the authority to use his military force to confront Saddam Hussein. The need for Constitutional authority was not discussed.

US ambassador April Glaspie was rather explicit in her comments to Saddam Hussein: “we have no opinion on Arab – Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.” The US State Department had already told Saddam Hussein that Washington had “no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.” It’s not difficult interpreting conversations like this as being a green light for the invasion that Hussein was considering. Hussein had a list of grievances regarding the United States, but Glaspie never threatened or hinted about how Washington would react if Hussein took Kuwait. Regardless, whether it was reckless or poor diplomacy, the war commenced. Some have argued that it was deliberate in order to justify the beginning of the United States efforts in rebuilding the Middle East – a high priority for the neoconservatives. Actually whether the invasion by Saddam Hussein into Kuwait was encouraged or permitted by deliberate intentions or by miscalculations, the outcome and the subsequent disaster in Iraq for the next 25 years was a result of continued bad judgment in our dealing with Iraq. That required enforcing our goals with military intervention. The obvious failure of this policy requires no debate.

On August 1, 1990, one week after this exchange between ambassador Glaspie and Saddam Hussein, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq occurred. Immediately following this attack our State Department made it clear that this invasion would not stand and President Bush would lead a coalition in removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait. On January 17, 1991, that military operation began. The forced evacuation of Iraqi troops from Kuwait was swift and violent, but the war for Iraq had just begun and continues to this day. It also ushered in the climactic struggle for America’s efforts to become the official and unchallenged policeman of the world and to secure the American Empire.

President Bush was not bashful in setting the stage for this clearly defined responsibility to assume this role since the Soviet Empire was on the wane. A very significant foreign policy speech by Bush came on September 11, 1990 entitled, “Toward a New World Order.” This was a clear definition of internationalism with United States in charge in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D Roosevelt. In this speech there was a pretense that there would be Russian and United States cooperation in making the world safe for democracy—something that our government now seems totally uninterested in. Following the speech, the New York Times reported that the American left was concerned about this new world order as being nothing more than rationalization for imperial ambitions in the middle 1980s. Obviously the geopolitics of the world had dramatically changed. The green light was given for the American hegemony.

This arrogant assumption of power to run the world militarily and to punish or reward various countries economically would continue and accelerate, further complicating the financial condition of the United States government. Though it was easy for the United States to push Hussein back into Iraq, subsequent policy was destined to create havoc that has continued up to the present day. The sanctions and the continuous bombing of Iraq were devastating to the infrastructure of that country. As a consequence it’s been estimated that over 500,000 Iraqis died in the next decade, many of them being children. Yet there are still many Americans who continue to be mystified as to why “they – Arabs and Muslims – hate us.” By the end of 1991, on Christmas Day, the final blow to the Soviet system occurred. On that date Gorbachev resigned and the Soviet flag was lowered for the last time, thus officially ending the Soviet Empire. Many had hoped that there would be “a peace dividend” for us since the Cold War was officially ended. There’s no reason that could not have occurred but it would have required us to reject the notion that it was our moral obligation and legal responsibility to deal with every crisis throughout the world. Nevertheless we embarked on that mission and though it continues, it is destined to end badly for our country. The ending of the Soviet Empire was a miraculous event with not one shot being fired. It was a failed system based on a deeply flawed idea and it was destined to fail. Once again this makes the point that the use of military force to mold the world is a deeply flawed policy. We must remember that ideas cannot be stopped by armies and recognize that good ideas must replace bad ones rather than resorting to constant wars.

It should surprise no one that a policy endorsing the use of force to tell others how to live will only lead to more killing and greater economic suffering for those who engage in this effort, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. Twenty five years have passed since this green light was given for the current war and there’s no sign that it will soon end. So far it has only emboldened American political leaders to robustly pursue foreign interventionism with little thought to the tremendous price that is continuously paid.

During the 1990s there was no precise war recognized. However our military presence around the world especially in the Middle East and to some degree in Africa was quite evident. Even though President George HW Bush did not march into Baghdad, war against the Iraqi people continued. In an effort to try to get the people to rebel against Saddam Hussein, overwhelming sanctions and continuous bombing were designed to get the Iraqi people to rebel and depose Hussein. That did not work. Instead it worked to continue to build hatred toward America for our involvement in the entire region.

Our secretive influence in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation had its unintended consequences. One was that we were fighting on the side of bin Laden and we all know how that turned out. Also, in an effort to defeat communism, the CIA helped to promote radical Islam in Saudi Arabia. Some argue that this was helpful in defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan. This most likely is not true since communism was doomed to fail anyway, and the cost to us by encouraging radical Islam has come back to haunt us.

It has been estimated that our policies directed at Iraq during the 1990s caused the death of thousands of Iraqis, many of these coming from the destruction of their infrastructure and creating a public health nightmare. When Madeleine Albright was asked about this on national TV she did not deny it and said that that was a price that had to be paid. And then they wonder why there is so much resentment coming from these countries directed toward United States. Then George Bush Junior invaded Iraq, his justification all based on lies, and another 500,000 Iraqis died. The total deaths have been estimated to represent four percent of the Iraqi population. The green light that was turned on for the Persian Gulf War in 1990 stayed lit and even today the proponents of these totally failed wars claim that the only problem is we didn’t send enough troops and we didn’t stay long enough. And now it’s argued that it’s time to send ground troops back in. This is the message that we get from the neoconservatives determined that only armed might can bring peace to the world and that the cost to us financially is not a problem. The proponents never seem to be concerned about the loss of civil liberties, which has continued ever since the declaration of the Global War on Terrorism. And a good case can be made that our national security not only has not been helped, but has been diminished with these years of folly.

And the true believers in empire never pause. After all the chaos that the US government precipitated in Iraq, conditions continue to deteriorate and now there is strong talk about putting troops on the ground once again. More than 10,000 troops still remain in Afghanistan and conditions there are precarious. Yemen is a mess as is also Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Ukraine — all countries in which we have illegally and irresponsibly engaged ourselves.

Today the debate in Congress is whether or not to give the President additional authority to use military force. He asked to be able to use military force anyplace anytime around the world without further congressional approval. This is hardly what the Founders intended for how we dealt with going to war with other nations. Some have argued, for Constitutional reasons, that we should declare war against ISIS. That will prove to be difficult since exactly who they are and where they are located and how many there are is unknown. We do know it is estimated that there are around 30,000 members. And yet in the surrounding countries, where the fighting is going on and we are directly involved, millions of Muslims have chosen not to stand up to the ruthless behavior of the ISIS members.

Since declaring war against ISIS makes no more sense than declaring war against “terrorism,” which is a tactic, it won’t work. Even at the height of the Cold War, in a time of great danger to the entire world, nobody suggested we declare war against “communism.” Islamist extremism is based on strong beliefs, and as evil as these beliefs may be, they must be understood, confronted, and replaced with ideas that all civilized people in the world endorse. But what we must do immediately is to stop providing the incentive for the radicals to recruit new members and prevent American weapons from ending up in the hands of the enemy as a consequence of our failed policies. The incentives of the military-industrial complex along with the philosophy of neoconservatism that pushes us to be in more than 150 countries, must be exposed and refuted. Occupation by a foreign country precipitates hatred and can never be made acceptable by flowery words about their need for American-style “democracy.” People who are occupied are always aware of the selfish motivation of the occupiers.

The announcement by President George HW Bush on September 11, 1990 about the new world order was well received. Prior to that time it was only the “conspiracy theorists” who constantly talked about and speculated about the New World Order. Neoconservative ideas had been around for a long time. They were endorsed by many presidents and in particular Woodrow Wilson with his goal of spreading American goodness and making the ”world safe for democracy” – none of which can be achieved by promoting war. In the 1990s the modern day neoconservatives, led by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, enjoyed their growing influence on America’s foreign policy. Specifically, in 1997 they established the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) for the specific purpose of promoting an aggressive foreign policy of interventionism designed to promote the American Empire. This policy of intervention was to be presented with “moral clarity.” “Clarity” it was, but “moral” is another question. Their goal was to provide a vision and resolve, “to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interest.”

It was not a surprise that admittedly the number one goal for the New World order was to significantly increase military spending and to be prepared to challenge any regime hostile to America’s interests. They argued that America had to accept its unique role as the sole superpower for extending international order as long as it served America’s interests. Although neoconservatives are thought to have greater influence within the Republican Party, their views have been implemented by the leadership of both Republicans and Democrats. First on PNAC’s agenda was to continue the policy designed to undermine Saddam Hussein with the goal of eventually invading Iraq – once they had an event that would galvanize public support for it. Many individuals signed letters as well as the statement of principles and most were identified as Republicans. Interestingly enough, the fourth person on the list of signatories for the statement of principles was Jeb Bush, just as he was planning his second run for governor of Florida. The neoconservatives have been firmly placed in a position of influence in directing America’s foreign policy. Though we hear some debate between the two political parties over when and whom to strike, our position of world policeman is accepted by both. Though the rhetoric is different between the two parties, power always remains in the hands of those who believe in promoting the empire.

The American Empire has arrived, but there’s no indication that smooth sailing is ahead. Many questions remain. Will the American people continue to support it? Will the American taxpayer be able to afford it? Will those on the receiving end of our authority tolerate it? All empires eventually end. It’s only a matter of time. Since all empires exist at the expense of personal liberty the sooner the American Empire ends the better it will be for those who still strive to keep America a bastion for personal liberty. That is possible, but it won’t be achieved gracefully.

Though the people have a say in the matter, they have to contend with the political and financial power that controls the government and media propaganda. The powerful special interests, who depend on privileges that come from the government, will do whatever is necessary to intimidate the people into believing that it’s in their best interest to prop up a system that rewards the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. The nature of fiat money and the privileges provided to the special interests by the Federal Reserve makes it a difficult struggle, but it’s something that can be won. Unfortunately there will be economic chaos, more attacks on our civil liberties, and many unfortunate consequences coming from our unwise and dangerous foreign policy of interventionism.

Since all empires serve the interests of a privileged class, the people who suffer will constantly challenge their existence. The more powerful the empire, the greater is the need for the government to hold it together by propaganda and lies. Truth is the greatest enemy of an abusive empire. Since those in charge are determined to maintain their power, truth is seen as being treasonous. Whistleblowers and truth tellers are seen as unpatriotic and disloyal. This is why as our empire has grown there have been more attacks on those who challenge the conventional wisdom of the propagandists. We have seen it with the current administration in that the president has used the Espionage Act to curtail freedom of the press more than any other recent president. Fortunately we live in an age where information is much more available than when it was controlled by a combination of our government and the three major networks. Nevertheless it’s an uphill struggle to convince the people that it is in their best interests to give up on the concept of empire, foreign interventionism, allowing the special interests to dictate foreign policy, and paying the bills with the inflation of the money supply provided by the Federal Reserve. The laws of economics, in time, will bring such a system to an end but it would be nice if it would be ended sooner through logic and persuasion.

If it’s conceded that there was a dramatic change with the green light given by April Glaspie and President Bush in 1990, along with the collapse, almost simultaneously, of the Soviet system, the only question remains is when and who will turn on the red light to end this 25 year war. Sometime it’s easier to establish an empire than it is to maintain and pay for it. That is what our current political leaders are in the business of currently doing and it’s not going well. It appears that a comparatively small but ruthless non-government entity, ISIS, is playing havoc with our political leaders as well as nearly all the countries in the Middle East. Because there is no clear understanding of what radical Islam is all about  —since it is not much about Islam itself — our policies in the Middle East and elsewhere will continue to drain our resources and incite millions more to join those who are resisting our occupations and sanctions. The day will come when we will be forced to give up our role as world policeman and resort to using a little common sense and come home.

This will only occur when the American people realize that our presence around the world and the maintenance of our empire has nothing to do with defending our Constitution, preserving our liberties, or fulfilling some imaginary obligation on our part to use force to spread American exceptionalism. A thorough look at our economic conditions, our pending bankruptcy, our veterans hospitals, and how we’re viewed in the world by most other nations, will compel Americans to see things differently and insist that we bring our troops home – the sooner the better.

Vocal proponents of the American Empire talk about a moral imperative that requires us to sacrifice ourselves as we try to solve the problems of the world. If there was even a hint this effort was accomplishing something beneficial, it might be more difficult to argue against. But the evidence is crystal-clear that all our efforts only make things worse, both for those we go to teach about democracy and liberty and for the well-being of all Americans who are obligated to pay for this misplaced humanitarian experiment. We must admit that this 25-year war has failed. Nevertheless it’s difficult to argue against it when it requires that that we not endorse expanding our military operations to confront the ISIS killers. Arguments against pursuing a war to stop the violence, however, should appeal to common sense. Recognizing that our policies in the Middle East have significantly contributed to the popular support for radical Islam is crucial to dealing with ISIS. More sacrifices by the American people in this effort won’t work and should be avoided. If one understands what motivates radical Islam to strike out as it does, the solution would become more evident. Voluntary efforts by individuals to participate in the struggle should not be prohibited. If the solution is not more violence on our part, a consideration must be given to looking at the merits of a noninterventionist foreign policy which does not resort to the killing of hundreds of thousands of individuals who never participated in any aggression against United States — as our policies have done since the green light for empire was given.

How is this likely to end? The empire will not be ended legislatively or by the sudden embrace of common sense in directing our foreign policy. The course of interventionism overseas and assuming the role of world policeman will remain for the foreseeable future. Still the question remains, how long will that be since we can be certain that the end of the empire will come. Our military might and economic strength is now totally dependent on the confidence that the worldwide financial markets give to the value of the US dollar. In spite of all the reasons that the dollar will eventually be challenged as the world reserve currency, the competition, at present, by other currencies to replace it, is nil. Confidence can be related to objective facts such as how a country runs its fiscal affairs and monetary policy. Economic wealth and military strength also contribute artificial confidence to a currency. Perceptions and subjective reasons are much more difficult to define and anticipate. The day will come when the confidence in the dollar will be greatly diminished worldwide. Under those conditions the tremendous benefits that we in the United States have enjoyed as the issuer of the reserve currency will be reversed. It will become difficult if not impossible for us to afford huge budget deficits as well as very large current account deficits. National debt and foreign debt will serve as a limitation on how long the empire can last. Loss of confidence can come suddenly and overwhelmingly. Under those conditions we will no longer be able to afford our presence overseas nor will we be able to continue to export our inflation and debt to other nations. Then it will require that we pay for our extravagance, and market forces will require that we rein in our support for foreign, corporate, and domestic welfare spending. Hopefully this will not come for a long time, giving us a chance to educate more people as to its serious nature and give them insight into its precise cause. Nevertheless we live in a period of time when we should all consider exactly what is the best road to take to protect ourselves, not only our personal wealth but also to prepare to implement a system based on sound money, limited government, and personal liberty. This is a goal we can achieve. And when we do, America will enjoy greater freedom, more prosperity and a better chance for peace.

The Best of Ron Paul

Copyright © 2015 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

Previous article by Ron Paul: What Is It Good for? Absolutely Nothing

Le dogmatisme démocratique: l’erreur fatale des Occidentaux

SYRIE : L’AVEU AMÉRICAIN

Le dogmatisme démocratique: l’erreur fatale des Occidentaux

Jean Bonnevey
Ex: http://metamag.fr

 

Le djihadisme qui veut nous détruire, nous l’avons créé, les Américains l'ont financé. Nous avons partout voulu tuer le mauvais cochon. On commence à peine à le comprendre et encore pas tout le monde. L'extraordinaire revirement américain sur le régime Assad est tout de même un sacré aveu.

Assad résiste et son régime avec lui. On pensait qu’il allait être emporté en quelques mois par un printemps démocratique syrien  puis par une rébellion armée de gentils sunnites voulaient en finir avec la dictature de la minorité chiite des Alaouites. Son armée, dirigée par les cadres de la minorité religieuse au pouvoir, a tenu bon. Petit à petit la rébellion a changé de visage et a été confisquée par les djihadistes sunnites.

C’était tout de même prévisible, l’ennemi syrien de Damas, combattu par les Américains, était en fait le même que celui imposé par les Américains à Bagdad. Le pouvoir chiite irakien a donc réussi à déclencher une révolte sunnite armée devenue une insurrection islamiste.

Notre incohérence est telle que le succès des djihadistes irakiens, destructeurs des cultures passées et génocidaires de chrétiens a été rendue possible par l’apport décisif de l'infrastructure de l'armée baasiste, c’est à dire nationaliste et laïque de Saddam Hussein. La cohérence est du côté de la Russie et de l'Iran, surtout de l'Iran qui, en Irak comme en Syrie, appuyé sur le terrain par le hezbollah libanais, soutient l’arc chiite qui résiste au djihadisme sunnite.

La réalité géopolitique s’impose petit à petit à l'utopie idéologique. C’est  ce qui inquiète tant les monarchies du golfe qui financent, contre les chiites, les égorgeurs sectaires de l’EI. Car c’est l' Iran, allié d'Assad, qui a la clé de la victoire sur le terrain, au sol, et certainement pas nos bombardements de bonne conscience. Les américains, principaux responsables sauf en Libye de ce chaos devenu une guerre mondiale religieuse ou en tout cas une guerre menée au monde par une secte se référant à une religion, commencent peut-être à comprendre.

Les Etats-Unis devront négocier avec le président syrien Bachar el-Assad pour mettre fin au conflit qui vient d'entrer dans sa cinquième année, a reconnu le secrétaire d'Etat américain John Kerry. « Au final, il faudra négocier. Nous avons toujours été pour les négociations dans le cadre du processus (de paix) de Genève I », a déclaré Kerry dans une interview diffusée sur la chaîne CBS .Washington travaille pour « relancer » les efforts visant à trouver une solution politique au conflit, a dit le chef de la diplomatie américaine. Les Etats-Unis avaient participé à l'organisation de pourparlers entre l'opposition syrienne et des émissaires de Damas à Genève au début de l'année dernière. Ce processus de Genève prévoit une transition politique négociée. Mais les deux cycles de négociations n'avaient produit aucun résultat et la guerre s'est poursuivie.

Depuis le début du conflit en mars 2011, plus de 215.000 personnes ont été tuées et la moitié de la population déplacée. Les Etats-Unis, a poursuivi le secrétaire d'Etat, « continuent certes à pilonner le groupe Etat islamique, qui s'est emparé de larges pans de territoire en Irak et en Syrie, mais leur objectif reste de mettre fin au conflit en Syrie. Les Etats-Unis ne veulent pas d'un effondrement du gouvernement et des institutions en Syrie qui laisserait le champ libre aux extrémistes islamistes, dont le groupe Etat islamique (EI) ».

« Aucun d'entre nous, Russie, Etats-Unis, coalition [contre l'EI], Etats de la région, ne veut un effondrement du gouvernement et des institutions politiques à Damas », a déclaré  John Brennan, directeur de la CIA, à New York devant le centre de réflexion Council on Foreign Relations. Des « éléments extrémistes », dont l'EI et d'anciens militants d'Al-Qaïda, sont « en phase ascendante » dans certaines régions de Syrie, a soutenu M. Brennan. Interrogé sur une potentielle coopération entre Washington et Téhéran en Irak, M. Brennan a suggéré que les deux pays collaboraient indirectement contre un ennemi commun, l'EI. « Il y a un alignement de certains intérêts entre nous et l'Iran » en ce qui concerne la lutte contre l'EI en Irak, a-t-il affirmé.

On commence a comprendre qui est l’ennemi principal. Enfin… On… pas encore vraiment les Anglais et encore moins les Français qui continuent à sauter sur place en scandant, d’exécutions d’otages en attentats? de destructions en épurations, « démocratie – démocratie – démocratie » 

An Interview with Félix Cárdenas Aguilar, Bolivia’s Vice Minister of Decolonization

Bolivia: A Country That Dared to Exist

by BENJAMIN DANGL

Ex: http://www.counterpunch.org

In 1870, Bolivian dictator Mariano Melgarejo offered an English diplomat a glass of chicha – a corn-based beer consumed for centuries in the Andes. The diplomat refused the drink, asking for chocolate instead. A short-tempered Melgarejo responded by forcing the Englishman to drink a vast quantity of chocolate, and then made him ride a mule, backwards, through La Paz.

At least, this is how the story is related by Uruguayan author Eduardo Galeano, who writes, “When Queen Victoria, in London, heard of the incident, she had a map brought to her and pronounced ‘Bolivia doesn’t exist,’ crossing out the country with a chalk ‘X.’” While the story is unlikely true, Galeano suggests it can be read as a metaphor for Bolivia’s tortured history as a victim of colonialism and imperialism.

In the interview below, Bolivia’s current Vice Minister of Decolonization, Félix Cárdenas Aguilar, makes a similar point, that “Bolivia is a failed country” because, from the time of its independence in 1825, its modernization was based on the exploitation of indigenous people. The challenge now, Cárdenas explains, is for Bolivia, under the presidency of Evo Morales, to decolonize itself, to reconstruct its past and identity, and to build a “plurinational” country where many indigenous nations can thrive. By resisting subjugation, Bolivia is daring to exist on its own terms.

This movement toward decolonization in the Andes is as old as colonialism itself, but the process has taken a novel turn with the administration of Morales, Bolivia’s first indigenous president. Morales, a former coca farmer, union organizer, and leftist congressman, was elected president in 2005, representing a major break from the country’s neoliberal past.

Last October, Morales was re-elected to a third term in office with more than 60% of the vote. His popularity is largely due to his Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) party’s success in reducing poverty, empowering marginalized sectors of society, and using funds from state-run industries for hospitals, schools and much-needed public works projects across Bolivia.

Aside from socialist and anti-imperialist policies, the MAS’s time in power has been marked by a notable discourse of decolonization. Five hundred years after the European colonization of Latin America, activists and politicians linked to the MAS and representing Bolivia’s indigenous majority have deepened a process of reconstitution of indigenous culture, identity and rights from the halls of government power. Part of this work has been carried forward by the Vice Ministry of Decolonization, which was created in 2009.

This Vice Ministry operates under the umbrella of the Ministry of Culture, and coordinates with many other sectors of government to promote, for example, indigenous language education, gender parity in government, historical memory, indigenous forms of justice, anti-racism initiatives, and indigenous autonomy.

Before becoming the Vice Minister of Decolonization when the office opened, Félix Cárdenas had worked for decades as an Aymara indigenous leader, union and campesino organizer, leftist politician and activist fighting against dictatorships and neoliberal governments. As a result of this work, he was jailed and tortured on numerous occasions. Cárdenas participated the Constituent Assembly to re-write Bolivia’s constitution, a progressive document which was passed under President Morales’ leadership in 2009. This trajectory has contributed to Cárdenas’ radical political analysis and dedication to what’s called the Proceso de Cambio, or Process of Change, under the Morales government.

Such unprecedented work by the MAS hasn’t happened without its shortcomings and contradictions. Violence against women in the country is on the rise, a recent corruption scandal has weakened MAS popularity in current local election races, and extractive industries, while providing funds for the government’s social programs and national development, are displacing indigenous and rural communities, and poisoning land and rivers. Leftist and indigenous opposition to the MAS has also faced government crackdowns, limiting the autonomy and space for grassroots dissent in the country.

MAS allies say such pitfalls are part of the societal legacies of colonialism and neoliberalism in the country, challenges which can’t be reversed overnight, but which the MAS is trying to overcome. Critics say that the MAS is worsening such problems with sexist rhetoric, a deepening of extractivism, and silencing of critics.

Bolivia’s road toward decolonization is a rocky and contested one. But, as Félix Cárdenas argues below, in a bleak world full of capitalist tyrants, bloody wars and racist exploitation, Bolivia’s Process of Change continues to shine as an alternative to the dominant global order.

***

Benjamin Dangl: Could you please provide an overview of the kind of work the Vice Ministry of Decolonization does?

Félix Cárdenas: First of all it’s not the kind of vice ministry where we have to say ‘we built 3,000 kilometers of highway,’ or ‘we constructed 20 stadiums.’ It’s more than anything a political and ideological vice ministry, and for this type of work what we have to do first of all is establish some points of departure for the work of decolonization. It’s not sufficient to go somewhere and say ‘I declare you decolonized!’ and that’s it, they’re decolonized. No. It’s a question of changing mentality, behavior, of life philosophy, and to do this at an individual level, or at a communitarian level, a national level, we have an obligation to first ask ‘what is Bolivia?’ If we don’t clearly understand what Bolivia is, then we don’t know what needs to be done.

So, as a part of this process, one has to explain that Bolivia is a failed country. This is a point of departure. Bolivia failed as a proposed country. This country, that was founded in 1825, that claimed to be modern, that claimed to be civilized, that wanted to look like Europe, that wanted to be Europe while denying itself – this type of country failed. It failed because this type of country, that was born in 1825, wanted to be modern, wanted to be civilized based on the destruction of the indigenous people, based on the destruction of their languages, their culture, their identity.

Therefore, it’s from this perspective that we understand that Bolivia is not what they tell us – that Bolivia is one nation, one language, one religion. We are 36 [indigenous] nations, 36 cultures, 36 ways of seeing the world, and therefore, 36 ways of providing solutions for the world. We call this diversity of cultures ‘plurinational,’ and we want to build a plurinational state.

So, seen in this way, if our future work is to decolonize and create a plurinational society, we have to work in education, we have to work in all areas, in justice, for example, to reinstate indigenous justice. The constitution tells us that indigenous justice and standard justice have the same hierarchy. So there is a need to work in indigenous justice, reinstate indigenous justice in the face of the crisis of standard justice, which is foreign as well as corrupt.

The constitution speaks of a secular state. Before, the catholic religion was the official religion. Not today. Today no one is obligated to get married in front of a priest. No one is obligated to be baptized in front of a priest. Religion was the strongest aspect of colonialism. Religion was always power. Today, no. Today religion is outside of power, outside of the government palace. It’s fine if religion dedicates itself to saving souls, but never again will it define the politics of the state as it used to.

When many people talk about decolonization they think it’s just an indigenous people’s problem. But decolonization is not an indigenous peoples’ problem, decolonization is everyone’s problem. For example, our bourgeoisie, our private business class, thinks that they are condemned to always live off of the scraps thrown to them by transnational companies. This is colonialism, and they don’t dare invest in the development of their own country. And so, decolonization is everyone’s work.

BD: A process of decolonization has to be global, right? What do countries in the north, the most capitalist countries, have to do as a part of this process?

FC: For the first time, the countries of the north have to look at themselves in the mirror and realize that they are in crisis. If they don’t accept that they are in crisis, they will never find ways to solve their crisis. But they also need to accept that they’re in crisis and they themselves don’t have the solutions. They have to look to us, to the indigenous people. Not to Bolivia, but to the indigenous people that are all over the world, and who have a philosophy of life that is qualitatively superior to philosophies constructed in the form of civilizing modernity.

From Bolivia, we salute the [Syriza] triumph in Greece. We salute the future triumph in Spain, which has more or less the same characteristics. These revolutions in Spain and in Greece are being built while looking to Bolivia. So, for us, this is a kind of complication; to recognize that 500 years ago they [Europeans] arrived, taught us a way of life, a type of religion, a type of modernity that failed. And so today, after 500 years, we, the indigenous people, have the obligation to go to Europe and speak to them, to convert them, to tell them that there is another way to live, and that their crisis is bringing planet earth to a global crisis.

 

 

BD: The economy of Bolivia is very much based in mining, gas – extractivism. How do you see this process? How can Bolivia overcome its dependency on mining and gas? On the one hand, the president speaks of respecting mother earth, but on the other hand, mining and gas industries are very crucial here. How do you see these contradictions?

FC: This isn’t something that this government invented. Bolivia has always lived off of mining, we have always lived off of extractivism. Now, what we hope to do is that this sacrifice, this fruit that mother earth is providing us with, is not in vain. And that it doesn’t just leave [the country] as raw material, but that there’s a need to industrialize, and as we industrialize we can reach the point where we can lower the level of extractivism.

Benjamin Dangl has worked as a journalist throughout Latin America, covering social movements and politics in the region for over a decade. He is the author of the books Dancing with Dynamite: Social Movements and States in Latin America, and The Price of Fire: Resource Wars and Social Movements in Bolivia. Dangl is currently a doctoral candidate in Latin American History at McGill University, and edits UpsideDownWorld.org, a website on activism and politics in Latin America, and TowardFreedom.com, a progressive perspective on world events. Twitter: https://twitter.com/bendangl Email: BenDangl(at)gmail(dot)com

Tekos 157

Ex: Nieuwsbrief Nr 92 - Maart 2014

TEKOS 157 is klaar!

 

INHOUDSOPGAVE

• Editoriaal
   
• Wordt de 21 ste eeuw de Chinese eeuw
  door Peter Logghe
   
• De Chinese volksdemocratie
  door Peter Kuntze - vertaling door Peter Logghe
   
• China: de terugtrekking voor de tijgersprong
  door Frank Zwijgers
   
• Japan - de ongerustheid van een supermacht
  door Peter Logghe
   
• De onbekende factor; (Noord-) Korea
  door Peter Logghe
   
• India, land van de onbeperkte mogelijkheden?
  door Peter Logghe
   
• De Jezedi 's en de Indo-Iraanse cultuur in Iraaks-Koerdistan
  door Nick Krekelbergh
   
• Schrijvers en Lezers
  door Peter Logghe en Francis Van den Eynde
   

 

 

Stratfor: VS wil ten koste van alles alliantie Duitsland-Rusland voorkomen

Stratfor: VS wil ten koste van alles alliantie Duitsland-Rusland voorkomen

 

Ex: http://xandernieuws.punt.nl

‘Amerika zet volken tegen elkaar op om te voorkomen dat ze zich tegen VS keren’

VS zet in op het ten val brengen van Rusland en de EU en het steunen van Turkije en Japan als nieuwe machten

George Friedman, hoofd van de Amerikaanse private inlichtingendienst Stratfor, heeft in een toespraak gezegd dat het belangrijkste strategische doel van de Verenigde Staten het voorkomen van een alliantie tussen Duitsland en Rusland is. Dat pact zou namelijk als enige de wereldwijde hegemonie van Amerika kunnen uitdagen. Friedman erkende dat de VS over de hele wereld een ‘verdeel en heers’ tactiek toepast door volken en landen tegen elkaar op te zetten, zodat ze zich niet tegen Amerika (kunnen) keren.

‘Amerika moet oceanen en ruimte blijven controleren’

‘De VS heeft een fundamenteel belang: ze controleert alle oceanen van de wereld,’ aldus Friedman in een toespraak voor de in 1922 opgerichte Chicago Council on Global Affairs. ‘Geen enkele andere macht heeft dat ooit gedaan. Daarom vallen wij bij volken binnen, maar kunnen zij niet bij ons binnenvallen. Dat is een prachtige zaak.’

‘Het behouden van de controle over de oceanen en de ruimte is het fundament van onze macht. De beste manier een vijandelijke vloot te overwinnen is te voorkomen dat zo’n vloot wordt opgebouwd.’

Verdeel-en-heers

‘De politiek die ik zou aanbevelen is die Ronald Reagan in Irak en Iran heeft toegepast. Hij financierde beide partijen, zodat ze tegen elkaar gingen vechten en niet tegen ons. Het was cynisch, zeker niet moreel verdedigbaar, maar het functioneerde.’

‘Dat is het punt: de VS kan Eurazië niet bezetten. Op het moment dat we één laars op Europese bodem zetten, zijn wij op grond van de demografische verschillen getalsmatig totaal in de minderheid. Wij kunnen een leger verslaan, maar niet Irak bezetten... Wij zijn wel in staat om meerdere met elkaar overhoop liggende machten te ondersteunen, zodat ze zich op zichzelf concentreren...’

Die ‘ondersteuning’ bestaat volgens Friedman uit militaire, economische en financiële hulp en het sturen van –natuurlijk dik betaalde- ‘adviseurs’ van bijvoorbeeld zijn eigen private inlichtingendienst.

‘Uit balans brengen van landen zeer eenvoudig’

Dat Amerikaanse regeringen dachten tegelijkertijd ‘democratie’ naar landen zoals Afghanistan en Irak te brengen, is een misrekening geweest, aldus de Stratfor topman. Het uit balans brengen van landen bleek echter buitengewoon eenvoudig. Friedman noemde het niet, maar hij zal ongetwijfeld de vele burgerdoden door onder andere drone aanvallen en de totale chaos bedoelen die in diverse landen ontstond na Amerikaans ingrijpen.

Amerikaans imperium wordt nog groter

Grote voorbeeld is wat hem betreft het Romeinse Rijk, dat eveneens een verdeel-en-heers tactiek toepaste. De Nazi’s hebben in zijn ogen bewezen dat een directe bezetting niet werkt, maar alleen indirecte controle over landen en volken mogelijk is.

Het Amerikaanse imperium is wat Friedman betreft nog lang niet uitgegroeid. Er komt zelfs nog een ‘derde hoofdstuk’ aan. Wat dat inhoudt vertelde hij niet, maar daarbij gaat het ongetwijfeld om het realiseren van de ‘Nieuwe Wereld Orde’ zoals die op 11 september 1991 door president George Bush werd aangekondigd. (1)

Alliantie Duitsland-Rusland grootste bedreiging

Wat dit nog machtigere Amerikaanse imperium zou kunnen bedreigen is een alliantie tussen Duitsland en Rusland. Het voorkomen van die concurrerende wereldmacht is in Friedmans ogen de komende jaren het belangrijkste strategische doel van de Verenigde Staten. De door de CIA geleide staatsgreep in Oekraïne en de anti-Russische propaganda in de Westerse media staan geheel in het teken van het veroorzaken van zoveel mogelijk spanningen tussen Europa en Rusland.

Ten val brengen Rusland en EU

In zijn boek ‘De volgende 100 jaar’ (2009) schreef de chef van Stratfor dat de Verenigde Staten er voor zullen zorgen dat Turkije, Polen en Japan tussen 2020 en 2030 nieuwe regionale machten worden, en Oost Europa een pro-Amerikaans blok wordt. Al deze ontwikkelingen hebben als doel twee potentiële concurrenten, Rusland en de EU, ten val te brengen.

Xander

(1) KOPP
(2) Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten

L’UTOPIA GEOPOLITICA DELL’ “IMPERO LATINO”

L’UTOPIA GEOPOLITICA DELL’ “IMPERO LATINO”

Davide Ragnolini

Ex: http://www.eurasia-rivista.org

Il Mar Mediterraneo, come topos del rapporto tra Europa e Vicino Oriente e con una naturale vocazione geopolitica di crocevia tra Nord e Sud del mondo, si presenta oggi al centro di un processo storico che vede un’ingerenza di attori atlantici, di natura “oceanica”.

Seguendo lo storico Mollat du Jourdin possiamo distinguere «due Mediterranei europei»,[i] cioè “due mari tra le terre” nel continente europeo. Di quello a nord aperto all’Oceano e «totalmente europeo»[ii] lo storico francese scrive: «i mari del Nord-ovest e del Nord europeo ritrovarono la loro vocazione ad essere il dominio del profitto e del potere, vocazione per altro mai dimenticata»;[iii] del Mediterraneo a sud, con il suo appellativo di mare nostrum, egli scrive che la sua natura sta nell’essere «un mare se non chiuso ad ogni modo incluso in un universo politico, dapprima unico, e centrato sull’Europa, e in seguito esteso all’Africa».[iv] Questo secondo Mediterraneo collocato nel Mezzogiorno dell’Europa si trova in una posizione geografica euro-afroasiatica che lo distingue da quello settentrionale sotto l’aspetto culturale ed antropologico conferendogli un carattere di unicità: «un mare su cui si affacciano tre continenti e tre religioni monoteistiche che non sono mai riuscite a prevalere l’una sull’altra».[v] Danilo Zolo osserva infatti che questo luogo sincretico di culture, popoli ed etnie differenti «come tale non è mai stato monoteista» e si presenta anzi come un «pluriverso irriducibile di popoli e di lingue che nessun impero mondiale oceanico può riuscire a ridurre ad unum».[vi] Nella misura in cui tale pluriverso ha un’unità storico-geografica ma non politica, economica e militare, la “deriva oceanica” del Mediterraneo si verifica attraverso un processo di erosione della sua unità, e sottrazione della suo spazio di autonomia geopolitica a favore di attori diversi da quelli dell’Europa mediterranea e del mondo arabo-musulmano.[vii] Questa considerazione geopolitica sull’unità del pluriverso mediterraneo deve essere congiunta con un’altra più specificamente storico-politica relativa alla crisi dello Stato-nazione, che Habermas, nel 1996, svolgeva nel seguente modo: «la sovranità degli stati nazionali si ridurrà progressivamente a guscio vuoto e noi saremo costretti a realizzare e perfezionare quelle capacità d’intervento sul piano sopranazionale di cui già si vedono le prime strutture. In Europa, Nordamerica e  Asia stanno infatti nascendo organizzazioni soprastatali per regimi continentali che potrebbero offrire l’infrastruttura necessaria alla tuttora scarsa efficienza delle Nazioni Unite».[viii] Le entità sovrastatali a cui fa riferimento il liberale Habermas, apologeta dell’operato dell’Onu e dell’Ue, non sono le stesse delineate dal filosofo hegeliano Alexandre Kojève. Tuttavia la diagnosi dell’idea di Stato-nazione, assieme alla prima considerazione sull’unità del pluriverso mediterraneo, costituisce il punto di avvio dell’intuizione geopolitica del filosofo russo-francese nel suo L’impero latino. Progetto di una dottrina della politica francese (27 agosto 1945). Questo Esquisse d’une doctrine de la politique française fu pubblicato in versione dimidiata solo nel 1990 sulla rivista diretta da Bernard-Henry Lévy («La Regle du Jeu», I, 1990, 1). Su questo testo, pubblicato integralmente in italiano nel 2004 all’interno di una raccolta di scritti di Kojève intitolata Il silenzio della tirannide, anche il filosofo italiano Giorgio Agamben ha recentemente richiamato l’attenzione[ix]; tuttavia esso è passato pressoché inosservato all’interno dell’ideologia europeista dominante.

La stesura di questo abbozzo di dottrina geopolitica francese avvenne nell’agosto 1945, e trasse occasione dalla cooptazione di Kojève da parte di un suo ex-allievo nei negoziati dell’Avana per la creazione del GATT.[x] Due sono le preoccupazioni che Kojève espone all’inizio del suo scritto, e sono strettamente legate alle immediate circostanze storiche francesi: una, più remota, era quella relativa allo scoppio di una terza guerra mondiale in cui il suolo francese sarebbe potuto diventare campo di battaglia tra russi e anglosassoni; l’altra, più concreta, era costituita dalla crescita del «potenziale economico della Germania», per cui l’«l’inevitabile integrazione di questo paese – che si tenterà di rendere “democratico” e “pacifico” – all’interno del sistema europeo comporterà fatalmente la riduzione della Francia al rango di potenza secondaria».[xi] Il quadro giuridico-politico internazionale sul quale si delinea l’analisi di Kojève è quello della progressiva crisi dello Stato-nazione, prodotto dalla modernità politica a vantaggio di «formazioni politiche che fuoriescono dai limiti nazionali».[xii] Lo Stato moderno per poter essere politicamente efficace deve, in questo mutato quadro geopolitico, poter poggiare su una «vasta unione “imperiale” di nazioni imparentate».[xiii] A provare tale tendenza secondo Kojève sarebbe anche l’insufficienza dello sviluppo militare, sempre più determinata dai limiti economici e demografici su scala nazionale che rendono impossibile la gestione di eserciti in una fase post-nazionale. Ma il limite è evidentemente nell’idea stessa di Stato-nazione.

Nella lettura storica che egli diede della sconfitta del Reich tedesco viene messa in rilievo l’impossibilità da parte di uno Stato di preservare un’esistenza politica sulla limitata base di uno Stato-nazione e con la sua connessa «ideologia nazionalista».[xiv] Da questo punto di vista nella sua analisi, similmente a quella svolta dal secondo Carl Schmitt, interessato all’idea di Grossraum sul piano internazionale, vi è «la consapevolezza del deperimento della sovranità statuale».[xv] La stessa diagnosi dell’idea e della realtà storica dello Stato-nazione è data oggi da Alain de Benoist, per il quale l’unità artificiale dello Stato-nazione è diventata ormai un’istanza di mediazione inefficace tra le tendenze centrifughe di regionalismi e irredentismi etnolinguistici dal basso e la pressione dei mercati mondiali dall’alto.[xvi]

Secondo Kojève l’erosione dell’efficacia politica dello Stato-nazione si poté già scorgere da un lato nel liberalismo borghese, che affermava il primato della società di individui sull’autonomia politica dello Stato, dall’altro nell’internazionalismo socialista, che pensava di realizzare il trasferimento della sovranità delle nazioni all’umanità.[xvii] Secondo il filosofo francese, se la prima teoria si caratterizzò per miopia nel non vedere un’entità politica sovranazionale, la seconda fu ipermetrope nel non scorgere entità politiche al di qua dell’umanità. Kojève intuì che la nuova struttura politica statale che si stava configurando sarebbe costituita da imperi intesi come «fusioni internazionali di nazioni imparentate».[xviii] Da un punto di vista storico-filosofico il Weltgeist hegeliano, prima di poter incarnarsi nell’umanità, sembra dover assumere la forma dell’Impero,[xix] senza con ciò rinunciare alla propria teleologia di una metempsicosi cosmostorica tesa ad una comunità mondiale. Una concreta realizzazione storica di un’entità politica sorretta dalla mediazione tra universalismo e particolarismo geopolitico sarebbe stata rappresentata dall’«imperial-socialismo» di Stalin, che si contrappose sia all’astratto Stato-umanità di Trotzki, sia al particolarismo del nazional-socialismo tedesco.

All’imperial-socialismo sovietico, o impero slavo-sovietico, si contrappose un’altra efficace entità politica che Kojève qualifica come imperiale: l’«impero anglo-americano».[xx] Nell’acuta analisi precorritrice del filosofo francese, la «Germania del futuro», estinguendosi come Stato-nazione caratterizzato da esclusivismo geopolitico ed autonomia politica in base al principio postvestfaliano dello Stato come superiorem non reconoscens,[xxi] «dovrà aderire politicamente all’uno o all’altro di questi imperi».[xxii] Da un punto di vista culturale-religioso, la parentela che egli individua tra anglosassoni e tedeschi si fonderebbe sull’ispirazione protestante comune. Il problema che si pose Kojève fu dunque specificamente geopolitico e tuttora assolutamente attuale: scongiurare la riduzione della Francia a «hinterland militare ed economico, e quindi politico, della Germania, divenuta avamposto militare dell’impero anglosassone».[xxiii] L’orientamento della Germania verso l’impero anglo-americano si sarebbe potuto osservare negli sviluppi storici e geopolitici successivi.

Ma nell’analisi dell’hegeliano francese, il problema della riduzione della sovranità coinvolgerebbe conseguentemente le altre nazioni dell’Europa occidentale «se si ostineranno a mantenersi nel loro isolamento politico “nazionale”».[xxiv] Il progetto politico proposto da Kojève è teso quindi alla creazione di una terza potenza tra quella ortodossa slavo-sovietica e quella protestante germano-anglo-sassone: un impero latino alla cui testa possa porsi la Francia al fine di salvaguardare la propria specificità geopolitica assieme a quella di altre nazioni latine, minacciate da un bipolarismo mondiale che preme su uno spazio mediterraneo da oriente e da occidente.

La vocazione di tale progetto imperiale non potrebbe però avere un carattere imperialistico, perché non sarebbe capace di un sufficiente potere offensivo verso gli altri due imperi, ma avrebbe piuttosto la funzione di preservare la pace e l’autonomia geopolitica di un’area che si sottrae al pericolo di egemonie imperialistiche esterne impedendo che il proprio spazio diventi campo di battaglia di Asia e Pacifico.[xxv] L’analisi della situazione della Francia svolta da Kojève rivela però alcune precise difficoltà di realizzazione di questo progetto politico. Secondo il filosofo francese alla «fine del periodo nazionale della storia»[xxvi], che peraltro la Francia faticherebbe a riconoscere, si aggiunge un processo di «spoliticizzazione» del Paese, cioè di perdita della volontà politica ed una conseguente decadenza sotto il piano sociale, economico e culturale. Un progetto sovranazionale implica un dinamismo diplomatico e uno sforzo di mediazione culturale di cui i paesi latini si devono assumere l’impegno. La parentela che Kojève scorge tra le nazioni latine come Francia, Italia e Spagna, e che costituisce l’elemento coesivo di un progetto di entità politica postnazionale, è caratterizzato da un punto di vista culturale da «quell’arte del tempo libero che è l’origine dell’arte in generale».[xxvii] Tale peculiarità dell’«Occidente latino unificato»[xxviii] sarebbe un aspetto identitario omogeneo ai Paesi latini e rimarrebbe ineguagliato dagli altri due imperi. Per questa ragione antropologico-culturale Danilo Zolo può affermare che «l’area mediterranea vanta la più grande concentrazione artistica del mondo».[xxix]

Più in generale, secondo Kojève la formazione di entità politiche imperiali dopo lo Stato-nazione è rafforzata dalla coesione di queste nazioni imparentate con le Chiese più o meno ufficiali ad esse corrispondenti.[xxx] Questa parentela o unione latina può diventare un’entità politica reale solo formando un’autentica unità economica, condizione materiale di esistenza di tale progetto sovranazionale. Ben lungi dall’essere un vettore di conflitto, tale impero latino potrebbe garantire un’intesa politicamente efficace tra culture diverse ma unite nello stesso spazio di appartenenza e comunità di destino. È su questa identità geopolitica comune che è possibile pensare ad un efficace antidoto contro l’idea di clash of civilizations, costitutivamente estranea all’area mediterranea: «un’intesa tra la latinità e l’islam – scrisse Kojève – renderebbe singolarmente precaria la presenza di altre forze imperiali nel bacino mediterraneo».[xxxi]

Da questo punto di vista identitario-culturale, la considerazione sull’esigenza di unità economica nell’area latina delineata dal filosofo francese è ben lontana dal liberalistico primato dell’economico sul politico che si è affermato ed istituzionalizzato successivamente nell’Unione europea. L’unione economica dei Paesi latini è infatti pensata solo come condizione, mezzo dell’unità imperiale latina, non come una sua ragion d’essere, perché il fine ultimo di questa è essenzialmente politico ed è sorretto da un’ideologia specifica. Categoria fondamentale dell’ideologia dell’unità imperiale latina è l’indipendenza e l’autonomia, alla quale si rivelano subordinati altri aspetti come quelli di potenza e di grandezza. Una politica militarista secondo Kojève tradisce una insicurezza e minaccia di instabilità che la formazione di un progetto sovrastatale mediterraneo dovrebbe allontanare: «il militarismo nasce dal pericolo e soprattutto dalla sconfitta, cioè da una debolezza solo probabile o già verificatasi».[xxxii] Per questa ragione il fenomeno di militarismo ed imperialismo viene da Kojève rigettato come «meschino», e spiegato come il riflesso di uno Stato-nazione fragile e non di una struttura politica imperiale.

A tale impero latino dovrà corrispondere un esercito sovranazionale «sufficientemente potente da assicurargli un’autonomia nella pace e una pace nell’autonomia» e non nella dipendenza di uno dei due imperi rivali.[xxxiii] Come già rilevato sopra, la potenza militare dell’impero latino né potrebbe, né dovrebbe avere carattere offensivo, ma piuttosto un carattere difensivo riferito ad una concreta localizzazione nello spazio: «l’idea di un Mediterraneo “mare nostrum” potrebbe e dovrebbe essere il fine concreto principale, se non unico, della politica estera dei latini unificati […] si tratta di detenere il diritto e i mezzi di chiedere una contropartita a coloro che vorranno circolare liberamente in questo mare o di escluderne altri. L’accesso o l’esclusione dovranno dipendere unicamente dall’assenso dell’impero latino grazie ai mezzi di cui esso solo può disporre».[xxxiv] L’isolamento dei singoli paesi latini non li farebbe altro che naufragare sul blocco imperiale anglo-sassone, trasformandoli in «satelliti nazionali»[xxxv] di una delle due formazioni imperiali straniere. Interessante è l’osservazione di Kojève sul pericoloso potenziale di squilibrio geopolitico ed economico che la Germania può costituire rispetto ai Paesi latini e all’Europa intera: «se il pericolo di una Germania nemica sembra essere scongiurato per sempre, il pericolo economico rappresentato da una Germania “alleata” affrontato all’interno di un blocco occidentale che sia un’emanazione dell’impero anglosassone non è affatto chimerico, mentre rimane, anche sul piano politico, incontestabilmente mortale per la Francia»[xxxvi] e per gli altri Paesi latini. L’impero latino come entità politica autonoma potrebbe essere in grado di «opporsi in maniera costante ad un’egemonia continentale tedesca» o anglo-americana.

L’idea di impero latino non deve cioè essere connessa ai limiti di un anacronistico Stato-nazione, ma riferito a «fusioni internazionali di nazioni imparentate»[xxxvii] o «unione internazionale di nazioni imparentate».[xxxviii).

I problemi politici interni che ostacolerebbero il progetto di impero latino in Francia sarebbero secondo Kojève costituiti sia dal «quietismo economico e politico» che paralizza l’intraprendenza politica del Paese, cioè ostacolano «l’attività negatrice del dato, quindi creatrice e rinnovatrice», sia da formazioni partitiche che si rivelano essere «tanto più intransigenti nel loro atteggiamento quanto meno questo è dottrinale».[xxxix] La compresenza di questi due aspetti agirebbe in modo ostativo rispetto al progetto di impero latino, e non possiamo certo dire che oggi, sotto l’esperienza del commissariamento tecnico-economico dei governi e nella caotica frammentarietà di partiti deideologizzati la situazione possa definirsi più idonea sul piano fattuale per la costruzione di un progetto geopolitico sovranazionale alternativo.

Nell’analisi che Kojève svolge sulla possibile collaborazione ed idoneità dei vari partiti politici esistenti in Francia rispetto al progetto di impero latino, di grande rilievo è il rapporto che viene delineato tra formazione imperiale e Chiesa. Nella nascente fase storica di formazione di imperi post-nazionali le Chiese cristiane tra loro separate sembrano abbisognare dell’esistenza di compagini intermedie tra l’umanità e le nazioni.[xl] Si potrebbe quindi osservare un isomorfismo strutturale dal punto di vista geopolitico tra le Chiese separate e le formazioni imperiali: né universalistici, né limitati in un’anacronistica idea di Stato-nazione. La Chiesa cattolica, in questo quadro geopolitico in cui i movimenti imperiali rappresentano l’attualità, acquisirebbe «il patrocinio spirituale dell’impero latino»[xli] e, tenendosi salda alla propria natura di Chiesa potenzialmente universale, ricorderebbe all’impero latino il suo carattere storicamente transitorio all’interno dello sviluppo storico. Il progetto di impero latino nella sua configurazione storica e geopolitica si differenzia dal Grossraum schmittiano per il fatto che esso non esercita, o almeno non primariamente, la funzione di katechon[xlii] perché da un punto di vista geopolitico rappresenta «la forma intermedia tra Vestfalia e Cosmopolis»,[xliii] e sul piano storico «prepara e anticipa lo stato mondiale».[xliv]

Questo progetto per una dottrina geopolitica francese e mediterranea seppur si inquadri in un rapporto di opposizione all’unipolarismo anglo-americano e sia schiettamente orientato in una prospettiva multipolare, dal punto di vista storico-escatologico diventa vettore di realizzazione dell’idea di Stato-umanità secondo l’umanismo filosofico di Kojève.

L’8 maggio di quest’anno, a proposito del progetto geopolitico di questo singolare «marxiste de droite»[xlv], è apparso sulla rivista tedesca Die Welt un articolo che, al contrario di quello di Agamben, non è affatto passato inosservato. Il sociologo tedesco Wolf Lepenies,[xlvi] nella sua risposta al duro documento del Partito socialista francese contro il dogma economico dell’austerità tedesca, chiama in causa la dottrina geopolitica di Kojève di un’unione contro la Germania, che sembrerebbe acquisire fama e simpatie presso la sinistra francese e troverebbe risonanza presso il filosofo italiano Agamben. L’articolo di Lepenies è critico anche verso l’intuizione kojèviana di una Germania che persegue i propri vantaggi economici all’ombra di un blocco euro-atlantista. Tale episodio è significativo sul piano negativo: un articolo di un quotidiano tedesco conservatore di oggi, fondato dalle forze inglesi vincitrici nel 1946, rivolto contro il progetto geopolitico alternativo da un filosofo francese pensato nel dopoguerra non può che assumere rilievo sotto il profilo della teoria geopolitica contemporanea. Il binomio Germania-Eurolandia, col suo potenziale destabilizzante per il continente europeo e in particolare per i paesi mediterranei europei, può essere ridiscusso solo a partire dalla critica al suo fondamento geopolitico euro-atlantista, come intuì Kojève all’indomani della Seconda Guerra Mondiale.

---

[i] MOLLAT DU JOURDIN M., L’Europa e il mare dall’antichità ad oggi, Laterza, Roma-Bari, 2004, p. 14.

[ii] Ivi, p. 29.

[iii] Ivi, p. 66.

[iv] Ivi, p. 29.

[v] ZOLO D., Per un dialogo fra le culture del Mediterraneo in AA. VV., Mediterraneo. Un dialogo tra le sponde, a cura di F. Horchani e D. Zolo, Jouvence, Roma, 2005, p. 18.

[vi] Ibidem.

[vii] Cfr. ZOLO D., La questione mediterranea, in AA. VV., L’alternativa mediterranea, a cura di F. Cassano e D. Zolo, Feltrinelli, Milano, 2007, pp. 18-21. Cfr. anche l’interessante intervista di Alain de Benoist rivolta a Danilo Zolo su questo tema reperibile nel seguente sito: http://www.juragentium.org/topics/med/it/benoist.htm.

[viii] HABERMAS J., Lo stato-nazione europeo. Passato e futuro della sovranità e della cittadinanza in ID., L’inclusione dell’altro. Studi di teoria politica, Feltrinelli, Milano, 1998, pp. 120-121.

[ix] Il titolo dell’articolo di Giorgio Agamben apparso su Repubblica il 15 marzo di quest’anno si intitola “Se un impero latino prendesse forma nel cuore dell’Europa”, ed è reperibile nel seguente sito:  http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/2013/03/15/se-un-impero-latino-prendesse-forma-nel.html.

[x] TEDESCO F., L’impero latino e l’idea di Europa. Riflessioni a partire da un testo (parzialmente) inedito di Alexandre Kojève, in AA. VV., Quaderni fiorentini per la storia del pensiero moderno, vol. XXXV, Giuffrè Editore, Milano, 2006, p. 379.

[xi] KOJÈVE A., L’impero latino. Progetto di una dottrina della politica francese, in ID., Il silenzio della tirannide, Adelphi, Milano, 2004, p. 163.

[xii] Ivi, p. 164.

[xiii] Ivi, p. 165.

[xiv] Ivi, pp. 167-168.

[xv] TEDESCO F., L’impero latino e l’idea di Europa. Riflessioni a partire da un testo (parzialmente) inedito di Alexandre Kojève, in op. cit., p. 393.

[xvi] Cfr. DE BENOIST A., L’idea di Impero, in AA. VV., Eurasia. Rivista di studi geopolitici, n.° 1/2013.

[xvii] KOJÈVE A., L’impero latino. Progetto di una dottrina della politica francese, in op. cit., pp. 168-169.

[xviii] Ivi, p. 169.

[xix] Ivi, p. 170.

[xx] Ivi, p. 171.

[xxi] ZOLO D., Globalizzazione. Una mappa dei problemi, Laterza, Roma-Bari, 2009, p. 68.

[xxii] KOJÈVE A., L’impero latino. Progetto di una dottrina della politica francese, in op. cit., p. 172.

[xxiii] Ivi, p. 173.

[xxiv] Ivi, p. 174.

[xxv] Ivi, p. 175.

[xxvi] Ivi, p. 179.

[xxvii] Ivi, p. 183.

[xxviii] Ivi, p. 184.

[xxix] ZOLO D., La questione mediterranea, in AA. VV., L’alternativa mediterranea, op. cit., p. 17.

[xxx] KOJÈVE A., L’impero latino. Progetto di una dottrina della politica francese, in op. cit., p. 185.

[xxxi] Ivi, p. 188.

[xxxii] Ivi, p. 193.

[xxxiii] Ibidem.

[xxxiv] Ivi, p. 195.

[xxxv] Ivi, p. 196.

[xxxvi] Ivi, p. 197.

[xxxvii] Ivi, p. 169.

[xxxviii] Ivi, p. 181.

[xxxix] Ivi, p. 198.

[xl] Ivi, p. 208.

[xli] Ivi, p. 209.

[xlii] SCHMITT C., Il nomos della terra nel diritto internazionale dello “jus publicum europaeum”, a cura di Franco Volpi, Adelphi, 2003, p. 42 e sgg.

[xliii] TEDESCO F., L’impero latino e l’idea di Europa. Riflessioni a partire da un testo (parzialmente) inedito di Alexandre Kojève, in op. cit., p. 394.

[xliv] Ivi, p. 398.

[xlv] AUFFRET D., Alexandre Kojève, La philosophie, l’État, la fin de l’Histoire, Paris, Grasset, 1990, p. 423, cit. in TEDESCO F., L’impero latino e l’idea di Europa. Riflessioni a partire da un testo (parzialmente) inedito di Alexandre Kojève, in op. cit., p. 401.

[xlvi] Cfr. http://www.welt.de/kultur/article115976016/Frankreichs-Linke-traeumt-von-Anti-Deutschland-Bund.html; a questo articolo di Lepenies fa riferimento anche un articolo del “Corriere della sera” apparso il giorno successivo http://www.corriere.it/opinioni/13_maggio_09/lepri-incubo-tedesco-fantasma-latino_00e745be-b877-11e2-8563-aab5ecf30b92.shtml.

 

L'Amérique prépare une nouvelle guerre du Pacifique

par Jean-Paul Baquiast

Ex: http://www.europesolidaire.eu

Ceci paraîtra une plaisanterie, mais il n'en est rien. Dans cette guerre, l'ennemi ne sera plus le Japon, mais la Chine. Pour s'en convaincre, il suffit de lire un document que Washington vient de rendre public, intitulé " A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower: Forward, Engaged, Ready ” dit aussi CS21R (référence ci-dessous)

 

Ce document, préparé par l'US Navy, les corps de Marine et les Gardes côtes, actualise l'ancienne stratégie maritime définie en 2007. Il marque un changement profond d'orientation, traduisant ce que Barack Obama a nommé le « pivot vers l'Asie ». Il insiste sur l'importance croissante au plan stratégique de ce qu'il nomme l' «  Indo-Asia-Pacific region ». Cette importance, aux plans économique, militaire et géographique impose aux Etats-Unis de pouvoir s'appuyer sur des forces navales capables de protéger les intérêts américains.

 

Le CS21R insiste sur le fait qu'il est impératif pour les Etats-Unis de maintenir « une prédominance navale globale » afin d'empêcher les adversaires de l'Amérique de faire usage contre elle des théâtres océaniques mondiaux. La possibilité de mener dans les eaux internationales des opérations loin des côtes américaines constitue un élément essentiel de cette prédominance.

Le principal (et seul) de ces adversaires, bien que non nommé, est la Chine. Le Pentagone a prévu dans le même temps des plans de guerre contre la Chine connus sous le nom de “AirSea Battle”. Ils reposent sur la capacité de monter contre la Chine une opération massive, aérienne et à base de missiles, très en profondeur sur le territoire chinois lui-même. Il s'agira de détruire les infrastructures militaires et économiques chinoises, ce qui sera suivi d'un blocus économique. Au prétexte d'assurer la liberté de navigation dans les grandes voies maritimes, le Pentagone se met en état de bloquer les routes utilisées par la Chine dans l'océan Indien lui permettant d'importer des produits pétroliers et des matières premières en provenance de l'Afrique et du Moyen-Orient.

A cette fin, le CS21R prévoit de « rebalancer » 60% des forces navales et aériennes des Etats-Unis vers la zone Indo-Pacifique. L'US Navy entretiendra au Japon un groupe de porte-avions d'attaque et des forces d'intervention rapide aéro-navales adéquates (Carrier Strike Group, Carrier Airwing and Amphibious Ready Group). Elle ajoutera de nouveaux sous-marins d'attaque et navires de combat littoral à ceux existants déjà à Guam et Singapour.

 

 

Renvoyons au document pour plus de détail concernant l'énorme force déjà en place et les renforts à lui apporter d'ici les 5 prochaines années. Apparemment les crédits ne vont pas manquer, non plus que l'accord de tous les pays qui seront nécessairement impliqués, avec ou sans leur consentement éclairé, dans ces opérations de guerre. Comment la Chine va-t-elle prendre tout ceci?  La question apparemment n'est pas posée. Certains diront que tout document stratégique prévoit la possibilité de mener des guerres contre d'autres puissances, même si de telles guerres ne sont jamais engagées. Mais en ce cas, la seule et unique puissance visée est la Chine, et tout semble indiquer que le document est destiné à préparer contre elle des interventions militaires qui n'auront rien de théorique. .

Dans le même temps, chacun a pu noter les cris d'alarme poussés par les spécialistes américains de la défense à l'annonce faite par la Chine selon laquelle celle-ci se préparait à construire un 2e porte-avions, destiné à compléter le vieux bâtiment déjà en service, reconditionné à partir d'un PA datant de l'ex URSS et fourni par la Russie.

Sources

* http://www.navy.mil/maritime/MaritimeStrategy.pdf

Voir aussi Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Cooperative_Strategy_for_21st_Century_Seapower

* Sur le nouveau porte avions chinois, lire

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/China_building_second_aircraft_carrier_PLA_colonel_999.html

Only Moscow Can Stop It

Washington’s War on Russia

by MIKE WHITNEY

Ex: http://www.counterpunch.org

“In order to survive and preserve its leading role on the international stage, the US desperately needs to plunge Eurasia into chaos, (and) to cut economic ties between Europe and Asia-Pacific Region … Russia is the only (country) within this potential zone of instability that is capable of resistance. It is the only state that is ready to confront the Americans. Undermining Russia’s political will for resistance… is a vitally important task for America.”

-Nikolai Starikov, Western Financial System Is Driving It to War, Russia Insider

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

-The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the original version of the Defense Planning Guidance, authored by Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, leaked to the New York Times on March 7, 1992

The United States does not want a war with Russia, it simply feels that it has no choice. If the State Department hadn’t initiated a coup in Ukraine to topple the elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, then the US could not have inserted itself between Russia and the EU, thus, disrupting vital trade routes which were strengthening nations on both continents. The economic integration of Asia and Europe–including plans for high-speed rail from China (“The New Silk Road”) to the EU–poses a clear and present danger for the US whose share of global GDP continues to shrink and whose significance in the world economy continues to decline. For the United States to ignore this new rival (EU-Russia) would be the equivalent of throwing in the towel and accepting a future in which the US would face a gradual but persistent erosion of its power and influence in world affairs. No one in Washington is prepared to let that happen, which is why the US launched its proxy-war in Ukraine.

The US wants to separate the continents, “prevent the emergence of a new rival”, install a tollbooth between Europe and Asia, and establish itself as the guarantor of regional security. To that end, the US is rebuilding the Iron Curtain along a thousand mile stretch from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Tanks, armored vehicles and artillery are being sent to the region to reinforce a buffer zone around Europe in order to isolate Russia and to create a staging ground for future US aggression. Reports of heavy equipment and weapons deployment appear in the media on nearly a daily basis although the news is typically omitted in the US press. A quick review of some of the recent headlines will help readers to grasp the scale of the conflict that is cropping up below the radar:

“US, Bulgaria to hold Balkans military drills”, “NATO Begins Exercises In Black Sea”, “Army to send even more troops, tanks to Europe”, “Poland requests greater US military presence”, “U.S. Army sending armored convoy 1,100 miles through Europe”, “Over 120 US tanks, armored vehicles arrive in Latvia”, “US, Poland to Conduct Missile Exercise in March – Pentagon”

Get the picture? There’s a war going on, a war between the United States and Russia.

Notice how most of the headlines emphasize US involvement, not NATO. In other words, the provocations against Russia originate from Washington not Europe. This is an important point. The EU has supported US-led economic sanctions, but it’s not nearly as supportive of the military build up along the perimeter. That’s Washington’s idea and the cost is borne by the US alone. Naturally, moving tanks, armored vehicles and artillery around the world is an expensive project, but the US is more than willing to make the sacrifice if it helps to achieve its objectives.

And what are Washington’s objectives?

Interestingly, even political analysts on the far right seem to agree about that point. For example, check out this quote from STRATFOR CEO George Friedman who summed it up in a recent presentation he delivered at The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs. He said:

“The primordial interest of the United States, over which for centuries we have fought wars–the First, the Second and Cold Wars–has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united there, they’re the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn’t happen.” … George Friedman at The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs, Time 1:40 to 1:57)

Bingo. Ukraine has nothing to do with sovereignty, democracy or (alleged) Russian aggression. That’s all propaganda. It’s about power. It’s about imperial expansion. It’s about spheres of influence. It’s about staving off irreversible economic decline. It’s all part of the smash-mouth, scorched earth, take-no-prisoners geopolitical world in which we live, not the fake Disneyworld created by the western media. The US State Department and CIA toppled the elected-government in Ukraine and ordered the new junta regime to launch a desperate war of annihilation against its own people in the East, because, well, because they felt they had no other option. Had Putin’s ambitious plan to create a free trade zone between Lisbon to Vladivostok gone forward, then where would that leave the United States? Out in the cold, that’s where. The US would become an isolated island of dwindling significance whose massive account deficits and ballooning national debt would pave the way for years of brutal restructuring, declining standards of living, runaway inflation and burgeoning social unrest. Does anyone really believe that Washington would let that to happen when it has a “brand-spanking” trillion dollar war machine at its disposal?

Heck, no. Besides, Washington believes it has a historic right to rule the world, which is what one would expect when the sense of entitlement and hubris reach their terminal phase. Now check out this clip from an article by economist Jack Rasmus at CounterPunch:

“Behind the sanctions is the USA objective of driving Russia out of the European economy. Europe was becoming too integrated and dependent on Russia. Not only its gas and raw materials, but trade relations and money capital flows were deepening on many fronts between Russia and Europe in general prior to the Ukraine crisis that has provided the cover for the introduction of the sanctions. Russia’s growing economic integration with Europe threatened the long term economic interests of US capitalists. Strategically, the US precipitated coup in the Ukraine can be viewed, therefore as a means by which to provoke Russian military intervention, i.e. a necessary event in order to deepen and expand economic sanctions that would ultimately sever the growing economic ties between Europe and Russia long term. That severance in turn would not only ensure US economic interests remain dominant in Europe, but would also open up new opportunities for profit making for US interests in Europe and Ukraine as well…

When the rules of the competition game between capitalists break down altogether, the result is war—i.e. the ultimate form of inter-capitalist competition.” (The Global Currency Wars, Jack Rasmus, CounterPunch)

See? Analysts on the right and left agree. Ukraine has nothing to do with sovereignty, democracy or Russian aggression. It’s plain-old cutthroat geopolitics, where the last man left standing, wins.

The United States cannot allow Russia reap the benefits of its own vast resources. Oh, no. It has to be chastised, it has to be bullied, it has to be sanctioned, isolated, threatened and intimidated. That’s how the system really works. The free market stuff is just horsecrap for the sheeple.

Russia is going to have to deal with chaotic, fratricidal wars on its borders and color-coded regime change turbulence in its capital. It will have to withstand reprisals from its trading partners, attacks on its currency and plots to eviscerate its (oil) revenues. The US will do everything in its power to poison the well, to demonize Putin, to turn Brussels against Moscow, and to sabotage the Russian economy.

Divide and conquer, that’s the ticket. Keep them at each others throats at all times. Sunni vs Shia, one ethnic Ukrainian vs the other, Russians vs Europeans. That’s Washington’s plan, and it’s a plan that never fails.

US powerbrokers are convinced that America’s economic slide can only be arrested by staking a claim in Central Asia, dismembering Russia, encircling China, and quashing all plans for an economically-integrated EU-Asia. Washington is determined to prevail in this existential conflict, to assert its hegemonic control over the two continents, and to preserve its position as the world’s only superpower.

Only Russia can stop the United States and we believe it will.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [e-mail].

Les sanctions unilatérales portent-elles atteinte aux droits de l’homme?

Le Conseil des droits de l’homme de l’ONU a demandé une étude auprès du Comité consultatif

par Thomas Kaiser

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

Le Comité consultatif du Conseil des droits de l’homme de l’ONU, également appelé «Advisory Board», s’est réuni à Genève entre le 23 et le 27 février. Ce comité consultatif est composé de 18 experts indépendants, élus par le Conseil en respectant la répartition géographique des 47 Etats membres. Le 3 mars, on y a discuté le rapport du groupe de travail ayant examiné la question des mesures coercitives unilatérales et les atteintes aux droits de l’homme. On aborde là une question importante préoccupant depuis longtemps le Conseil des droits de l’homme et les spécialistes du droit international: à quel point des sanctions unilatérales portent-elles atteinte aux droits de l’homme?

Le grand public y est déjà habitué. Lorsqu’un Etat mène une politique déplaisant aux puissants de ce monde, on crée les raisons pour pouvoir imposer – comme allant de soi – des sanctions contre cet Etat. Même au sein de l’UE, on a soumis, en l’an 2000, l’Etat souverain d’Autriche à un régime de sanctions en prétextant des soi-disant déficits démocratiques. Il s’agit souvent de sanctions économiques aux effets catastrophiques. En jetant un regard sur le passé, on constate que ce sont surtout les Etats-Unis et leurs alliés qui imposent des mesures coercitives ou des sanctions unilatérales. Ainsi, Cuba est jusqu’à nos jours victime de mesures coercitives occidentales ayant créé d’énormes dommages économiques. Le Venezuela souffre également de sanctions américaines car il ne se soumet toujours pas au diktat néolibéral des Etats-Unis. D’autres Etats sont aussi victimes de cette politique de force occidentale. Le dernier exemple de mesures coercitives unilatérales sont les sanctions économiques et politiques imposées à la Russie par les Etats-Unis et l’UE, en raison de son prétendu soutien militaire des séparatistes en Ukraine orientale. Aucune preuve concrète n’a été fournie, mais les sanctions ont été appliquées. On contraint les pays membres d’y participer bien que plusieurs des Etats membres, dont la Grèce et l’Autriche, se soient opposés à la prolongation des sanctions.

A la lecture du rapport remis par le groupe de travail demandé par le Comité consultatif, il apparaît clairement que ces sanctions unilatérales arbitraires sont très problématiques du point de vue des droits humains. Ce groupe a analysé la situation dans divers Etats soumis à un régime de sanctions: Cuba, Zimbabwe, Iran et la bande de Gaza. Les effets de ces sanctions sont catastrophiques et représentent clairement une atteinte aux droits de l’homme. Selon le rapport, les conséquences négatives dans les pays sanctionnés se font surtout remarquer au sein de la société civile, parce que ce sont «les plus faibles membres de la société, tels que les femmes, les enfants, les personnes âgées et handicapées et les pauvres» qui sont le plus touchés par les sanctions. Le groupe de travail recommande notamment de nommer un rapporteur spécial pour analyser et documenter les atteintes aux droits de l’homme suite à des mesures coercitives unilatérales.

En lisant ce rapport soigneusement, on peut s’imaginer les conséquences graves engendrées dans les pays concernés et leurs populations.

Cuba

Là, ce sont surtout les femmes et les enfants qui souffrent des sanctions. Le rapport révèle que «l’embargo a abouti à la malnutrition, notamment des enfants et des femmes, à un approvisionnement déficient en eau potable et à un manque de soins médicaux.» En outre, l’embargo «a limité l’accès de l’Etat à des produits chimiques et des pièces de rechange nécessaires à la fourniture d’eau potable» ce qui mène assurément à l’augmentation du taux de maladies et de décès. Etant donné que cet embargo dure depuis plus de 50 ans et n’a toujours pas été levé par le président Obama, on ne peut que deviner les souffrances endurées par le pays.

Zimbabwe

En 2002, l’UE a imposé des sanctions contre le gouvernement du pays. La raison de ces sanctions se trouve dans la réforme agraire effectuée sous la présidence de Robert Mugabe. Selon le rapport, les 13 millions d’habitants de ce pays souffrent des sanctions: «Les taux de pauvreté et de chômage sont très élevés, les infrastructures sont dans un état pitoyable. Des maladies telles que le SIDA, le typhus, le paludisme ont mené à une espérance de vie d’entre 53 et 55 ans […]. Selon une enquête de L’UNICEF, approximativement 35% des enfants en-dessous de 5 ans sont sous-développés, 2% ne grandissent pas normalement et 10% ont un poids insuffisant.» Le mauvais état au sein du pays mène, outre le taux de mortalité élevé, à une forte migration avec de gros risques.

Iran

Selon le rapport, la situation économique du pays et de la population est catastrophique. «Les sanctions ont mené à l’effondrement de l’industrie, à une inflation galopante et à un chômage massif.» Le système de santé publique est aussi gravement atteint en Iran. «Bien que les Etats-Unis et l’UE font valoir que les sanctions ne concernent pas les biens humanitaires, ils ont en réalité gravement entravé la disponibilité et la distribution de matériel médical et de médicaments […], chaque année, 85?000 Iraniens reçoivent le diagnostic d’un cancer. Le nombre d’établissements pouvant traiter ces malades par chimiothérapie ou par radiothérapie est largement insuffisant. Alors que les sanctions financières contre la République islamique d’Iran, ne concernent en principe pas le secteur des médicaments ou des instruments médicaux, elles empêchent en réalité les importateurs iraniens de financer l’importation de ces médicaments ou instruments.» Aucune banque occidentale n’a le droit de faire des affaires avec l’Iran. A travers l’impossibilité de payer les médicaments, produits uniquement en Occident mais nécessaires aux malades, les sanctions concernent donc indirectement aussi le secteur de la santé publique et la population.

Bande de Gaza

Selon le rapport, «le gouvernement israélien traite la bande de Gaza comme un territoire étranger et expose sa population à un grave blocus financier et économique. En juillet et août 2014, lors des combats de 52 jours, les bombes israéliennes ont détruit ou gravement endommagés plus de 53.000 bâtiments. Le blocus permanent viole les droits sociaux, économiques et culturels des habitants souffrant des mesures coercitives unilatérales. La malnutrition, notamment des enfants, n’arrête pas d’augmenter. Des dizaines de milliers de familles vivent dans les ruines de leurs maisons ou dans des containers sans chauffage, mis à disposition par l’administration locale. En décembre 2014, l’Office de secours et de travaux des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés de Palestine dans le Proche-Orient (UNRWA), a rapporté qu’un certain nombre d’enfants âgés de moins de 10 ans étaient morts de froid.» On apprend aussi que divers rapports de l’ONU et d’ONG mettent en garde contre la mauvaise qualité de l’eau potable, menaçant la santé d’un grand nombre de personnes.

Après la présentation du rapport du groupe de travail, les membres du Comité consultatif ont discuté entre eux. Puis le président du Comité a donné la parole aux ambassadeurs présents.
Le représentant diplomatique de Cuba a profité de l’occasion pour attirer l’attention sur le tort qu’exercent les sanctions américaines depuis 50 ans contre son pays. Il a fustigé ces sanctions en tant que violation des droits de l’homme. L’imposition de sanctions constitue un acte arbitraire représentant une ingérence dans les affaires intérieures d’un Etat étranger. Il a précisé qu’il ne voyait pas de changement dans l’attitude des Etats-Unis et a accusé celle-ci d’être une grave violation des droits de l’homme et à la Charte de l’ONU.

Le représentant diplomatique du Venezuela a renchéri en précisant que toute sanction est une ingérence inadmissible dans les affaires intérieures d’un Etat souverain. Le but de cette sanction est de provoquer un «changement de régime». L’ONU, c’est-à-dire le Conseil de sécurité, est la seule entité pouvant prendre des mesures contre un Etat; cela ne peut être en aucun cas un Etat puissant imposant son diktat de l’exercice du doit du plus fort à un certain pays refusant de s’y plier. A son avis, cela constitue clairement une violation des principes de la Charte de l’ONU.

Au cours de la 28e session du Conseil des droits de l’homme, du 2 au 27 mars, ce rapport, demandé en septembre 2013, sera présenté et voté. S’il est accepté, il n’y aura plus d’obstacle à la mise en place d’un rapporteur spécial et à l’établissement de normes internationales dans ce domaine.     •

Source: A/HRC/28/74 Research-based progress report oft the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee containing recommendations on mechanisms to assess the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights and to promote accountability

Noam Chomsky : l'Amérique latine à l'avant-garde contre le néolibéralisme

 

Noam Chomsky: l'Amérique latine à l'avant-garde contre le néolibéralisme

Auteur : Javier LORCA

Traduction Luis Alberto Reygada

Ex: http://zejournal.mobi

Lors de sa conférence magistrale au Forum pour l'émancipation et l'égalité qui s'est tenu à Buenos Aires du 12 au 14 mars dernier, le philosophe et activiste étasunien a analysé l'évolution géopolitique globale 70 ans après la Seconde Guerre Mondiale, avec l'ascension puis le déclin des Etats-Unis en tant qu'axe principal. « L'Amérique latine a fait des pas significatifs vers sa libération de la domination impérialiste », a-t-il signalé.

Loin de se laisser déstabiliser par les nombreux applaudissements qui ont accompagné son arrivée à la tribune du Théâtre Cervantes, Noam Chomsky, sérieux et concentré, a commencé à lire le discours de sa conférence magistrale dans le cadre du Forum pour l’Emancipation et l’Egalité. Dans une rhétorique classique, il a débuté en présentant son thème : un état des lieux du point de vue historique et géopolitique 70 ans après la fin de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale. « C’est en Amérique latine qu’a eu lieu un des développements les plus spectaculaires durant cette période. Pour la première fois en 500 ans, l’Amérique latine a fait des pas significatifs vers sa libération de la domination impérialiste », a signalé l’intellectuel et militant de gauche étatsunien (...). « Ce sont des évènements qui ont une portée historique très profonde, qui incluent des pas importants vers l’intégration et dans le but de faire face à des problèmes internes extrêmement graves qui avaient empêché le développement salutaire de celle qui devrait être une des régions les plus dynamiques et prospères de la planète ».

Chomsky, âgé de 86 ans, a présenté à son public un aperçu global mais centré sur la place des Etats-Unis, son essor et son déclin, qu’il a illustré en se basant sur le contraste flagrant entre deux conférences régionales : celle de Chapultepec (Mexique) en 1945 et celle de Carthagène des Indes (Colombie) en 2012, qui ont été « radicalement différentes », une preuve des profonds changements historiques qui ont eu lieu entretemps.

Après la fin de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale, alors que les différentes puissances qui avaient participé au conflit en sont ressorties « très affaiblies », les Etats-Unis ont initié une croissance exponentielle et ont réussi à concentrer « la moitié de la richesse du monde », multiplié leur force de frappe (avec a bombe atomique) et étendu leur contrôle sur le continent et sur les deux océans. A partir de là, les dirigeants nord-américains (Chomsky a parlé concrètement du personnel du Département d’Etat) se ont commencé à « organiser le monde afin de satisfaire les nécessités des secteurs dominants des Etats-Unis, c’est-à-dire le secteur des corporations ». Et ils ton réussi à « détenir un pouvoir indiscutable » qui n’a fait que freiner la souveraineté des autres Etats qui étaient en compétition avec l’Amérique du Nord.

La réorganisation du globe a eu antre d’autres objectifs “restaurer l’ordre en Europe”, ce qui impliquait “détruire la résistance antifasciste compromise avec la démocratie radicale ». En 1945, une conférence a été organisée pour établir « les règles du jeu en Amérique latine » à Chapultepec, où a été encouragée « l’élimination du nationalisme économique, avec l’exception de celui des Etats-Unis », pour assurer le rendement des investissements nord-américains. Chomsky a rappelé que l’Amérique latine était, pour les gouvernements des étatsuniens, « notre petite région qui n’a jamais embêté personne », selon la définition de Henry Stimson, ancien secrétaire de Guerre des EU.

C’est un autre rapport de force que le linguiste et professeur du MIT a décrit au sujet du début du XXIème siècle. Lors de la conférence de Carthagène, en 2012, il n’y a pas eu de consensus pour la déclaration finale car les Etats-Unis et le Canada se sont retrouvés dans une position d’isolement, entourés par la position majoritaire de la région au sujet de trois points. Cuba, la lutte contre le narcotrafic et la réclamation argentine des îles Malouines. « Tout cela était impensable il y a encore quelques années », a remarqué Chomsky. « La comparaison de ces conférences permet d’observer la décadence des Etats-Unis. » Comment ce déclin est-il arrivé ? Pour Chomsky, c’est le résultat d’un long processus qui trouve ses origines dès 1945, lorsque les Etats-Unis présupposent tacitement qu’ils sont les maîtres du monde. « La décadence était inévitable au fur et à mesure que le monde industrialisé se ravivait (après la guerre) et que le processus de décolonisation avançait. »

Noam Chomsky a ensuite tenté de mettre à nu l’imposture nord-américaine mise en place pour justifier le déploiement militaire et la menace latente de nouvelles incursions belliqueuses. « Que s’est-il passé à la fin de la Guerre Froide ? ». Les gouvernements étatsuniens qui se sont succédés ont maintenu la pression militaire « non pas pour freiner l’Union Soviétique, mais pour freiner les puissances du Tiers-Monde ». L’idée dominante aux Etats-Unis est toujours la même et Chomsky la décrit avec une subtile ironie : « une préoccupation par le nationalisme radical qui se trompe en croyant que les principaux bénéficiaires des richesses d’un pays doivent être ses habitants et non les investisseurs étatsuniens ».

Depuis la fin des années ’70 cette idéologie s’est matérialisée en “une attaque néolibérale, une attaque mondiale sur les droits de l’homme », et une ingénierie bureaucratique organisée pour protéger les grandes banques et corporations des récurrentes crises du capitalisme, dont les coûts sont transférés à l’ensemble de la société. « L’Amérique latine -selon lui- a été à l’avant-garde de la lutte contre l’assaut néolibéral ».

La fin de sa conférence a été marquée par un avertissement au sujet des plusieurs risques aux conséquences apocalyptiques. « L’espèce humaine se trouve au bord du précipice. Deux dangers menacent l’humanité : la guerre nucléaire et la catastrophe écologique. Durant les dernières années, ces menaces se sont accrues. Pour la première, nous connaissons la solution : il faut éliminer les armes nucléaires », a signalé Chomsky, soulevant une vague d’applaudissements. Mais il a ensuite rappelé que les Etats-Unis avaient annoncé des investissements en millions de dollars pour moderniser son armement nucléaire. Il ne s’est pas non plus montré optimiste au sujet des problèmes écologiques générés par l’activité humaine (en se référant tout particulièrement à l’extraction de combustibles fossiles) : « Nous ne savons pas clairement comment surmonter la situation écologique catastrophique dans laquelle nous nous trouvons » mais il est indispensable d’aborder cette question, si l’homme souhaite vraiment continuer à vivre sur la planète Terre.

- Source : Javier LORCA-Traduction Luis Alberto Reygada

Venezuelan Sanctions, U.S. Dominance and the Power Elite

Venezuelan Sanctions, U.S. Dominance and the Power Elite

By Michael S. Rozeff

Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com

What are the real foreign policy objectives of the U.S. government? They are hidden under its rhetoric and propaganda. They are submerged and kept submerged by the media and even by academics and historians who study these matters. These objectives are certainly not well-understood by the broad public or accepted as the actual objectives. Outside commentators who do seek to articulate what these objectives are quite often disagree or emphasize different factors. Lacking insider knowledge of the real motives behind foreign policy actions, most outside commentators have to make do with educated guesses.

Consider an Executive Order issued by Obama on March 9, 2015 that sanctions seven Venezuelans. Nothing in it that explains the sanctions has any credibility. It is totally a fog of propaganda and diversion from the actual goals that are never mentioned. The first sentence in the Fact Sheet is simply ridiculous and a total fabrication that no sensible person can possibly believe:

“President Obama today issued a new Executive Order (E.O.) declaring a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the situation in Venezuela.”

One must understand that this language is contained in an official document issued by the White House. Nothing good can come out of a system that routinely pushes out fake ideas, falsehoods and fabrications like this. The results are cynical disregard for law, government secrecy, lack of government accountability, isolation of officials from voters, hubris among officials, hidden contempt for the public, distrust, and the encouragement for officials to employ power. Lies of this order and magnitude are poisonous.

The order goes on to list its moral goals of punishing various accused persons for their bad behavior:

“This new authority is aimed at persons involved in or responsible for the erosion of human rights guarantees, persecution of political opponents, curtailment of press freedoms, use of violence and human rights violations and abuses in response to antigovernment protests, and arbitrary arrest and detention of antigovernment protestors, as well as the significant public corruption by senior government officials in Venezuela.”

Nothing could sound more reasonable, and yet nothing is less credible than this declaration. Why? Because in countless other cases the U.S. not only turns a blind eye to the same sorts of goings-on but actually fully supports them. The U.S. is currently supporting Ukraine (the Kiev junta) while its security services and certain armed forces have been torturing prisoners that they have captured. The U.S. itself engaged in torture and has not yet punished those who were responsible for it. The U.S. has employed means of warfare that produced systematic human rights violations orders of magnitude worse than anything in Venezuela. The U.S. has supported death squads in Central America. The U.S. government does little to influence despicable behavior of local police and courts within this country. The U.S. has consistently supported Saudi Arabia and nearby states that both employ practices of the same kind condemned in this order and have supported ISIS terrorists. The Obama administration has been very tough on journalists and whistleblowers, thereby chilling press freedoms.

There has been marked instability in Venezuela and repression. Much worse repression is going on in Ukraine by its government, one that the U.S. supports and is assisting in its military efforts.

One can only reach the conclusion that the justifications in the executive order are phony.

This leaves us speculation as to what the real motives are. At the root of it is that the U.S. government is alarmed by the independence being exhibited by Venezuela and several other Latin American governments. Imperialism is a fundamental factor, and this requires a dominant U.S. position. There are political maneuvers in Venezuela and neighboring lands that tie directly to economic matters. For example, China has a presence in Venezuela that competes with American interests. Venezuela is a large oil producer. Venezuela is forming a Bank of the South in conjunction with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia and Ecuador. These political-economic moves remind one of the moves that were being made by Gaddafi and Libya prior to their destruction by U.S. and NATO forces.

Sanctions on Venezuelan officials are a warning. They are a slap on the wrist to warn the government of potential harsher measures. Human rights violations are a smokescreen. The real target is the government and the real objective is control of economic policies by the U.S. The U.S. does not want to see South American countries making links to such countries as China and Russia.

The U.S. policy in Ukraine and Middle East is the very same. It seeks to break down Russian influence on its periphery, including Ukraine. Condemnations of Putin and Russian aggression are propaganda smokescreens. In the Middle East, the U.S. wants to contain Iran. In the Far East, the U.S. wants to contain China. The U.S. seeks dominance in Central Asia too, as in Afghanistan.

In every major region of the world, the single factor that most clearly explains U.S. foreign policy is a quest for unquestioned and unchallenged U.S. hegemony. The groups or interests that lie behind this quest are a matter of some debate. In a general way, we can call them imperial interests; but that doesn’t identify them clearly. There are those who see a cabal of Bilderbergers and Trilateral Commission types. Others see international bankers. A few see Jews or Zionists or Rothschilds. The military-industrial complex is a clear possibility.

There is a kind of elite club of power-seekers and power-users. The membership changes over time but the guiding ideas and philosophy do not change. The strategic goal remains the same, but the steps to achieve it change. The members, for lack of a more accurate term, are not fully united. They have divisions. They communicate and write position papers. They jockey for power and influence. They protect the system and the club, from which the political operatives who manage U.S. foreign policy are drawn. The club has had longevity. It has a fairly common and standard way of communicating its aims to make them sound pleasing and moral, as in this executive order. It coalesces around enemies of the day. Occasional members provide revealing insights into the true motives and objectives. In fact, this is quite often the case. But the vast majority of press communications deliver the club (or party) line, drowning out the truth of the motivations of its members.

Those outside the club can join it and become “one of the guys” by adopting the party line. Pundits and professors can do this voluntarily, being rewarded by positions, amenities, access to the powerful and those in the know, tips that can be turned to profit, favors and the gratifications of power. So can businessmen or members of the military. Fresh college recruits can join the club at the lower rungs and advance if they have the kinds of skills that this system finds useful. The elite needs bright people and attracts them; power, privilege, advancement and the reinforcements of higher-ups attract them. It takes no particular religion, class, sex or political party affiliation to enter this elite. It might help actually to believe the elite’s own propaganda and worldview, i.e., to believe in American exceptionalism, but this is not essential. Hypocrites are welcome into the club too, as long as they tow the mark.

In my opinion, there is no single group that has been running this elite and orchestrated its many moves over the decades. The people at the center of the club who most influence policies change. The power elite is fluid. The motives of the individuals involved vary. Their backgrounds vary. There is no conscious behind-the-scenes secret plan that’s being carried out by a select group of individuals. The situation is different than that. Rather, there is a coalescing of various people and interests around a common view. This coming together occurs through the central presence of a powerful state. Without that the members of the power elite would have a much, much more difficult time finding each other, allying with one another and becoming a force. The coming together uses the state as the connecting point, and it uses the state as the instrument to wield power. The formulation of positions or policies that serve as the means to the overall end is complex.

The basic objective of U.S. global dominance or hegemony prevails over well over a hundred years because it is an objective that coalesces the group and simultaneously affords the individual members the best opportunities to achieve their individual objectives and satisfy their motives, which vary. The state and the global dominance of the state are a kind of shield and sword that protect and project the power of the power elite.

Other empires and competing powers may work in roughly the same way. We need only assume that underlying them all is the will to dominance. States arise because of this will to dominance, and the process is aided to some extent by the fear that foreigners will dominate unless the state is powerful. The state provides a focal point, or point of attraction for expressing this will.

The U.S. version has been especially successful because it has had a foundation in a productive economy that existed for reasons independent of the power elite’s policies. There has also been something of an ideological foundation. An economic foundation may not be essential, however. There are many cases where people coalesce around religious beliefs or ideological beliefs, producing a state and an elite in that way.

The Best of Michael S. Rozeff

Michael S. Rozeff [send him mail] is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York. He is the author of the free e-book Essays on American Empire: Liberty vs. Domination and the free e-book The U.S. Constitution and Money: Corruption and Decline.

Previous article by Michael S. Rozeff: What Russian Aggression in Ukraine?

États-Unis : Sanctions contre Douguine, le théoricien du nouvel impérialisme russe

États-Unis : Sanctions contre Douguine, le théoricien du nouvel impérialisme russe

Ex: http://fortune.fdesouche.com

Alexandre Douguine, penseur atypique, défend depuis longtemps le dépeçage de l’Ukraine au nom de sa vision d’une Russie « eurasiatique », influençant le Kremlin et une partie des radicaux européens.

Les États-Unis viennent de publier une nouvelle liste de 14 personnes à sanctionner pour leur rôle dans la crise ukrainienne. Au milieu des militaires, des personnages politiques favorables à l’ancien régime ou aux nouvelles républiques autoproclamées de l’Est du pays, figure un intellectuel russe, Alexandre Douguine.

Ce personnage atypique prône, depuis des années, le retour d’une grande Russie «eurasiatique», avec l’oreille attentive du Kremlin comme l’histoire récente l’a montré.

Si Douguine est très peu connu en Occident, il est en Russie un personnage public, notamment grâce à ses succès en librairie. Intellectuel, théoricien géopolitique, il prend part à la vie politique russe.

Né en 1962 au sein d’une famille de militaire, il est aujourd’hui facilement reconnaissable avec sa barbe biblique qui lui donne un petit air de Raspoutine. Politiquement, il a débuté chez les monarchistes, avant de passer chez les communistes puis de devenir l’idéologue du Parti national-bolchévique.

Autre figure de ce mouvement, l’écrivain Limonov dira de lui qu’il est le «Cyrille et Méthode du fascisme». Il est en effet devenu «le seul doctrinaire d’ampleur de la droite radicale russe», selon la spécialiste Marlène Laruelle*.

Eurasie et anti-américanisme

Douguine est aujourd’hui considéré comme le chantre du «néo-eurasisme», cette théorie géopolitique qui veut redonner à la Russie sa splendeur, sa puissance et sa sphère d’influence des époques soviétique et tsariste. Et même au-delà, puisqu’il préconise l’intégration de la Mandchourie, du Tibet ou de la Mongolie à cet espace.

En Europe, les Pays-Baltes et les Balkans doivent selon être réintégrés. Quant à l’Ukraine, elle devait être dépecée: bien avant les évènements de l’an dernier, il réclamait la division du pays selon les sphères d’influence de Moscou et de Kiev.

Le développement de cette puissance russe «eurasiatique», va de pair avec un très fort anti-américanisme, et un anti-atlantisme, qui semble ne pas avoir échappé à Washington.

Une influence sur Poutine?

Alexandre Douguine a ses entrées auprès du pouvoir. Il est depuis longtemps conseiller à la Douma, le Parlement russe. Il possède également une certaine influence auprès de l’Académie militaire russe. On ne sait pas, en revanche, s’il voit souvent le président Vladimir Poutine. Il y a eu entre eux des hauts et des bas. Quand on le questionne sur le sujet, Douguine reste évasif.

Le retour de Poutine semble être une période favorable. «À l’évidence, l’influence de Douguine est considérable […] Dans ses derniers discours, le président [Poutine] adopte ses thématiques et même sa phraséologie. C’est effrayant», témoignait l’an dernier un conseiller du Kremlin.

Au-delà du Kremlin, ses thèses ont depuis longtemps franchi les frontières russes pour être adoptées par une partie de l’extrême droite européenne, qui le considère comme l’un de ses prinicpaux penseurs. En France, de nombreux nationalistes russophiles s’y réfèrent et Douguine, que l’on a pu voir à Paris lors d’une Manif pour tous, dit «bien connaître» Jean-Marie Le Pen.

«Nous ne voyons absolument pas le lien entre tout ce qui s’est passé dans les sud-est de l’Ukraine et ces sanctions», a réagi, à l’annonce des sanctions, le vice-ministre des Affaires étrangères russes, Sergueï Ryabkov. La décision américaine montre que les États-Unis ne sous-estiment pas le rôle de Douguine dans les derniers développements de la politique extérieure russe

Notes:

* Marlène Laruelle. La Quête d’une identité impériale. Le néo-eurasisme dans la Russie contemporaine. Editions PETRA. 2007.

Le Figaro

Lugan aux Ronchons!

Vendredi 27 mars:

Bernard Lugan aux Ronchons

The ISIS-US Empire – Their Unholy Alliance Fully Exposed

The ISIS-US Empire – Their Unholy Alliance Fully Exposed

By Joachim Hagopian
GlobalResearch.ca

Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com

Let’s be perfectly clear. The United States is not actually at war with ISIS. As Global Research director, economist and author Michel Chossudovsky plainly points out recently, Obama is simply waging “a fake war” against the Islamic State forces, putting on another propaganda show for mainstream media to keep his flock of American sheeple asleep in echo-chambered darkness. With a mere cursory review of recent historical events, one can readily realize that virtually everything Big Government tells us is happening in the world, you can bet is a boldface lie.

For over three and a half decades the US has been funding mostly Saudi stooges to do its dirty bidding in proxy wars around the world, beginning in Afghanistan in the 1980’s to fight the Soviets with the mujahedeen-turned al Qaeda that later would mutate into ISIS. Reagan and Bush senior gave Osama bin Laden his first terrorist gig. Our mercenary “Islamic extremists” for-hire were then on the CIA payroll employed in the Balkans during the 1990’s to kill fellow Moslem Serbs in Kosovo and Bosnia. For a long time now Washington’s been relying on the royal Saudi family as its chief headhunters supplying the United States with as needed terrorists on demand in order to wage its geopolitics chessboard game of global hegemony, otherwise known by the central banking cabal as global “Theft-R-Us.”

The Bush crime family were in bed with the bin Ladens long before 9/11 when that very morning George H W Bush on behalf of his Carlyle Group was wining and dining together with Osama’s brother at the posh DC Ritz Carlton while 19 box cutting Saudi stooges were acting as the neocon’s hired guns allegedly committing the greatest atrocity ever perpetrated on US soil in the history of this nation. And in the 9/11 immediate aftermath while only birds were flying the not-so-friendly skies above America, there was but one exception and that was the Air Force escort given the bin Ladens flying safely back home to their “Terrorists-R-Us” mecca called Saudi Arabia. On 9/11 the Zionist Israeli Mossad, Saudi intelligence and the Bush-Cheney neocons were busily pulling the trigger murdering near 3000 Americans in cold blood as the most deadly, most heinous crime in US history. If you’re awake enough to recognize this ugly truth as cold hard fact, then it’s certainly not a stretch to see the truth behind this latest US created hoax called ISIS.

Renowned investigative journalist and author Seymour Hersh astutely saw the writing on the wall way back in 2006 (emphasis added):

 To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

The US Empire along with its international partner-in-crime Israel has allowed and encouraged Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to be the primary financiers of al Qaeda turned ISIS. Even Vice President Joe Biden last year said the same. If Empire wanted to truly destroy the entire Islamic extremist movement in the Middle East it could have applied its global superpower pressure on its allied Gulf State nations to stop funding the ISIS jihadists. But that has never happened for the simple reason that Israel, those same Arab allies and the United States want a convenient “bad guy” enemy in the Middle East and North Africa, hiding the fact that al Qaeda-ISIS for decades has been its mercenary ally on the ground in more recent years in the Golan Heights, Libya, Iraq and Syria.

As recently as a month ago it was reported that an Islamic State operative claimed that funding for ISIS had been funneled through the US. Of course another “staunch” US-NATO ally Turkey has historically allowed its territory to be a safe staging ground as well as a training area for ISIS. It additionally allows jihadist leaders to move freely in and out of Syria through Turkey. Along with Israel and all of US Empire’s Moslem nation states as our strategic friends in the Middle East, together they have been arming, financing and training al Qaeda/ISIS to do its double bidding, fighting enemies like Gaddafi in Libya and Assad in Syria while also posing as global terrorist boogie men threatening the security of the entire world. Again, Washington cannot continue to double speak its lies from both sides of its mouth and then expect to continue having it both ways and expect the world to still be buying it.

A breaking story that’s creating an even larger crack in the wall of the US false narrative is the revelation that Iraqi counterterrorism forces just arrested four US-Israeli military advisors assisting (i.e., aiding and abetting) the ISIS enemy, three of whom hold duel citizenships from both Israel and America. This latest piece of evidence arrives on the heels of a Sputnik article from a couple weeks ago quoting American historian Webster Tarpley saying that “the United States created the Islamic State and uses jihadists as its secret army to destabilize the Middle East.” The historian also supported claims that the ISIS has in large part been financed by the Saudi royal family. Interviewed on Press TV the critic of US foreign policy asked why NATO ally Turkey bordering both Iraq and Syria where the Islamic State jihadists continue to terrorize, why can’t Turkey simply use its larger, vastly superior army to go in and defeat the much smaller ISIS, especially if the US and NATO were serious about destroying their alleged enemy. Again, if ISIS is the enemy, why did the US recently launch an air strike on Assad’s forces that were in process of defeating ISIS? The reason is all too obvious, the bombing was meant to afflict damage to stop Assad’s forces from beating back ISIS that the US is clearly protecting.

Finally, Tarpley reaffirmed what many others have been saying that chicken hawk Senator John McCain is actual buddies with ISIS kingpin Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Of course photos abound of his frequent “secret” meetings with ISIS leadership illegally conducted inside Syria. This confirmed fact provides yet one more obvious link between the high powered criminal operative posing as US senator and the so called enemy of the “free world” ISIS.

Recall that iconic photo from June last year of American supplied trucks traveling unimpeded in the ISIS convoy kicking up dust in the Iraqi desert fresh from the Syrian battlefields heading south towards Baghdad. It was no accident that they were equipped with an enormous fleet of brand new Toyota trucks and armed with rockets, artillery and Stinger missiles all furnished by US Empire. Nor was it an accident that the Iraqi Army simply did an about face and ran, with orders undoubtedly coming from somewhere high above in the American Empire. The Islamic State forces were allowed to seize possession of 2500 armored troop carriers, over 1000 Humvees and several dozen US battlefield tanks all paid for by US tax dollars. This entire spectacle was permitted as ISIS without any resistance then took control of Mosul the second largest city in Iraq including a half billion dollars robbing a bank. Throughout this process, it was definitely no accident that the United States allowed the Islamic State forces to invade Iraq as with advanced US airpower it could have within a couple hours easily carpet bombed and totally eliminated ISIS since the Islamic State possessed no anti-aircraft weapons. And even now with the hi-tech wizardry of satellites, lasers, nanotechnology and advanced cyber-warfare, the US and allied intelligence has the means of accurately locating and with far superior firepower totally eradicating ISIS if the will to do so actually existed. But the fact is there is no desire to kill the phantom enemy when in fact it’s the friend of the traitors in charge of the US government who drive the Empire’s global war policy.

Washington’s objective last year was to purposely unleash on already ravaged Iraq the latest US-made, al Qaeda morphed into the Islamic monster-on-steroids to further destabilize the Middle East, seek a regime change to replace the weak, corrupt, Sunni persecuting Maliki government in Baghdad and ‘balkanize” Iraq into three separate, powerless, divisive sections in similar vein of how the West tore apart and dissected Yugoslavia into thirteen ineffectual pieces. The globalist pattern of bank cabal loans drowning nations into quicksand debt and transnationals and US Empire posts predatorily moving in as permanent fixtures always replace what was previously a far better off sovereign nation wherever King Midas-in-reverse targets to spreads its Empire disease of failed-state cancer. After Yugoslavia came Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine. It goes on and on all over the globe. The all too familiar divide and conquer strategy never fails as the US Empire/NWO agenda. But the biggest reason ISIS was permitted to enter and begin wreaking havoc in Iraq last June was for the Empire to re-establish its permanent military bases in the country that Maliki had refused Washington after its December 2011 pullout.

With 2300 current US troops (and rising up to 3000 per Obama’s authorization) once again deployed back on the ground in Iraq acting as so called advisors, Iraq is now the centerpiece of US military presence in the Middle East region. Before a doubting House Armed Services Committee last Tuesday, CENTCOM Commander General Lloyd Austin defended Obama’s policyinsisting that ISIS can be defeated without use of heavy ground forces, feebly claiming that they’re on the run because his commander-in-chief’s air strike campaign is actually working. How many times before have we heard generals’ glowing reports to Congress turn out to be lies?

As far as PR goes, it appears the lies and propaganda are once again working. With help from the steady stream of another beheading-of-the week posted like clockwork on Youtube for all the world to shockingly see, not unlike when traffic slows down to look for bloodied car victims mangled on the highway. Apparently this thinly veiled strategy is proving successful again on the worked over, dumbed down, short attention-spanned American population. According to a poll released just a few days ago, 62% of Americans want more GI boots on the ground in Iraq to fight the latest made-by-America enemy for Iraq War III. Incredibly only 39% believe that more troops on the ground would risk another long, protracted war. Again, short attention spans are doomed to keep repeating history as in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

This polling propaganda disinformation ploy fits perfectly with prior statements made a few months ago by America’s top commander General Martin Dempsey that the US military presence in both Iraq and Syria must be a long term commitment as the necessary American sacrifice required to effectively take out ISIS. With US leaders laying the PR groundwork for more Empire occupations worldwide, of course it’s no accident that it conveniently fits in with the Empire’s agenda to wage its war of terror on a forever basis. Efforts by Washington to “prep” Americans for these “inevitable,” open-ended wars around the globe are designed to condition them into passive acceptance of lower intensity, “out-of-sight, out-of-mind” conflicts specifically to minimize and silence citizens from ever actively opposing yet more human slaughter caused by more US state sponsored terrorism in the form of unending imperialistic wars.

Every one of these “current events” have been carefully planned, coordinated, timed and staged for mass public consumption, none more so than those beheadings of US and British journalists, aid workers and Middle Eastern Christians along with the desecration of ancient Iraqi history with dozens of destroyed museums, churches and shrines. Obama and the Empire want us all to be thoroughly horrified and disgusted so we fear and hate the latest designated Islamic enemy. Hating your enemy to the point of viewing them as the lowest of the lowest, sub-human animal is an old psyops brainwashing trick successfully employed in every single war from the dawn of violent man. It effectively dehumanizes the enemy while desensitizing the killing soldier. For over a year now we’ve seen this same MSM game being relentlessly waged to falsely demonize Putin. The sinister, warped minds of the divide and conquer strategists from the ruling class elite don’t mind the resultant hating of Moslems around the world either. That’s all by diabolical design too.

If only six organizations control the entire planet’s mass media outlet that feeds the masses their daily lies like their daily bread, another winning bet would be that in a heartbeat they could also effectively shut down the internet pipeline that showcases ISIS horror show theatrics on the global stage. But by design, they are willingly, cunningly disseminated for worldwide mass consumption.

In fact the only consistent group that’s even been able to militarily hold their own and actually challenge ISIS, the Kurds, are watching UK ship heavy arms to the same losing team the Iraqi army that ran away from defending Mosul. The last time the West gave them weapons and supplies, they handed them right over to ISIS.

In a recent Guardian article, a Kurdish captain said that the Kurds offered to even buy the second hand weapons from the British used in Afghanistan. But because the West is afraid the heavy arms might empower Kurdish nationalism into demanding their own sovereign nation for the first time in history, the US wants to ensure that Iraq stays as one nation after implanting its latest Baghdad puppet regime. The fiercely independent Kurds are feared if they were granted autonomy that they might refuse to allow their homeland to be raped and plundered by the US unlike the corrupt current Iraqi government. The Kurdish fighters could sorely use the bigger guns as they plan to launch an offensive in April or May to take back Mosul from ISIS. But when permitting an ancient ethnic group its proper due by granting political autonomy risks interfering with the Empire’s rabid exploitation of another oil-rich nation, all bets are off in doing the right thing.

The mounting evidence is stacking up daily to unequivocally prove beyond any question of a doubt that ISIS is in fact a US mercenary ally and not the treasonous feds’ enemy at all. From mid-August 2014 to mid-January 2015 using the most sophisticated fighter jets known to man, the US Air Force and its 19 coalition allies have flown more than 16,000 air strikes over Iraq and Syria ostensibly to “root out” ISIS once and for all. Yet all this Empire aggression has nothing to show for its wasted phony efforts as far as inflicting any real damage on the so called ISIS enemy. Labeled a “soft counterterrorism operation,” a prominent Council on Foreign Relations member recently characterized Obama’s scheme as too weak and ineffectual, and like a true CFR chicken hawk, he strongly advocates more bombs, more advisers and special operations forces deployed on the ground.

But the records show that all those air strikes are purposely not hitting ISIS forces because they are not the actual target. Many air strike missions from both the US Air Force as well as Israeli jets have been designed to destroy extensive infrastructure inside Syria that hurts the Syrian people, causing many innocent civilian casualties, while not harming ISIS at all. This in turn ensures more ISIS recruits for America’s forever war on terror. Repeatedly oil refineries, pipelines and grain storage silos have also been prime targets damaged and destroyed by the West. Because in 2013 Obama’s false flag claim that Assad’s army was responsible for the chemical weapons attack was thwarted by strong worldwide opposition and Putin’s success brokering the deal that had Assad turning over his chemical weapons, a mere year later ISIS conveniently provided Obama’s deceitful excuse to move forward with his air offensive on Syria after all.

Finally, on numerous occasions the US was caught red-handed flying arms and supply drops to the Islamic jihadists on the ground. According to Iraqi intelligence sources, US planes have engaged regularly in air drops of food and weapons to ISIS. These sighting began to be observed after one load was “accidentally” dropped last October into so called enemy hands supposedly meant to go to the Kurdish fighters. Realizing the US has betrayed them, as of late Iraqi security forces have been shooting down US and British aircraft engaged in providing supplies and arms to their ISIS enemy. This is perhaps the most incriminating evidence yet in exposing the truth that ISIS is being supported, supplied and protected by the US Empire more than even the Iraqi government forces the US claims to be assisting in this phony war against the militant Islamic jihadists.

Clearly the unfolding daily events and developments in both Iraq and Syria overwhelmingly indict the United States as even more of “the bad guy” than the supposed ISIS terrorists. Recently the US was caught financing ISIS and has all along supported Arab allies that knowingly fund Islamic extremism. During the six months since Obama vowed to go after them and “root them out,” countless times the US and allies have maintained the so called enemy’s supply line with regularly scheduled air drops. Meanwhile, in both Syria and Iraq after a half year of alleged bombing, ISIS forces are reported to be stronger than ever. The air strikes have not been hitting jihadist targets because the American and coalition forces’ actual targets in Syria have been vital infrastructure and civilians that are clearly attacks on Assad. All of this irrefutable evidence piling up is backfiring on the American Empire. The world is now learning just how devious, diabolical and desperate the warmongering, pro-Zionist powerbrokers who are the war criminals controlling the US rogue government really are. Their evil lies are unraveling their demonic agenda as the truth cannot be stopped.

Reprinted with permission from GlobalResearch.ca.

Slobodan Despot: « Le traitement spécial réservé aux Russes et aux Serbes est motivé par leur insoumission »

Par Philitt.fr

Entretien avec Slobodan Despot 

Slobodan Despot est écrivain et éditeur. Il a notamment publié Despotica en 2010 (Xenia) et Le miel en 2014 (Gallimard). Suisse d’origine serbe, il porte un intérêt tout particulier au monde slave. Nous avons discuté avec lui de la manière dont les médias, les politiques et les intellectuels occidentaux rendaient compte du conflit en Ukraine.

PHILITT : En 1999, l’OTAN et l’Occident ont déclenché une guerre au Kosovo en niant l’importance culturelle et historique de cette région pour le peuple serbe. Aujourd’hui, l’Occident semble ignorer l’importance de l’Ukraine pour le peuple russe. Avec 15 ans d’écart, ces deux crises géopolitiques ne sont-elles pas le symbole de l’ignorance et du mépris de l’Occident envers les peuples slaves ?

Slobodan Despot : La réponse est dans la question. On agit de fait comme si ces peuples n’existaient pas comme sujets de droit. Comme s’il s’agissait d’une sous-espèce qui n’a droit ni à un sanctuaire ni à des intérêts stratégiques ou politiques vitaux. Il y a certes des peuples slaves et/ou orthodoxes que l’OTAN traite avec une apparente mansuétude — Croates, Polonais, Roumains, Bulgares — mais uniquement à raison de leur docilité. On ne les méprise pas moins pour autant. Cependant, le traitement spécial réservé aux Russes et aux Serbes est motivé par leur insoumission à un ordre global dont l’Occident atlantique se croit à la fois le législateur et le gendarme. On peut déceler dans l’attitude occidentale vis-à-vis de ces deux nations des composantes indiscutables de ce qu’on appelle le racisme. Le journaliste suisse Guy Mettan publie d’ailleurs ce printemps une étude imposante et bienvenue sur la russophobie.

PHILITT : Comme l’explique Jacques Sapir, deux revendications légitimes se sont affrontées dans le cadre de la crise de Crimée : la liberté des peuples à disposer d’eux-mêmes et le respect de l’intégrité territoriale d’un État. Est-il possible, selon vous, de dépasser cette tension ?

Slobodan Despot : La Crimée fut arbitrairement rattachée, on le sait, à l’Ukraine par Khrouchtchev dans les années 50, à une époque où l’URSS semblait appelée à durer des siècles et où, du même coup, ses découpages intérieurs ne signifiaient pas grand-chose. L’éclatement de l’Empire a soulevé de nombreux problèmes de minorités, d’enclaves et de frontières inadéquates. La Crimée est non seulement une base stratégique de premier plan pour la Russie, mais encore une terre profondément russe, comme elle l’a montré lors de son référendum de mars 2014. Les putschistes de Kiev, sûrs de la toute-puissance de leurs protecteurs occidentaux, ont oublié de prévoir dans leur arrogance que leur renversement de l’ordre constitutionnel allait entraîner des réactions en chaîne. Or, non seulement ils n’ont rien fait pour rassurer les régions russophones, mais encore ils ont tout entrepris pour que celles-ci ne songent même plus à revenir dans le giron de Kiev.

De toute façon, le rattachement de la Crimée n’est, on l’oublie trop vite, que la réponse du berger russe à la bergère américaine, qui a jugé bon en 1999 de détacher à coup de bombes le Kosovo de la Serbie. Le bloc atlantique et ses satellites ont par la suite reconnu cet État mort-né malgré l’existence d’une résolution de l’ONU (n° 1244) affirmant clairement la souveraineté de la Serbie sur cette province. C’est au Kosovo qu’a eu lieu la violation du droit international qu’on dénonce en Crimée.

PHILITT : Concernant le conflit ukrainien, chaque camp dénonce l’action d’agents d’influence en tentant de minimiser la spontanéité des événements. Quelle est la part de réalité et de fantasme de cette lecture géopolitique ?

Slobodan Despot : Je rappellerai un cas d’école très peu connu. Toute la Crimée se souvient d’un incident gravissime survenu au lendemain du putsch de Maïdan, lorsque des casseurs néonazis bien coordonnés ont arrêté sur l’autoroute une colonne de 500 manifestants criméens revenant de Kiev, mitraillé et incendié leurs autocars, tabassé et humilié les hommes et sommairement liquidé une dizaine de personnes. Les médias occidentaux ont totalement occulté cet épisode. Comme il s’agissait de faire passer le référendum criméen pour une pure manipulation moscovite, il était impossible de faire état de cet événement traumatique survenu moins d’un mois avant le vote.

Les exemples de ce genre sont légion. Le livre très rigoureux du mathématicien français Michel Segal, Ukraine, histoires d’une guerre (éd. Autres Temps), en décompose un certain nombre en détail. Il faut reconnaître que le camp « occidentiste » a l’initiative de la « propagande contre la propagande », c’est-à-dire de la montée en épingle d’opérations d’influence supposées. Il jouit en cela d’une complaisance ahurissante des médias occidentaux. Or, dans un conflit comme celui-là, où tous les protagonistes sortent des écoles de manipulation soviétiques, les chausse-trapes sont partout et seul un jugement fondé sur la sanction des faits avérés et sur la question classique « à qui profite le crime ? » permettrait d’y voir clair. Nous en sommes loin ! Le plus cocasse, c’est que l’officialité nous sert à journée faite des théories du complot russe toujours plus échevelées tout en condamnant le « complotisme » des médias alternatifs …

PHILITT : Dans la chaîne causale qui va de la mobilisation « humanitaire » jusqu’à l’intervention militaire, quelle est la place exacte des intellectuels qui l’approuvent ? Sont-ils de simples rouages ?

Slobodan Despot : Les intellectuels ont joué me semble-t-il un rôle bien plus important dans cet engrenage au temps de la guerre en ex-Yougoslavie. J’ai conservé les articles des BHL, Jacques Julliard, Glucksmann, Deniau etc… On a peine à croire, vingt ans plus tard, que des gens civilisés et hautement instruits aient pu tomber dans de tels états de haine ignare et écumante. Même le bon petit abbé Pierre, saint patron des hypocrites, avait appelé à bombarder les Serbes ! J’ai également conservé les écrits de ceux qui, sur le moment même, avaient identifié et analysé cette dérive, comme l’avait fait Annie Kriegel.

Aujourd’hui, à l’exception burlesque de Lévy, les intellectuels sont plus en retrait. Ils vitupèrent moins, mais s’engagent moins également pour la paix. Mon sentiment est que leur militantisme crétin au temps de la guerre yougoslave les a profondément décrédibilisés. Leur opinion n’intéresse plus personne. Du coup, dans l’actualité présente, le rôle des agents d’influence ou des idiots utiles est plutôt dévolu à d’obscurs « experts » académico-diplomatiques, souvent issus d’ONG et de think tanks plus ou moins liés à l’OTAN. Ces crustacés-là supportent mal la lumière du jour et abhorrent le débat ouvert. Il est caractéristique qu’Alain Finkielkraut ait dû me désinviter de son Répliques consacré à l’Ukraine suite à la réaction épouvantée d’un invité issu de ce milieu à la seule mention de mon nom. À quoi leur servent leurs titres et leurs « travaux » s’ils ne peuvent endurer un échange de vues avec un interlocuteur sans qualification universitaire ?

PHILITT : Bernard-Henri Lévy compare, dès qu’il en a l’occasion, Vladimir Poutine à Hitler ou encore les accords de Minsk à ceux de Munich signés en 1938. Cette analyse possède-t-elle une quelconque pertinence ou relève-t-elle de la pathologie ?

Slobodan Despot : M. Lévy a un seul problème. Il n’a jamais su choisir entre sa chemise immaculée et la crasse du monde réel. Il se fabrique des causes grandiloquentes à la mesure de sa peur et de sa solitude de garçon mal aimé errant dans des demeures vides qu’il n’a jamais osé abandonner pour mener la vraie vie selon l’esprit à laquelle il aspirait. Je le vois aujourd’hui mendier la reconnaissance par tous les canaux que lui octroie son immense fortune — journalisme, roman, reportage, théâtre et même cinéma — et ne recueillir que bides et quolibets. Et je l’imagine, enfant, roulant des yeux de caïd mais se cachant au premier coup dur derrière les basques de son père ou de ses maîtres. Dans mes écoles, on appelait ces fils-à-papa cafteurs des « ficelles » et nul n’était plus méprisé que ces malheureux-là. Aussi, lorsque j’entends pérorer M. Lévy, je ne pense jamais à l’objet de sa harangue, mais à l’enfant en lui qui m’inspire une réelle compassion.

PHILITT : Vous écriviez, pour annoncer une conférence qui s’est tenue à Genève le 25 février : « On a vu se mettre en place une « narratologie » manichéenne qui ne pouvait avoir d’autre dénouement que la violence et l’injustice. Si l’on essayait d’en tirer les leçons ? » Le storytelling est-il devenu la forme moderne de la propagande ?

Slobodan Despot : C’est évident. Il se développe en milieu anglo-saxon (et donc partout) une véritable osmose entre l’écriture scénaristique et l’écriture documentaire. Cas extrême : le principal « document » dont nous disposions sur l’exécution supposée de Ben Laden en 2011 est le film de Kathryn Bigelow, Zero Dark Thirty, qui a tacitement occupé dans la culture occidentale la place du divertissement et de l’analyse, et de la preuve. La réussite cinématographique de ce projet (du reste dûment distinguée) a permis d’escamoter toute une série d’interrogations évidentes.

Sur ce sujet du storytelling, nous disposons d’une enquête capitale. En novembre 1992, Élie Wiesel emmena une mission en Bosnie afin d’enquêter sur les « camps d’extermination » serbes dénoncés par la machine médiatique cette année-là. Ayant largement démenti cette rumeur, la mission Wiesel fut effacée de la mémoire médiatique. Par chance, il s’y était trouvé un homme de raison. Jacques Merlino, alors directeur des informations sur France 2, fut outré tant par l’excès de la campagne que par l’escamotage de son démenti. Il remonta jusqu’à l’agence de RP qui était à la source du montage. Son président, James Harff, lui expliqua fièrement comment il avait réussi à retourner la communauté juive américaine pour la convaincre que les victimes du nazisme de 1941 étaient devenues des bourreaux nazis en 1991. Il ne s’agissait que d’une story, d’un scénario bien ficelé. La réalité du terrain ne le concernait pas.

Les stories simplistes de ce genre ont durablement orienté la lecture de cette tragédie. Ceux qui s’y opposaient, fût-ce au nom de la simple logique, étaient bâillonnés. Le livre de Merlino, Les vérités yougoslaves ne sont pas toutes bonnes à dire (Albin Michel), fut épuisé en quelques semaines et jamais réimprimé, et son auteur « récompensé » par un poste… à Pékin !

PHILITT : Comment expliquer la faible mémoire des opinions occidentales ? Comment expliquer qu’elles aient « oublié » les preuves qui devaient être apportées de l’implication russe dans la destruction du MH-17 ? Le storytelling remplace-t-il, dans l’esprit du public, la causalité mécanique par une causalité purement morale ?

Slobodan Despot : Nous vivons en effet dans une époque hypermorale — ou plutôt hypermoralisante. L’identification des faits est subordonnée à l’interprétation morale qui pourrait en découler. Si, par exemple, voir des « jeunes » molester une gamine devant votre immeuble risque de vous inspirer des pensées racistes et sécuritaires, vous êtes prié de ne pas constater l’altercation et de passer votre chemin. C’est très vil au point de vue de la moralité individuelle, mais correct selon la moralité sociétale. Une même « école du regard » a été imposée au sujet de la Russie. Au lendemain de la tragédie du vol MH-17, la sphère politico-médiatique s’est mise à conspuer le président russe en personne comme s’il avait abattu l’avion de ses propres mains. Aujourd’hui, plus personne n’en souffle mot, le faisceau d’indices étant accablant pour le camp adverse. Ces dirigeants et ces personnalités publiques disposent de suffisamment de jugeote et de mémoire pour mener rondement et même cyniquement leurs propres affaires. Mais dans un contexte impliquant l’intérêt collectif, comme la guerre contre la Russie, ils abandonnent tout sens de la responsabilité et du discernement et se comportent comme des midinettes hyperventilées. Leur tartufferie n’est même plus un vice, mais une composante anthropologique. Ils réalisent le type humain totalement sociodépendant que le nazisme et le communisme ont tenté de mettre en place avant d’être coupés dans leur élan.

PHILITT 

Une Alliance stratégique Iran/Russie/Egypte est-elle possible?

Une Alliance stratégique Iran/Russie/Egypte est-elle possible?

Ex: http://nationalemancipe.blogspot.com

 

Les crises régionales ont élargi la convergence politique Téhéran-Moscou, ce qui a amené un pays, comme l'Egypte, à être convergent avec l'Iran et la Russie, au sujet des dossiers régionaux. Le ministre russe de la Défense s'est rendu, du 19 au 21 janvier, à Téhéran, où il a rencontré ses pairs iraniens, et signé avec eux un accord, qui prévoit d'accroître la coopération militaire et défensive entre l'Iran et la Russie.

 

Dans un article, le Centre des études arabes et des recherches politiques a procédé à un décryptage de cette visite, première du genre, depuis 2002. Dans son analyse, ce Centre évoque la signature de cet accord de coopération entre l'Iran et la Russie, dans les domaines de la formation, de l'exécution des manœuvres, et écrit : les médias iraniens et russes ont qualifié cette visite de très importante, dans leurs estimations, et ont souligné que cette visite sera un point de départ, pour la constitution d'une alliance stratégique entre l'Iran et la Russie. Ces médias ont indiqué que Moscou avait signé avec l'Iran le contrat de la vente à Téhéran des missiles S-300, d'avions de combat de type "Soukhoï", "Mig-30", "Soukhoï 24", ainsi que des pièces détachées nécessaires. La récente visite, en Iran, du ministre russe de la Défense semble être considérée comme stratégique, car elle sert les intérêts des deux parties, les deux pays étant exposés aux pressions de l'Occident, l'Iran, pour son programme nucléaire, et la Russie, en raison de la crise d'Ukraine.

 Cependant, certains analystes ne sont pas aussi optimistes, quant à ces accords, et disent qu'ils ne sont pas le signe d'un changement stratégique, dans les relations Téhéran-Moscou, car la Russie n'a rien fait, pour empêcher l'adoption, par l'Occident, des sanctions contre l'Iran, et a, d'ailleurs voté, toutes les résolutions anti-iraniennes, adoptées par le Conseil de Sécurité de l'ONU. La Russie a exprimé son mécontentement des pourparlers Iran/Etats-Unis, à Oman, sans l'invitation faite à ce pays d'y assister. En plus, en 2010, la Russie a refusé d'honorer ses engagements, pour vendre le système de défense anti-aérienne S-300, dans le cadre d'un contrat, signé avec l'Iran, d'un montant de 800 millions de dollars. 

 

La Russie a achevé la centrale atomique de Boushehr, avec un retard de dix ans. De plus, les Russes ne voient pas d'un bon œil le programme nucléaire iranien, et c'est pour cela qu'ils se sont rapprochés, à cet égard, des Occidentaux. A cela, s'ajoute le fait que les Russes sont inquiets de l'accès à un accord entre l'Iran et l'Occident, car un tel accord permettra à l'Occident de s'approvisionner en énergie, auprès de l'Iran, et mettre, ainsi, fin à sa dépendance énergétique vis-à-vis de la Russie. 

 

 

Cela étant dit, il y a de nombreux intérêts communs entre les deux pays, surtout, en ce qui concerne les dossiers régionaux, des intérêts communs, qui l'emportent sur les hésitations, les doutes et les divergences. A ce propos, le Directeur du Centre d'études et d'analyses stratégiques de Russie dit : «A l'instar de la Russie, l'Iran est opposé à la croissance et à la montée en puissance des groupes takfiris extrémistes, au Moyen-Orient. Affectés par la baisse du prix du pétrole, les deux pays réclament la hausse du prix du pétrole. 

En outre, les deux pays se trouvent, dans des positions similaires, dues aux sanctions, appliquées à leur encontre, par l'Occident. L'Iran et la Russie s'accordent, unanimement, à soutenir le gouvernement de Bachar al-Assad, en Syrie, et à freiner la montée en puissance et la croissance des groupes terroristes takfiris et extrémistes, comme «Daesh». Les deux pays sont d'avis que la montée en puissance d'un tel groupe et des groupes similaires, représente un défi important, pour leur politique régionale et internationale, ainsi que pour leurs intérêts nationaux.

 

 Mais cela ne s'arrête pas là. Les deux pays sont parvenus, récemment, à une autre convergence, sur le plan régional, qui est celle liée au dossier du Yémen, à telle enseigne, que Moscou, comme Téhéran, ont annoncé leur soutien au mouvement d'Ansarallah. Moscou est persuadée que le soutien au Mouvement d'Ansarallah fournira à ce pays la possibilité de reprendre ses chaleureuses et amicales relations avec le Yémen, qui marquaient les années de la guerre froide. Mais la raison la plus importante, qui conduit à cette convergence Téhéran/ Moscou, c'est leur position unie, face à l'Arabie Saoudite. Ils veulent mettre sous pression l'Arabie Saoudite, sur le plan régional, notamment, au Yémen. Depuis novembre, l'Arabie a abaissé le prix du pétrole, pour s'aligner sur les Etats-Unis, en vue d'exercer des pressions sur l'Iran et la Russie. En guise de réaction, la Russie a soutenu le Mouvement d'Ansarallah, qui fait partie de l'axe chiite, dans la région. Cet axe est considéré, actuellement, comme le plus important allié de Moscou, dans la région, pour faire face aux pays, tels que l'Arabie saoudite et aux groupes terroristes, comme «Al-Qaïda», en général, dans la région, et, en particulier, au Yémen.

 

 La Russie a tout fait, au Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU, pour l'empêcher de déclarer, comme étant illégaux, les développements, survenus au Yémen, pour justifier, ainsi, le recours à la force, afin de réprimer les révolutionnaires. Parallèlement à l'accroissement de la coordination et de la convergence politique entre l'Iran et la Russie envers des dossiers régionaux, dont le Yémen et la Syrie, le changement de position de l'Egypte envers la crise syrienne a suscité l'étonnement de beaucoup de gens. Cela a montré que le Caire s'inquiète, grandement, de la croissance et de la montée en puissance des groupes et courants salafistes et takfiris extrémistes. D'où sa position convergente avec celle de l'Iran et de la Russie sur la Syrie. Cette convergence politique du Caire avec Téhéran et Moscou ne se borne pas au dossier syrien, car elle s'est élargie aux évolutions yéménites, car l'Egypte ne voit pas dans la montée en puissance d'Ansarallah, au Yémen, une menace contre sa sécurité nationale.

L'opposition démocratique en Russie

L’OPPOSITION DÉMOCRATIQUE EN RUSSIE

Ce n’est pas celle que vous croyez !

Ivan Blot
Ex: http://metamag.fr

Lorsque vous lisez ou écoutez les médias occidentaux, vous avez l’impression qu’il y a en Russie une forte opposition au président Poutine qui est incarnée par des noms qui reviennent en boucle : Navalny, Oudaltsov, et autrefois Nemtsov. Pourtant, cette impression ne cadre pas du tout avec d’autres informations. 

Le président Poutine, selon des instituts de sondage indépendants comme Levada, bénéficie d’un soutien de l’ordre de 85% de la population : du jamais vu, à comparer avec le soutien de 18% en France pour le président Hollande. On ne parle pas de déstabilisation du régime français alors qu’on évoque souvent ce thème pour la Russie !

De plus, les personnalités évoquées par les médias occidentaux font des scores très faibles aux élections. Le malheureux Nemtsov, assassiné peut-être par une filière islamiste, a fait dans sa ville natale de Sotchi, 18% des voix seulement. Serguei Oudaltsov n’a pas fait de score électoral significatif et se consacre plutôt à des manifestations de rue. Quant à Alexei Navalny, ancien étudiant de l’université de Yale aux Etats Unis, il obtint un maximum de voix de 30% dans une élection municipale à Moscou. Le parti libéral Yabloko fait des scores très faibles.

Curieusement, on ne parle guère de la vraie opposition qui a des parlementaires et une forte base électorale. Le plus grand parti d’opposition à Poutine reste le parti communiste, ce que l’on se garde bien de dire car le citoyen occidental moyen pourrait préférer Poutine à un retour du communisme. De plus, ce parti communiste se veut patriote ce qui est fort mal vu en Occident. En 2011, le parti de Poutine, Russie Unie, a obtenu 238 sièges avec plus de 32 millions de voix. Le parti communiste de Ziouganov obtint 19% des suffrages soit 12,5 millions de voix et 92 sièges. Russie Juste, que l’on considère comme socialiste modéré obtint 64 sièges et plus de 8 millions de voix. Le parti libéral démocrate de Jirinovski, ultra nationaliste, a eu 11,6% et 7,6 millions de voix donc 64 sièges. Iabloko, le parti libéral adoré en Occident a eu moins de 4% des voix donc aucun député à la Douma d’Etat (Assemblée Nationale).

C’est donc étonnant de voir nos médias si assoiffés d’opposition à Poutine ne jamais citer les grands partis d’opposition et leurs chefs Ziouganov (communiste) Mironov (social-démocrate) Jirinovski (ultra nationaliste) au profit de quelques personnalités artificiellement lancées dans les médias. On dirait que le monde occidental ignore la représentation démocratique au profit des opposants de rue ultra minoritaires.

Aux élections présidentielles, on retrouve les mêmes tendances. En 2012, Poutine obtint 63,6% des voix dès le premier tour. Son principal opposant communiste Ziouganov obtint 17,1%, puis le milliardaire libéral Prokhorov obtint presque 8% et le nationaliste Jirinovski 6% environ. Russie Juste, social-démocrate n’a eu que 4% à peine. La participation électorale fut des deux tiers.

On refuse de voir la réalité : les électeurs russes sont en majorité poutiniens et l’opposition reste dominée par le parti communiste de Russie. De plus, la plupart des partis représentés au parlement donc représentant effectivement une fraction populaire importante, sont patriotes. D’autres sondages évoqués dans la brochure de club de Valdaï de 2013 sur l’identité nationale révèlent que 81% des Russes se disent patriotes ou très patriotes. Les élites occidentales trouvent commodes de se prononcer contre Poutine mais en réalité elles s’opposent à l’immense majorité de la société civile russe qui défend les valeurs traditionnelles et le patriotisme. Ces élites ont d’ailleurs des problèmes croissants avec leur propre opinion publique : en France, en Angleterre, en Italie, et plus récemment en Allemagne, on observe une montée du patriotisme et des valeurs conservatrices surtout chez les jeunes. Ces élites devraient plutôt s’interroger sur leur défaveur croissante dans le public plutôt que de rêver sur une déstabilisation de la Russie parfaitement invraisemblable dans l’état de la sociologie politique de la Russie. 

Si l’on considère que la démocratie est un régime « par le peuple et pour le peuple » comme c’est écrit dans l’article deux de la constitution française, la Russie est bien plus démocratique aujourd’hui que la plupart des régimes d’Occident (sauf la Suisse). Les valeurs des élites politiques russes et du peuple russe sont les mêmes : valeurs traditionnelles, notamment chrétiennes et patriotisme. Par contre, en Occident, il y a un fossé croissant entre le peuple et les élites politiques comme je l’ai montré dans mon livre « l’oligarchie au pouvoir ». En France, MM. Bréchon et Tchernia, du CNRS ont montré que seulement 35% de la population fait confiance au gouvernement et au parlement ; Les partis ont le score catastrophique de 18% de confiance et le président Hollande n’a guère plus de soutien. Curieuse démocratie que la France où les citoyens donnent au régime la note de satisfaction de 3,9 sur 10, chiffre qui ne fait que baisser depuis une vingtaine d’années. Ce chiffre est de 8 sur 10 en Suisse, pays où les citoyens sont consultés fréquemment par référendums.

La Russie est actuellement attachée à son président qui a une légitimité démocratique réelle que beaucoup de présidents de pays occidentaux pourraient lui envier. C’est peut-être la source d’une jalousie maladive ! Mais l’opposition démocratique représentée au parlement défend elle aussi des valeurs traditionnelles et patriotiques, ce qui est inadmissibles pour des médias occidentaux formés aux valeurs de mai 68, hostiles à la famille, aux traditions, aux racines historiques et chrétiennes et détestant le sentiment patriotique lui-même. Donc ces médias se raccrochent à des opposants de rue très minoritaires dans l’électorat, adulés par les élites politiques occidentales mais peu reconnues au sein du peuple russe. En fait l’hystérie antirusse n’est pas seulement tournée contre Poutine mais aussi contre l’opposition démocratique représentée au parlement russe. C’est pour cela que l’on fait silence sur cette opposition.

Cette attitude est un aveu : en réalité les manipulateurs de l’opinion en Occident se méfient de tous les peuples, et cette méfiance leur est d’ailleurs justement retournée : 38% seulement des citoyens en France (études de Bréchon et Tchernia déjà citées) disent faire confiance aux médias pour dire la vérité !

Il ne fait donc pas s’attendre à une déstabilisation de la Russie mais plutôt à une déstabilisation en Europe occidentale où les dirigeants ont d’ores et déjà perdu beaucoup de leur légitimité populaire !

 

Israel, Gaza, and Energy Wars in the Middle East

Tomgram: Michael Schwartz, Israel, Gaza, and Energy Wars in the Middle East

 

Ex: http://www.tomdispatch.com

Talk of an oil glut and a potential further price drop seems to be growing. The cost of a barrel of crude now sits at just under $60, only a little more than half what it was at its most recent peak in June 2014. Meanwhile, under a barrel of woes, economies like China's have slowed and in the process demand for oil has sagged globally. And yet, despite the cancellation of some future plans for exploration and drilling for extreme (and so extremely expensive) forms of fossil fuels, startling numbers of barrels of crude are still pouring onto troubled waters.  For this, a thanks should go to the prodigious efforts of "Saudi America" (all that energetic hydraulic fracking, among other things), while the actual Saudis, the original ones, are still pumping away.  We could, in other words, have arrived not at "peak oil" but at "peak oil demand" for at least a significant period of time to come.  At Bloomberg View, columnist A. Gary Shilling has even suggested that the price of crude could ultimately simply collapse under the weight of all that production and a global economic slowdown, settling in at $10-$20 a barrel (a level last seen in the 1990s).

And here's the saddest part of this story: no matter what happens, the great game over energy and the resource conflicts and wars that go with it show little sign of slowing down.  One thing is guaranteed: no matter how low the price falls, the scramble for sources of oil and the demand for yet more of them won't stop.  Even in this country, as the price of oil has dropped, the push for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline to bring expensive-to-extract and especially carbon-dirty Canadian "tar sands" to market on the U.S. Gulf Coast has only grown more fervent, while the Obama administration has just opened the country's southern Atlantic coastal waters to future exploration and drilling.  In the oil heartlands of the planet, Iraq and Kurdistan typically continue to fight over who will get the (reduced) revenues from the oil fields around the city of Kirkuk to stanch various financial crises.  In the meantime, other oil disputes only heat up.

Among them is one that has gotten remarkably little attention even as it has grown more intense and swept up ever more countries.  This is the quarter-century-old struggle over natural gas deposits off the coast of Gaza as well as elsewhere in the eastern Mediterranean.  That never-ending conflict provides a remarkable and grim lens through which to view so many recent aspects of Israeli-Palestinian relations, and long-time TomDispatch regular Michael Schwartz offers a panoramic look at it here for the first time.

By the way, following the news that 2014 set a global heat record, those of us freezing on the East Coast of the U.S. this winter might be surprised to learn that the first month of 2015 proved to be the second hottest January on record.  And when you're on such a record-setting pace, why stop struggling to extract yet more fossil fuels? Tom

The Great Game in the Holy Land
How Gazan Natural Gas Became the Epicenter of An International Power Struggle

By Michael Schwartz

Guess what? Almost all the current wars, uprisings, and other conflicts in the Middle East are connected by a single thread, which is also a threat: these conflicts are part of an increasingly frenzied competition to find, extract, and market fossil fuels whose future consumption is guaranteed to lead to a set of cataclysmic environmental crises.

Amid the many fossil-fueled conflicts in the region, one of them, packed with threats, large and small, has been largely overlooked, and Israel is at its epicenter. Its origins can be traced back to the early 1990s when Israeli and Palestinian leaders began sparring over rumored natural gas deposits in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Gaza. In the ensuing decades, it has grown into a many-fronted conflict involving several armies and three navies. In the process, it has already inflicted mindboggling misery on tens of thousands of Palestinians, and it threatens to add future layers of misery to the lives of people in Syria, Lebanon, and Cyprus. Eventually, it might even immiserate Israelis.

Resource wars are, of course, nothing new. Virtually the entire history of Western colonialism and post-World War II globalization has been animated by the effort to find and market the raw materials needed to build or maintain industrial capitalism. This includes Israel's expansion into, and appropriation of, Palestinian lands. But fossil fuels only moved to center stage in the Israeli-Palestinian relationship in the 1990s, and that initially circumscribed conflict only spread to include Syria, Lebanon, Cyprus, Turkey, and Russia after 2010.

The Poisonous History of Gazan Natural Gas

Back in 1993, when Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) signed the Oslo Accords that were supposed to end the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank and create a sovereign state, nobody was thinking much about Gaza's coastline. As a result, Israel agreed that the newly created PA would fully control its territorial waters, even though the Israeli navy was still patrolling the area. Rumored natural gas deposits there mattered little to anyone, because prices were then so low and supplies so plentiful. No wonder that the Palestinians took their time recruiting British Gas (BG) -- a major player in the global natural gas sweepstakes -- to find out what was actually there. Only in 2000 did the two parties even sign a modest contract to develop those by-then confirmed fields.

BG promised to finance and manage their development, bear all the costs, and operate the resulting facilities in exchange for 90% of the revenues, an exploitative but typical "profit-sharing" agreement. With an already functioning natural gas industry, Egypt agreed to be the on-shore hub and transit point for the gas. The Palestinians were to receive 10% of the revenues (estimated at about a billion dollars in total) and were guaranteed access to enough gas to meet their needs.

Had this process moved a little faster, the contract might have been implemented as written. In 2000, however, with a rapidly expanding economy, meager fossil fuels, and terrible relations with its oil-rich neighbors, Israel found itself facing a chronic energy shortage. Instead of attempting to answer its problem with an aggressive but feasible effort to develop renewable sources of energy, Prime Minister Ehud Barak initiated the era of Eastern Mediterranean fossil fuel conflicts. He brought Israel's naval control of Gazan coastal waters to bear and nixed the deal with BG. Instead, he demanded that Israel, not Egypt, receive the Gaza gas and that it also control all the revenues destined for the Palestinians -- to prevent the money from being used to "fund terror."

With this, the Oslo Accords were officially doomed. By declaring Palestinian control over gas revenues unacceptable, the Israeli government committed itself to not accepting even the most limited kind of Palestinian budgetary autonomy, let alone full sovereignty. Since no Palestinian government or organization would agree to this, a future filled with armed conflict was assured.

The Israeli veto led to the intervention of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who sought to broker an agreement that would satisfy both the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority. The result: a 2007 proposal that would have delivered the gas to Israel, not Egypt, at below-market prices, with the same 10% cut of the revenues eventually reaching the PA. However, those funds were first to be delivered to the Federal Reserve Bank in New York for future distribution, which was meant to guarantee that they would not be used for attacks on Israel.

This arrangement still did not satisfy the Israelis, who pointed to the recent victory of the militant Hamas party in Gaza elections as a deal-breaker. Though Hamas had agreed to let the Federal Reserve supervise all spending, the Israeli government, now led by Ehud Olmert, insisted that no "royalties be paid to the Palestinians." Instead, the Israelis would deliver the equivalent of those funds "in goods and services."

This offer the Palestinian government refused. Soon after, Olmert imposed a draconian blockade on Gaza, which Israel's defense minister termed a form of "'economic warfare' that would generate a political crisis, leading to a popular uprising against Hamas." With Egyptian cooperation, Israel then seized control of all commerce in and out of Gaza, severely limiting even food imports and eliminating its fishing industry. As Olmert advisor Dov Weisglass summed up this agenda, the Israeli government was putting the Palestinians "on a diet" (which, according to the Red Cross, soon produced "chronic malnutrition," especially among Gazan children).

When the Palestinians still refused to accept Israel's terms, the Olmert government decided to unilaterally extract the gas, something that, they believed, could only occur once Hamas had been displaced or disarmed. As former Israel Defense Forces commander and current Foreign Minister Moshe Ya'alon explained, "Hamas... hasconfirmed its capability to bomb Israel's strategic gas and electricity installations... It is clear that, without an overall military operation to uproot Hamas control of Gaza, no drilling work can take place without the consent of the radical Islamic movement."

Following this logic, Operation Cast Lead was launched in the winter of 2008. According to Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai, it was intended to subject Gaza to a "shoah" (the Hebrew word for holocaust or disaster). Yoav Galant, the commanding general of the Operation, said that it was designed to "send Gaza decades into the past." As Israeli parliamentarian Tzachi Hanegbi explained, the specific military goal was "to topple the Hamas terror regime and take over all the areas from which rockets are fired on Israel."

Operation Cast Lead did indeed "send Gaza decades into the past." Amnesty International reported that the 22-day offensive killed 1,400 Palestinians, "including some 300 children and hundreds of other unarmed civilians, and large areas of Gaza had been razed to the ground, leaving many thousands homeless and the already dire economy in ruins." The only problem: Operation Cast Lead did not achieve its goal of "transferring the sovereignty of the gas fields to Israel."

More Sources of Gas Equal More Resource Wars

In 2009, the newly elected government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu inherited the stalemate around Gaza's gas deposits and an Israeli energy crisis that only grew more severe when the Arab Spring in Egypt interrupted and then obliterated 40% of the country's gas supplies. Rising energy prices soon contributed to the largest protests involving Jewish Israelis in decades.

As it happened, however, the Netanyahu regime also inherited a potentially permanent solution to the problem. An immense field of recoverable natural gas was discovered in the Levantine Basin, a mainly offshore formation under the eastern Mediterranean. Israeli officials immediately asserted that "most" of the newly confirmed gas reserves lay "within Israeli territory." In doing so, they ignored contrary claims by Lebanon, Syria, Cyprus, and the Palestinians.

In some other world, this immense gas field might have been effectively exploited by the five claimants jointly, and a production plan might even have been put in place to ameliorate the environmental impact of releasing a future 130 trillion cubic feet of gas into the planet's atmosphere. However, as Pierre Terzian, editor of the oil industry journal Petrostrategies, observed, "All the elements of danger are there... This is a region where resorting to violent action is not something unusual."

In the three years that followed the discovery, Terzian's warning seemed ever more prescient. Lebanon became the first hot spot. In early 2011, the Israeli government announced the unilateral development of two fields, about 10% of that Levantine Basin gas, which lay in disputed offshore waters near the Israeli-Lebanese border. Lebanese Energy Minister Gebran Bassil immediately threatened a military confrontation, asserting that his country would "not allow Israel or any company working for Israeli interests to take any amount of our gas that is falling in our zone." Hezbollah, the most aggressive political faction in Lebanon, promised rocket attacks if "a single meter" of natural gas was extracted from the disputed fields.

Israel's Resource Minister accepted the challenge, asserting that "[t]hese areas are within the economic waters of Israel... We will not hesitate to use our force and strength to protect not only the rule of law but the international maritime law."

Oil industry journalist Terzian offered this analysis of the realities of the confrontation:

"In practical terms... nobody is going to invest with Lebanon in disputed waters. There are no Lebanese companies there capable of carrying out the drilling, and there is no military force that could protect them. But on the other side, things are different. You have Israeli companies that have the ability to operate in offshore areas, and they could take the risk under the protection of the Israeli military."

Sure enough, Israel continued its exploration and drilling in the two disputed fields, deploying drones to guard the facilities. Meanwhile, the Netanyahu government invested major resources in preparing for possible future military confrontations in the area. For one thing, with lavish U.S. funding, it developed the "Iron Dome" anti-missile defense system designed in part to intercept Hezbollah and Hamas rockets aimed at Israeli energy facilities. It also expanded the Israeli navy, focusing on its ability to deter or repel threats to offshore energy facilities. Finally, starting in 2011 it launched airstrikes in Syria designed, according to U.S. officials, "to prevent any transfer of advanced... antiaircraft, surface-to-surface and shore-to-ship missiles" to Hezbollah.

Nonetheless, Hezbollah continued to stockpile rockets capable of demolishing Israeli facilities. And in 2013, Lebanon made a move of its own. It began negotiating with Russia. The goal was to get that country's gas firms to develop Lebanese offshore claims, while the formidable Russian navy would lend a hand with the "long-running territorial dispute with Israel."

By the beginning of 2015, a state of mutual deterrence appeared to be setting in. Although Israel had succeeded in bringing online the smaller of the two fields it set out to develop, drilling in the larger one was indefinitely stalled "in light of the security situation." U.S. contractor Noble Energy, hired by the Israelis, was unwilling to invest the necessary $6 billion in facilities that would be vulnerable to Hezbollah attack, and potentially in the gun sights of the Russian navy. On the Lebanese side, despite an increased Russian naval presence in the region, no work had begun.

Meanwhile, in Syria, where violence was rife and the country in a state of armed collapse, another kind of stalemate went into effect. The regime of Bashar al-Assad, facing a ferocious threat from various groups of jihadists, survived in part by negotiating massive military support from Russia in exchange for a 25-year contract to develop Syria's claims to that Levantine gas field. Included in the deal was a major expansion of the Russian naval base at the port city of Tartus, ensuring a far larger Russian naval presence in the Levantine Basin.

While the presence of the Russians apparently deterred the Israelis from attempting to develop any Syrian-claimed gas deposits, there was no Russian presence in Syria proper. So Israel contracted with the U.S.-based Genie Energy Corporation to locate and develop oil fields in the Golan Heights, Syrian territory occupied by the Israelis since 1967. Facing a potential violation of international law, the Netanyahu government invoked, as the basis for its acts, an Israeli court ruling that the exploitation of natural resources in occupied territories was legal. At the same time, to prepare for the inevitable battle with whichever faction or factions emerged triumphant from the Syrian civil war, it began shoring up the Israeli military presence in the Golan Heights.

And then there was Cyprus, the only Levantine claimant not at war with Israel. Greek Cypriots had long been in chronic conflict with Turkish Cypriots, so it was hardly surprising that the Levantine natural gas discovery triggered three years of deadlocked negotiations on the island over what to do. In 2014, the Greek Cypriots signed an exploration contract with Noble Energy, Israel's chief contractor. The Turkish Cypriots trumped this move by signing a contract with Turkey to explore all Cypriot claims "as far as Egyptian waters." Emulating Israel and Russia, the Turkish government promptly moved three navy vessels into the area to physically block any intervention by other claimants.

As a result, four years of maneuvering around the newly discovered Levantine Basin deposits have produced little energy, but brought new and powerful claimants into the mix, launched a significant military build-up in the region, and heightened tensions immeasurably.

Gaza Again -- and Again

Remember the Iron Dome system, developed in part to stop Hezbollah rockets aimed at Israel's northern gas fields? Over time, it was put in place near the border with Gaza to stop Hamas rockets, and was tested during Operation Returning Echo, the fourth Israeli military attempt to bring Hamas to heel and eliminate any Palestinian "capability to bomb Israel's strategic gas and electricity installations."

Launched in March 2012, it replicated on a reduced scale the devastation of Operation Cast Lead, while the Iron Dome achieved a 90% "kill rate" against Hamas rockets. Even this, however, while a useful adjunct to the vast shelter system built to protect Israeli civilians, was not enough to ensure the protection of the country's exposed oil facilities. Even one direct hit there could damage or demolish such fragile and flammable structures.

The failure of Operation Returning Echo to settle anything triggered another round of negotiations, which once again stalled over the Palestinian rejection of Israel's demand to control all fuel and revenues destined for Gaza and the West Bank. The new Palestinian Unity government then followed the lead of the Lebanese, Syrians, and Turkish Cypriots, and in late 2013 signed an "exploration concession" with Gazprom, the huge Russian natural gas company. As with Lebanon and Syria, the Russian Navy loomed as a potential deterrent to Israeli interference.

Meanwhile, in 2013, a new round of energy blackouts caused "chaos" across Israel, triggering a draconian 47% increase in electricity prices. In response, the Netanyahu government considered a proposal to begin extracting domestic shale oil, but the potential contamination of water resources caused a backlash movement that frustrated this effort. In a country filled with start-up high-tech firms, the exploitation of renewable energy sources was still not being given serious attention. Instead, the government once again turned to Gaza.

With Gazprom's move to develop the Palestinian-claimed gas deposits on the horizon, the Israelis launched their fifth military effort to force Palestinian acquiescence, Operation Protective Edge. It had two major hydrocarbon-related goals: to deter Palestinian-Russian plans and to finally eliminate the Gazan rocket systems. The first goal was apparently met when Gazprom postponed (perhaps permanently) its development deal. The second, however, failed when the two-pronged land and air attack -- despite unprecedented devastation in Gaza -- failed to destroy Hamas's rocket stockpiles or its tunnel-based assembly system; nor did the Iron Dome achieve the sort of near-perfect interception rate needed to protect proposed energy installations.

There Is No Denouement

After 25 years and five failed Israeli military efforts, Gaza's natural gas is still underwater and, after four years, the same can be said for almost all of the Levantine gas. But things are not the same. In energy terms, Israel is ever more desperate, even as it has been building up its military, including its navy, in significant ways. The other claimants have, in turn, found larger and more powerful partners to help reinforce their economic and military claims. All of this undoubtedly means that the first quarter-century of crisis over eastern Mediterranean natural gas has been nothing but prelude. Ahead lies the possibility of bigger gas wars with the devastation they are likely to bring.

Michael Schwartz, an emeritus distinguished teaching professor of sociology at Stony Brook University, is a TomDispatch regular and the author of the award-winning books Radical Protest and Social Structure andThe Power Structure of American Business (with Beth Mintz). His TomDispatch book, War Without End, focused on how the militarized geopolitics of oil led the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq. His email address is [e-mail].

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Rebecca Solnit's Men Explain Things to Me, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

Copyright 2015 Michael Schwartz

Europe: la leçon islandaise

EUROPE : LA LEÇON ISLANDAISE

Ils ne veulent pas de cette Europe-là!

Jean Bonnevey
Ex: http://metamag.fr

Alors que, pour cause de petite stratégie politicienne pour éviter le naufrage des départementales, les partis systémiques se rattachent à l’Europe, certains européens, eux, ne perdent pas le nord.

L’Islande a annoncé jeudi avoir retiré sa candidature à l’Union européenne, deux ans après l’arrivée au pouvoir d’un gouvernement eurosceptique de centre-droit qui promettait de mettre un terme au processus lancé en 2009. Comme quoi, on peut tenir ses promesses électorales et se passer de l'UE.

Cette décision est l’application simple du programme de la coalition de centre droit arrivée au pouvoir en 2013, qui promettait de mettre fin au processus d’adhésion. « Les intérêts de l’Islande sont mieux servis en dehors de l’Union européenne », a justifié le ministère des Affaires étrangères.

Il avait fallu des circonstances très particulières pour que Reykjavik dépose sa candidature en 2009, le premier gouvernement de gauche de l’histoire du pays, une grave crise financière qui avait ébranlé la confiance des citoyens dans leurs institutions nationales et la chute de la valeur de la couronne, qui avait suscité l’envie d’adopter l’euro…envie vite passée depuis. Plus de six ans après, l'effondrement d'un secteur financier hypertrophié qui avait plongé l'île dans la récession, la principale préoccupation d'une majorité d'Islandais n'est pas l'UE, mais les emprunts contractés durant les années de "boom" économique qu'ils ont du mal à rembourser.

Les sociaux-démocrates islandais n’ont jamais réussi à expliquer à l’opinion comment ils allaient combler le fossé entre Bruxelles et Reykjavik sur les quotas de pêche. Ce sujet épineux n’aura même pas été abordé lors des négociations entre juin 2011 et janvier 2013.

L’Europe déteste les spécificités qui font les nations

L’adhésion aurait soviétisée la principale ressource du pays. "Le gouvernement n'a pas l'intention d'organiser un référendum", a précisé le ministère des Affaires étrangères. Et mieux, "si le processus doit être repris à l'avenir, le gouvernement actuel considère important de ne pas progresser sans en référer préalablement à la Nation".

Même si une majorité des électeurs aurait souhaité un référendum, il semble difficile d'imaginer ce qui pourrait les amener à voter "oui" un jour, alors que le pays bénéficie déjà de nombreux avantages grâce à ses liens avec l'UE, sans souffrir des inconvénients. L'Islande est ainsi membre de l'Association européenne de libre échange (AELE) et applique la convention de Schengen qui permet la libre circulation des personnes. Cela permet au pays d'exporter ses produits de la mer vers le continent sans barrière tarifaire, alors même qu'il est engagé dans une "guerre du maquereau" avec l'UE. Depuis que l'Islande a relevé son quota de pêche en 2010, au motif que le réchauffement climatique aurait fait migrer l'espèce vers le nord, le conflit n'a pas pu être résolu malgré une multitude de réunions. Laisser Bruxelles décider du quota de pêche islandais paraît impensable sur l'île.

L'espace Schengen stimule une autre industrie importante pour le pays, le tourisme, crucial pour les entrées de devises. On peut donc être eurosceptique, européen  et hors de l'Union l’assumer et s’en bien porter. Gageons que Manuel Valls parlera peu de l'Islande avant le premier tour de la municipale.