Ok

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

samedi, 24 septembre 2011

Le BRICS acteur géostratégique émergeant

Le BRICS acteur géostratégique émergeant

Ex: http://www.europesolidaire.eu/
Jusqu'à présent les relations plutôt informelles entre les membres du bloc dit BRICS (Brésil, Russie, Inde, Chine et Afrique du Sud) ne leur avaient pas permis de se comporter en acteur géostratégique cohérent au sein d'un monde multipolaire. Un discours différent à l'égard de l'intervention de l'Otan en Libye avait été mal ressenti.

 

Aujourd'hui, deux principaux membres, la Russie et l'Inde, semblent vouloir revenir sur ce désordre et positionner le BRICS d'une façon bien plus offensive, notamment à l'égard des Etats-Unis et de ses proches alliés européens. La Chine, prudente à l'habitude, reste sur la réserve mais on peut penser qu'elle suit l'évolution de la situation avec attention.

Ce sont les rapports avec la Syrie et les interventions ou menaces occidentales à l'encontre du gouvernement Bachar el Hassad, sommé de respecter ses minorités, qui fournissent l'occasion de ce durcissement. Mais tout laisse penser que d'autres sujets sensibles, notamment la question de la reconnaissance de l'Etat Palestinien, auront le même effet fédérateur. La Russie multiplie les mises en garde. Mais l'Inde semble décidée à aller plus loin encore.

Un expert indien, qui ne devrait pas  s'exprimer sans un minimum de caution gouvernementale, le Dr Sreeram Chaulia, professeur à l'Ecole Jindal des Affaires Internationales. estime que les pays du groupe BRICS, dont le sien, sont naturellement désignés pour s'opposer à ce qu'il nomme une dérive néocoloniale, dans le domaine des sanctions ou interventions que les Occidentaux voudraient imposer à Damas. (voir Russia Today, http://rt.com/news/brics-syria-west-hegemony/) Il va très loin dans cette direction puisqu'il envisage que le BRICS, pour mieux se faire entendre, puisse rechercher l'appui de l'Iran. Il s'agirait d'un appui diplomatique notamment à l'ONU mais quand on connait les prétentions militaires de Téhéran, cette perspective ressemble à une sorte de déclaration de guerre. Le ministre russe des affaires étrangères Lavrov paraît cautionner cette perspective.

On ne sait comment les Etats-Unis, très embarrassés dans leur soutien croisés tant à Israël qu'aux monarchies pétrolières et aux Etats issus du printemps arabe, prendront une telle montée en puissance du BRICS, si elle se confirmait. Il nous semble par contre que les Etats européens, notamment la France et l'Allemagne, pour qui les relations avec la Russie et l'Inde présentent un intérêt stratégique majeur, ne pourront pas continuer, comme ils l'ont fait jusqu'à présent, à suivre aveuglément la diplomatie américaine dans la région. Si le monde devenait véritablement multipolaire, avec un BRICS très offensif, il faudrait que l'Europe se constitue elle-aussi en pôle autonome et puissant dans ce concert. Elle ne devrait pas ce faisant oublier l'importance de coopérations étroites et multiformes avec la Russie, grande puissance pan-européenne.

 

 
 
 
08/09/2011

vendredi, 23 septembre 2011

Erdogan in Nordafrika: Türkei kehrt Europa den Rücken

Erdogan in Nordafrika: Türkei kehrt Europa den Rücken

http://de.rian.ru/

Der türkische Premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan scheint ein diplomatisches Genie zu sein.


Die Ergebnisse seiner Nordafrika-Reise in der vergangenen Woche haben die Erwartungen übertroffen. Bei seinen Reden in Kairo, Tunis und Tripolis traf er den richtigen Ton. Der türkische Regierungschef wird als Held der arabischen Revolutionsmassen gefeiert.

Obwohl Ankara sich nicht aktiv an der Anti-Gaddafi-Offensive beteiligt hatte (es stellte lediglich ein Schiff für die Evakuierung der Einwohner Misratas zur Verfügung), wurde der türkische Premier auch in Tripolis herzlich empfangen. Die Türkei ist mit Libyen vor allem durch Bau-Projekte im Wert von etwa 15 Milliarden Dollar verbunden und bemüht sich darum, sie zu erhalten.

Türkei gewinnt an Bedeutung in der islamischen Welt

Alle seine Aufgaben hat Erdogan glänzend erfüllt. Er hat die internationale Rolle seines Landes unter Beweis gestellt und es als eine der islamischen Führungskräfte in der Nahost-Region etabliert. Der Premier zeigte deutlich, dass es in der islamischen Welt eine Alternative statt den radikalen Vektor gibt: die islamische Demokratie auf türkische Art. Außerdem gewann er an Stellenwert in seinem Land und in der ganzen arabischen Welt.

Es wäre jedoch naiv zu glauben, dass nur die Begeisterung der arabischen Revolutionsanhänger die Türkei zu einem Führungsland zwischen Zentralasien und Maghreb machen. Erdogan wird nur von den Volksmassen gefeiert, die die Türkei für einen vorbildhaften islamischen säkularen Staat halten, der eine starke Wirtschaft hat und seinen Bürgern einen hohen Lebensstandard bietet.

Die Herrscher sind gegenüber Erdogan eher skeptisch eingestellt. Ägypten hat nach der Revolution noch immer keine starke Führung, die dortigen Militärs wollen offenbar nicht ihre Macht verlieren. Auch in Saudi-Arabien oder im Iran sind die Machthaber nicht gerade von den Aktivitäten Ankaras begeistert. Die Begeisterung der Volksmassen ist eine vorübergehende Erscheinung, besonders wenn es sich um arabische Länder handelt.

Man sollte auch bedenken, dass die Türken in der arabischen Welt traditionell nicht besonders beliebt sind. Deshalb kommt Ankara als regionale Supermacht vorerst nicht infrage.

Demokratie auf türkische Art als Vorbild

Arabische Politiker sollten sich aber überlegen, warum Erdogan als gemäßigter Islamist und konservativer Liberale bei den Volksmassen so beliebt ist. Zumal sie von ihm etwas lernen könnten.

Die islamisierte Demokratie auf türkische Art ist in Wirklichkeit etwas wirklich Einmaliges, genauso wie die „souveräne Demokratie“ in Russland.

Die einmalige Mischung aus Islamismus und Demokratie bei einer ständig wachsenden Wirtschaft ist das, was auch Ägypten, Libyen und Tunesien guttun würde. Aber in keinem dieser Länder gibt es derzeit solche Kräfte, die das entstandene Machtvakuum füllen könnten. Dafür ist viel Zeit erforderlich.

Erdogan will seinerseits von den Möglichkeiten profitieren, die ihm der „arabische Frühling“ bietet. Er könnte an Einflusskraft gewinnen, weil Ägypten, Syrien, Libyen und der Irak schwächeln. Dabei geht es vordergründig um die Wirtschaft - Erdogan verkündete in Kairo, dass die türkischen Investitionen in Ägypten von 1,5 auf fünf Milliarden Dollar wachsen werden. Politisch gesehen hat Ankara jedoch keine großen Chancen auf die Führungsrolle in der islamischen Welt.

Erdogans politische Karriere hat zudem einige Kratzer. Bevor er 2003 seine Partei für Gerechtigkeit und Aufschwung ins Leben gerufen hatte und zum Premier gewählt wurde, war er Mitglied der islamistischen Tugendpartei gewesen, die 1997 verboten wurde. Damals wandete er sogar für die nationalistische Propaganda vier Monate ins Gefängnis.

Darüber hinaus war der begeisterte Empfang des türkischen Premiers in Nordafrika der Beweis, dass die USA und Westeuropa ihre Einflusskraft in der Region endgültig verloren haben.

Nicht zu vergessen ist, mit welcher Begeisterung 2009 der frischgebackene US-Präsident Barack Obama in Kairo empfangen wurde. Damals versprach er, Washingtons politischen Kurs zu ändern und die Interessen der Araber mehr zu berücksichtigen, Israel zu mäßigen und zu einem Friedensabkommen mit den Palästinensern zu überreden sowie die Bildung eines unabhängigen Palästinenserstaates zu fördern. Nichts davon ist jedoch in Erfüllung gegangen. Angesichts dessen ist die Unbeliebtheit der Amerikaner in der arabischen Welt nicht verwunderlich.

Erdogan gewann an Popularität wegen seiner Schritte gegen Israel. Er hatte sich  de facto für die Unterbrechung der diplomatischen Beziehungen mit Tel Aviv entschieden, die Teilnahme israelischer Kampfjets an Manövern in der Türkei verboten und die bilateralen Militärkontakte eingestellt.

Während seines Besuchs in Tunis warnte Erdogan sogar, er würde türkische Kriegsschiffe an die israelische Küste schicken, wenn Tel Aviv weiterhin Schiffe mit Hilfsgütern für den Gaza-Streifen abfangen sollte.

Wenn man bedenkt, dass die Türkei Nato-Mitglied ist, sind Erdogangs Worte starker Tobak. In der arabischen Welt wurden sie aber mit Begeisterung aufgenommen.

Abwendung von Europa


Erdogans Nordafrika-Reise hat noch einen wichtigen Aspekt. Er zeigte den Europäern deutlich, was sie verlieren, wenn sie der Türkei den EU-Beitritt verweigern.

Ankara hatte 1987 die EU-Mitgliedschaft beantragt, wurde aber erst 1999 bei einem EU-Gipfel in Helsinki als Anwärter anerkannt. Seit dieser Zeit haben entsprechende Verhandlungen keine großen Fortschritte gebracht.

Niemand hat den Türken bisher deutlich gemacht, dass es für sie in Europa keinen Platz gibt. Aber Deutschland und Frankreich wollen nicht, dass in der Europäischen Union weitere 60 Millionen Muslime leben. Deshalb wurden Ankara Bedingungen gestellt, die es unmöglich erfüllen kann, um EU-Mitglied zu werden. So verlangte Frankreich, dass die Türken den Völkermord an Armeniern im Jahr 1915 anerkennen.

So etwas kann sich Erdogan nicht gefallen lassen. Jetzt kehrt er Europa allmählich den Rücken. Im Grunde tut er das, was er zuvor versprochen hatte.

Die Meinung des Verfassers muss nicht mit der von RIA Novosti übereinstimmen.

La diplomatie-missile d’Erdogan

Turquie vs Israël. Erdogan met le feu aux poudres de l'OTAN en refusant d'installer le Ballistic Defense Missile Europe à Kurecik (ABM).

La diplomatie-missile d’Erdogan

Ex: http://mbm.hautetfort.com/

Le rythme de la diplomatie du gouvernement turc et de son Premier ministre Erdogan devra-t-il être inscrit comme un des facteurs fondamentaux du “printemps arabe”, au même titre, par exemple, que la place Tahrir au Caire ? Poser la question, c’est y répondre. Les Turcs sont à l’offensive sur absolument tous les fronts, avec un objectif de facto, qu’on doit constater comme évident s’il n’est à aucun moment énoncé comme tel ; il s’agit de la destruction de l’“ordre” du bloc BAO, essentiellement tenu par Israël et son “tuteur” US, – l’un et l’autre désormais privés de soutiens de taille, comme celui de l’Egyptien Moubarak.

Les derniers développements sont particulièrement remarquables, en ce qu’ils haussent le niveau de l’offensive turque au plus haut, avec la question de l’attitude turque vis-à-vis de l’affaire palestinienne à l’ONU et l'affaire des forages en Méditerranée orientale, qu’on connaît bien ; mais surtout, affaire nouvelle venue dans sa dimension polémique, celle de l’engagement turc dans le réseau anti-missiles de l’OTAN (BMDE, pour Ballistic Defense Missile, Europe, – dénomination initiale US qu’on peut aussi bien garder, pour réumer les explications et les réalités de la chose). Il s’agit désormais, avec le réseau BMDE dans la forme que prend cette affaire, de questions stratégiques majeures impliquant la Turquie et l’OTAN, c’est-à-dire les USA, et les autres qui vont avec. Voyons les nouvelles…

• Le quotidien d’Ankara Hurriyet Daily News donne plusieurs informations exclusives, ce 19 septembre 2011. D’une part, le journal annonce que le cabinet turc ne prendra pas de décision définitive sur l’installation de la base de détection radar du réseau BMDE en Turquie, avant le retour du Premier ministre Erdogan, en visite aux USA, notamment pour la séance plénière annuelle de l’Assemblée des Nations-Unies. Erdogan rencontre Obama aujourd’hui. Puis l’ONU doit se prononcer sur la demande palestinienne de reconnaître l’Etat palestinien. La décision turque de retarder sa décision sur la base du réseau BMDE en Turquie intervient alors que Washington avait d’abord demandé à Ankara d’accélérer sa décision (selon DEBKAFiles, voir plus loin), et la chronologie désormais établie ressemble fort à une conditionnalité implicite ; tout se passant comme si Erdogan laissait entendre que cette décision turque dépendrait de l’attitude US dans la question palestienne à l’ONU. Cette position n’est pas à prendre comme telle, mais elle représente un acte de défiance des Turcs vis-à-vis des USA, au moins affirmé du point de vue de la communication.

Hurriyet Daily News va plus loin, au rythme de la diplomatie turque, en dévoilant que l’acceptation possible/probable de déploiement de la base du réseau BMDE sera accompagnée, très rapidement, d’une mission d’information auprès de l’Iran. Un comble, du point de vue du bloc BAO, puisque le réseau BMDE est déployé théoriquement contre une menace future possible de l’Iran (ainsi va le narrative du complexe militaro-industriel, donc il faut bien la rapporter) ; pire encore, si c’est possible, la rencontre entre Erdogan et Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, jeudi à l’ONU, à New York, avec la question du réseau BMDE au menu des conversations. … Pourquoi ne pas faire participer l’Iran au réseau, se demanderaient certains, pour protéger ce pays contre ses propres futurs missiles ? (Tout cela, après l’annonce par le ministre turc des affaires étrangères Davutoglu que la Turquie refusera le partage avec Israël des informations obtenues par la station radar sur son sol…)

«The agreement envisions the deployment of a U.S. AN/TPY-2 (X-band) early warning radar system at a military installation at Kürecik in the Central Anatolian province of Malatya as part of the NATO missile-defense project. Obama and Erdogan will likely discuss the fate of the agreement, which has been described by anonymous U.S. officials as the most strategic deal between the two allies in the last 15 to 20 years.

»A swift approval of the deal is needed to carry out the technical phases of the radar system’s deployment before the end of this year, as suggested by the U.S. Department of Defense. U.S. warships carrying anti-ballistic missiles are expected to take up position in the eastern Mediterranean Sea in the upcoming months, U.S. media outlets have reported. As part of the project, missile shield interceptors and their launching system will be deployed in Romanian and Polish territory, in 2015 and 2018, respectively.

»Senior Turkish officials who are planning to visit Tehran in the coming weeks will seek to diffuse growing Iranian concerns about the deployment of the radar system on Turkish soil. Hakan Fichan, chief of the National Intelligence Organization, or MIT, is expected to be the first visitor, followed by Erdogan.»

DEBKAFiles annonce effectivement, ce 19 septembre 2011, qu’un envoyé spécial du président Obama, le directeur du renseignement national (coordination et supervision de toutes les agences de renseignement US) James Clapper, se trouvait en visite surprise et d’urgence, samedi soir à Ankara. Clapper venait presser Erdogan de réduire son soutien au Palestinien Abbas, d’adopter un ton moins menaçant dans l’affaire des forages en Méditerranée orientale, impliquant Chypre et Israël, etc. Clapper venait aussi demander une accélération de la réponse turque concernant la base radar du réseau BMDE ; puis, devant les déclarations du ministre des affaires étrangères Davutoglu dimanche, il avertissait la Turquie que le partage des informations avec Israël était une condition sine qua non de l’installation de la base en Turquie…

«Following Davutoglu's statement on the X-band radar, Clapper was authorized to warn the Erdogan government that if it barred the sharing of information with Israel, the plan for its installation in Turkey would have to be abandoned. The entire missile shield system is based on a network of advanced radar stations scattered across the Middle East, including the Israeli Negev, and Israel's highly-developed ability to intercept Iranian ballistic missiles.»

• On signalera également l’article du New York Times du 18 septembre 2011, où le ministre Davutoglu annonce un “ordre nouveau” au Moyen-Orient avec l’axe entre la Turquie et l’Egypte. La dynamique de la diplomatie turque prend une forme de plus en plus structurée, et de plus en plus officiellement affirmée.

• On signalera également (suite) la forme extraordinairement agressive, anti-turque, que prennent certaines interventions de commentateurs proches d’Israël par divers liens, y compris ceux de l’idéologie de l’“idéal de puissance”. L’un d’entre eux est certainement David P. Goldman (dit “Spengler” pour ATimes.com), qui publie un virulent article anti-turc (anti-Erdogan) sur le site Pyjama Media, le 18 septembre 2011 ; et un autre article dans sa chronique “Spengler” de ATimes.com, le 20 septembre 2011, où il fait un procès véritablement “spenglérien” de l’état social et culturel de l’Egypte, particulièrement méprisant pour la valeur intellectuelle et économique de ce pays et de ses habitants. Il s’agit de discréditer autant les ambitions turques que l’alliance égyptienne, exprimant en cela une frustration peu ordinaire d’Israël et du bloc BAO, appuyés sur cet “idéal de puissance” cité plus haut. (Cet “idéal” forme le tronc idéologique et darwinien commun aux diverses entités du bloc, toutes autant les unes que les autres attachées aux conceptions de puissance, – en général des frustrations psychologiques anglo-saxonnes aux visions caricaturales diverses de “la volonté de puissance” nietzschéenne.) Nous ne sommes pas loin des neocons, des ambitions impériales américanistes et des arrières pensées eschatologiques du Likoud. Cette soupe, rescapée de la première décennie du XXIème siècle, se concentre pour l’instant en une appréciation absolument toxique de ce qui est considéré par le noyau dur du bloc BAO comme une trahison de la Turquie d’Ataturk “kidnappée” par les islamistes d’Erdogan. Dans ce cas, les durs israéliens sont évidemment particulièrement concernés, avec leurs alliés neocons qui furent des auxiliaires attentifs, au niveau du lobbying bien rétribué, de l’ancien régime turc. (Richard Perle était l’un des principaux lobbyistes des Turcs à Washington dans les années 1990, appuyé sur les ventes d’armement à la Turquie, notamment de Lockheed Martin, qui finance les même neocons. C’est un aspect important des réseaux américanistes et pro-israéliens, et pseudo “spanglériens” pour le cas qui nous occupe, qui est en train de s’effondrer avec l’énorme défection turque.)

…Tout cela commençant à signifier clairement qu’en quelques semaines, depuis la mi-août pratiquement, la Turquie a complètement basculé pour se retrouver au rang de premier adversaire du bloc BAO (Pentagone + Israël, principalement) au Moyen-Orient, – à la place de l’Iran, et dans une position infiniment plus puissante que celle de l’Iran. Le renversement est fantastique, tout comme l’est potentiellement cette affaire du réseau BMDE qui implique les intérêts stratégiques de tous les acteurs au plus haut niveau. Pour le Pentagone, l’accord turc sur la station radar à installer dans la base de Kurecik, en Anatolie centrale, est présenté d’abord comme “le plus important accord stratégique entre les deux pays depuis 15 à 20 ans” ; puis il s’avère, cet accord, tellement chargé de conditions turques, comme le refus de partager les informations avec Israël, que le Pentagone doit envisager d’annuler son offre (pardon, celle de l’OTAN) ; ce qui nous permet au passage de nous interroger pour savoir qui contrôle quoi dans le réseau OTAN si les Turcs estiment avoir un droit de veto sur la disposition des radars qui seraient installés à Kurecik… Cela, jusqu’à l’annonce des assurances et des informations données à l’Iran, ce qui ne doit pas entrer dans les plans généraux du Pentagone ni de l’OTAN, ni de nombre de membres de l’OTAN qui cultivent dans leur arrière-cour la narrative de la menace iranienne.

En plus des diverses querelles et crises en développement dans l’énorme chamboulement du Moyen-Orient, l’affaire du réseau BMDE de l’OTAN, et de la Turquie, nous est précieuse parce qu’elle permet l’intégration potentielle de plusieurs crises, bien dans la logique de la Grande Crise de la Contre-Civilisation (GCCC, ou GC3). A un moment ou l’autre, la Russie ne va-t-elle pas se manifester, elle qui déteste le réseau BMDE et qui prétend avoir des relations très moyennes avec l’OTAN, et plutôt bonnes avec la Turquie ? On aura alors un lien très ferme établi avec la question de la sécurité européenne, et de l’engagement européen dans des réseaux stratégiques contrôlés par la puissance en cours d’effondrement des USA… Et que va donner cette affaire du partage avec Israël d’informations stratégiques du réseau BMDE, alors que les Turcs le refusent, alors que les Turcs ont mis leur veto à l’installation d’une délégation de liaison d’Israël à l’OTAN…

D’une façon générale, avec cet élargissement de la crise et le passage à la dimension stratégique fondamentale, on comprend alors que la Turquie est de plus en plus orientée pour tenir le rôle que la France gaullienne tenait en d’autres temps. Face à cela, la France, qui n’a réussi qu’à placer son président-poster un jour avant la visite d’Erdogan en Libye, apparaît sous la lumière impitoyable d’une dissolution totale ; son ministre des affaires étrangères, qui fut en son époque “le plus intelligent de sa génération”, s'emploie actuellement à la tâche hautement louable et profitable de faire en sorte que les USA n'apparaissent pas trop isolés lors de leur vote à l'ONU contre la reconnaissance de l'Etat palestinien.... Il est temps que les Français aillent aux urnes, pour s’occuper, puisque la Turquie s'occupe de tout. (Ce qui est effectivement et concrètement le cas : d’une façon générale, les journalistes français de “politique étrangère” des organes-Système les plus réputés, lorsqu’ils sont sollicités par des organismes internationaux pour des visites, des conférences, des rencontre, etc. répondent depuis septembre qu’ils sont totalement mobilisés par l’élection présidentielle. C’est effectivement là que se passent les choses…)

jeudi, 22 septembre 2011

Pro-Al Qaeda brigades control Qaddafi Tripoli strongholds seized by rebels

Pro-Al Qaeda brigades control Qaddafi Tripoli strongholds seized by rebels

DEBKAfile E

Ex: http://www.debka.com/


Abd Al-Hakim Belhadj, pro-Al Qaeda LIFG chief

Members of the Al Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – LIFG, are in control of the former strongholds of Muammar Qaddafi captured by Libyan rebels last Sunday, Aug. 21, debkafile reports from sources in Libya. They are fighting under the command of Abd Al-Hakim Belhadj, an al Qaeda veteran from Afghanistan whom the CIA captured in Malaysia in 2003 and extradited six years later to Libya where Qaddafi held him in prison.

Belhadj is on record as rejecting any political form of coexistence with the Crusaders excepting jihad.

His brigades were the principal rebel force in the operation for the capture of Qaddafi's Bab al-Aziziya ruling compound on Aug. 23. Saturday, Aug. 27, those brigades overran the Abu Salim district of southern Tripoli taking it from the last pro-Qaddafi holdouts in the city. Many of the prisoners released from the local jail belonged to al Qaeda.
The LIFG chief now styles himself "Commander of the Tripoli Military Council." Asked by our sources whether they plan to hand control of the Libyan capital to the National Transitional Council, which has been recognized in the West, the jihadi fighters made a gesture of dismissal without answering.

According to US and British media, at least half of the members of the NTC have moved from Benghazi to Tripoli, the key condition for the receipt of Qaddafi's frozen assets and international aid. But there is no confirmation from our sources that this has happened. Tripoli is rife with disorder, awash with weapons and prey to reciprocal allegations of atrocities. Our sources doubt that the council will be able to assert control of - or even a presence in - Tripoli any time soon. US intelligence sources in Tripoli see no sign that the NTC will be able to persuade the Islamist brigades to relinquish control of the city in the near future - or even lay down arms.


Those arms are advanced items which British and French special operations forces gave the rebels, said a senior American source. Had those NATO contingents not led the Tripoli operation, the rebels unaided would not have captured Qaddafi's centers of government.

A week after that dramatic episode, Tripoli's institutions of government have wound up in the hands of fighting Islamist brigades belonging to al Qaeda, who are now armed to the teeth with the hardware seized from Qaddafi's arsenals. No Western or Libyan military force can conceive of dislodging the Islamists from the Libyan capital in the foreseeable future.

Libya has thus created a new model which can only hearten the Islamist extremists eyeing further gains from the Arab Revolt. They may justly conclude that NATO will come to their aid for a rebellion to topple any autocratic Arab ruler. The coalition of British, French, Qatari and Jordanian special forces, with quiet US intelligence support, for capturing Tripoli and ousting Qaddafi, almost certainly met with US President Barack Obama's approval.

For the first time, therefore, the armies of Western members of NATO took part directly in a bid by extremist Islamic forces to capture an Arab capital and overthrow its ruler.
An attempt to vindicate the way this NATO operation has turned out is underway. Western media are being fed portrayals of the rebel leadership as a coherent and responsible political and military force holding sway from Benghazi in the east up to the Tunisian border in the west.

This depiction is false. Our military sources report that the bulk of rebel military strength in central and western Libya is not under NTC command, nor does it obey orders from rebel headquarters in Benghazi.
This chaotic situation in rebel ranks underscores the importance of the effort the NTC has mounted to capture Sirte, Qaddafi's home town, where most of his support is concentrated. Control of Sirte, which lies between Benghazi and Tripoli, will provide the NTC and its leader Abdul Jalil, with a counterweight for the pro-Al Qaeda brigades in control of the capital.

Krantenkoppen - September 2011 (3)

Krantenkoppen
September 2011 (3)
70-80% LIBIE IN HANDEN VAN KOLONEL KHADAFFI:
"In Bani Walid besloten stamleiders, zelfverzekerd van hun mogelijkheden, de stad niet op te geven maar haar te verdedigen tegen de NATO/rebellen tot het eind. (...) Woensdag vond een aanval door de NAVO/rebellen plaats waarbij honderden doden vielen aan de zijde van de agressors.
Een NAVO/rebellen-convooi werd aangevallen bij Tarragon waarbij 14 rebellen omkwamen":
http://nicodegeit.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/70-80-libie-in-handen-van-kolonel-kadaffi/
 
 
LIBIE: VERLIEZEN AAN NAVO-ZIJDE AANZIENLIJK:
"Volgens het Britse Ministerie van Defensie kwamen tot nu toe 35 Britten om tijdens gevechten in Libië. In werkelijkheid zou het om 1.500 tot 2.000 Britten gaan. (...) Doden aan Franse zijde: 200 tot 500. De VS: minder dan 200. Qatar: 700 tot 1.000. Deze getallen verschijnen niet in de mainstream media":
https://nicodegeit.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/libie-verliezen-aan-navo-zijde-aanzienlijk/
 
 
STRIJDERS LOYAAL AAN KHADAFFI ZEER GEMOTIVEERD:
"Libische strijdkrachten voeren aanvallen uit op NAVO-rebellen rond Sirte en op andere plaatsen. Honderden NAVO-rebellen kwamen daarbij in de afgelopen dagen om het leven":
https://nicodegeit.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/strijders-loyaal-aan-kadaffi-zeer-gemotiveerd/
 
 
LIBYE: LES PRO-KHADAFFI CAPURENT 17 'MERCENAIRES ETRANGERS':
"La plupart d'entre eux sont des Français, il y a 1 ressortissant d'un pays d'Asie qui n'a pas été déterminé, 2 Anglais et 1 Qatari":
http://fr.rian.ru/world/20110919/191117869.html
 
 
LES FORCES DU CNT SE RETIRENT EN DESORDRE DE BANI WALID:
The NATO rebels withdrew in disorder from Bani Walid, which stays under firm control of Khadaffi's army :
http://fr.news.yahoo.com/les-forces-du-cnt-se-retirent-en-d%C3%A9sordre-172709390.html
 
 
CIVILIANS JOIN GADAFFI FIGHTERS TO DEFEND HOMETOWN:
"There has been resistance from civilians, volunteers. They're above the buildings with Kalashnikovs, anti-aircraft guns, rockets and other weapons":
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/17/us-libya-sirte-scene-idUSTRE78G1ZN20110917
 
 
OCCUPY WALL STREET PROTESTS:
American outrage: Thousands of New Yorkers demonstrate against Wall Street:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG_TKAJyV6k&feature=player_embedded
 
 
LE LIECHTENSTEIN DIT NON A L'AVORTEMENT:
"Le Liechtenstein a rejeté aujourd’hui la légalisation de l’avortement. (...) 52,3% des votants ont rejeté le projet ":
http://belgicatho.hautetfort.com/archive/2011/09/18/le-liechtenstein-dit-non-a-l-avortement.html
 
 
KYRGYZSTAN TO CLOSE US AIR BASE:
"An agreement on the air base with the Americans will expire in 2014 and Kyrgyzstan has no intention to extend it":
 
 
UMAN: 'Bienvenue en Belgique':
 
 
WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAUGHT ABOUT ECONOMICS IN HIGHSCHOOL:
 
 
BERNARD HENRI LEVY ET DES DJIHADISTES:
During his visit to Libya today, Sarkozy told a rebel leader that the regime of Algeria will be destroyed within 1 year and the regime of Iran in 3 years:
http://www.algerie360.com/algerie/bernard-henri-levy-et-des-djihadistes-%C2%ABoeuvrent%C2%BB-pour-la-disparition-de-la-nation-algerienne/
 
 
HONGARIJE VERNIETIGT ALLE GM-MAISVELDEN:
"Zo'n 400 hectare maïs, waarvan ontdekt is dat ze geteeld zijn met genetisch gemodificeerde zaden, zijn over heel Hongarije vernietigd":
http://zaplog.nl/zaplog/article/hongarije_vernietigt_alle_gm_maisvelden
 
 
BELGIAN INVESTIGATION JOURNALIST MICHEL COLLON DEBATING MINISTER OF DEFENSE PIETER DE CREM ON 9/11 AND CRIMES IN LIBYA:
 
 
PAUL JORION: SEMIOLOGIE DE LA CRISE:
Belgian professor Paul Jorion (Université de Paris VIII) at French television on September 13th 2011: "Le capitalisme c'est le système où l'argent manque toujours à l'endroit où on en a besoin":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efea8LaHdGQ&feature=player_embedded

Nouveau sondage IPSOS

 

 

L’insitut IPSOS a publié le 4 août un sondage qui dérange.

 

Donc vous n’entendrez pas trop parler de lui dans les médias, ou alors très brièvement, et les idéologues vont travailler dur pour censurer sa publication. Pourtant, il s’agit d’un raz de marée social à l’échelle européenne.

 

« Vision globale sur l’immigration », c’est son titre, a été mené entre le 15 et 28 juin auprès d’un échantillon représentatifs de citoyens de neufs pays européens : Belgique, Grande Bretagne, France, Allemagne, Hongrie, Italie, Pologne, Espagne et Suède.

 

Des sondages de ce type existent déjà, mais localement. C’est une des premières fois, à ma connaissance, que les pays européens sont sondés en même temps sur le même sujet, et que les réponses sont mises en perspective, pays par pays.

 

Je publie ci dessous le sondage complet afin que chacun puisse prendre connaissance en toute transparence des questions posées, et puisse juger de sa pertinence (1).

 

Autant dire que les résultats bouleversent tous les clichés et s’inscrivent à l’envers de la rengaine habituelle du mieux vivre ensemble et de la diversité multiculturelle. Ce n’est guère surprenant, car nous avons tous le sentiment que les médias manipulent et diabolisent ce sujet tabou.

 

Grande première, il est maintenant prouvé que les sentiments négatifs vis à vis de l’immigration ne sont pas du tout le fait des extrémistes de droite et des populistes, comme aiment à le répéter les tenants du politiquement correct et les censeurs.

 

Cela n’empêchera pas nos élites de service de continuer à le soutenir, ou de contester les résultats, mais au moins, vous êtes maintenant informé que vous n’êtes ni un pestiféré, ni un xénophobe honteux.

 

Si vous êtes d’extrême droite ou identitaire, sachez que la majorité de la population, qui n’a pas d’attirance pour le Front National, pense comme vous : « il y a trop d’immigrants en Europe ». Toute la question revient alors à ne pas franchir la ligne rouge du racisme. Trop d’immigrants ne veut pas dire qu’ils doivent être traités comme une sous-race, mais absolument pas comme des privilégiés sociaux.

 

Question : « pensez-vous qu’il y a trop d’immigrants dans votre pays ? »

 

( Bleu = beaucoup trop. Gris = ni trop ni trop peu. Vert = pas du tout. Noir = ne sait pas)

 

72% de la population belge affirment fortement que oui, ainsi que,

71% des anglais

67% des italiens

67% des espagnols

53% des allemands

52% des français

50% des hongrois

46% des suédois

Et, en confirmation de ce qui précède, seulement 29% des polonais, qui n’ont que 0.1% d’immigrés.

 

Premier constat : les immigrés sont majoritairement vécus comme une mauvaise nouvelle, la moyenne européenne étant 56%.

 

Second constat : ce n’est pas tant leur nombre que leur niveau d’intégration qui dérange. En France, il y a deux fois plus de musulmans que partout ailleurs en Europe. Pourtant c’est en Belgique et en Grande Bretagne, là où ils refusent le plus vigoureusement l’intégration, qu’ils sont le moins bien perçus.

 

Question : « pensez-vous que le nombre d’immigrants à augmenté ces cinq dernières années ? »

 

( Bleu = beaucoup trop. Gris = ni trop ni trop peu. Vert = pas du tout. Noir = ne sait pas)

 

Hélas, la réponse est un OUI écrasant. 94% en Belgique. Près de 80% des citoyens, en Italie, en Grande Bretagne, en Espagne, en Hongrie, et en France pensent que le nombre d’immigrés a énormément augmenté, tandis que 3% des européens pensent qu’il a baissé.

 

Question : « Pensez-vous que l’immigration a eu un impact positif ou négatif sur votre pays ? »

 

( Bleu = très positif. Gris = ni positif ni négatif. Vert = très négatif. Noir = ne sait pas)

 

C’est la question qui tue. Les politiques ne demandent jamais l’avis des citoyens, ou alors pour les traiter de populistes et les désigner à la vindicte    (populaire).

 

72% des belges pensent que l’impact est TRES négatif !

64% des anglais, 56% des italiens, 55% des espagnols, 54% des allemands, 54% des français en pensent autant, ce qui, sans surprise, ressemble au 57% de non du référendum suisse sur les minarets.

 

Question : « pensez-vous que l’immigration impose trop de pressions sur les services publics de votre pays (par exemple la santé, les transports, l’éducation)

 

( Bleu = beaucoup trop. Gris = ni trop ni trop peu. Vert = pas du tout. Noir = ne sait pas)

 

Ce sont les anglais, pour 76% d’entre eux, qui se sentent le plus sous pression, suivis de 70% des espagnols, 68% des belges, 58% des allemands, et 56% des français.

 

Question : « les immigrants font-ils de votre pays un lieu plus intéressant à vivre ? »

 

( Bleu = très certainement. Gris = ni plus ni moins. Vert = pas du tout. Noir = ne sait pas)

 

Ils ne sont pas nombreux, les européens qui pensent que l’immigration a un apport positif…

18% des espagnols et des italiens, 19% des belges, 28% des français, 33% des anglais et 35% des allemands. Un désastre pour ceux qui défendent, comme des lobotomisés, que l’immigration est une chance.

 

Question : « pensez-vous que l’immigration est bonne pour l’économie ? »

 

( Bleu = très. Gris = ni bonne ni mauvaise. Vert = pas bonne du tout. Noir = ne sait pas)

 

Là encore, les citoyens européens sont loin d’être convaincus ! Les journalistes auraient donc totalement échoué dans leur travail de lavage de cerveau ? Rohhhh…

18% des belges, 23% des allemands, 24% des français, et moins d’un anglais, d’un suédois, d’un espagnol et d’un italien sur trois pensent que oui.

 

Détail intéressant, il n’y a pas que les gauchistes et droit de l’hommistes qui ravaleront leur salive, en lisant ce sondage. Le Front National aussi. Son discours sur l’immigré qui prend le travail des français ne semble pas convaincre : 34% des français pensent que ce n’est pas vrai, 22% ne sont ni convaincus dans un sens ou dans l’autre, et une minorité de 41% pensent que c’est exact.

 

Coincés entre incompétence et panique, entre idéologie et police de la pensée, aucun homme politique, aucun parti politique, en France, ne tentera d’intégrer les immigrés et leurs enfants. Pas même le FN. Et comme il n’est pas question de les jeter dehors comme le font les pays musulmans avec les chrétiens et les juifs…. 

 

Reproduction autorisée avec la mention suivante et le lien ci dessous :

© Jean-Patrick Grumberg pour www.Drzz.fr

 

(1) http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=10883

mercredi, 21 septembre 2011

José Javier Esparza - 'El libro negro de la izquierda española'

 

PD entrevista a José Javier Esparza - 'El libro negro de la izquierda española' - 17 mayo 2011

vendredi, 16 septembre 2011

Türkei droht Israel mit Kriegsschiffen

Türkei droht Israel mit Kriegsschiffen

Ex: http://www.jungefreiheit.de/

 

ANKARA. Der Streit zwischen der Türkei und Israel spitzt sich weiter zu. Der türkische Ministerpräsident Recep Tayyip Erdogan (AKP) hat am Donnerstag angekündigt, sein Land werde „Hilfslieferungen“ in den Gaza-Streifen künftig militärisch sichern, berichtet die Nachrichtenagentur dpa.

Damit solle verhindert werden, daß die türkische „humanitäre Hilfe“ angegriffen wird, wie es bei der „Mavi Marmara“ geschehen sei, sagte der Ministerpräsident. Das Schiff wurde im Mai vergangenen Jahres von israelischen Soldaten geentert. Dabei waren neun türkische Aktivisten getötet und sieben israelische Sicherheitskräfte verletzt worden.

Zugleich machte Erdogan deutlich, die Türkei werde die „einseitige“ Rohstofförderung durch Israel im östlichen Mittelmeer unterbinden. Der Streit zwischen den beiden Ländern war in der vergangenen Woche eskaliert, nachdem ein UN-Bericht zwar die Militäraktion gegen die sogenannte „Gaza-Hilfsflotte“ verurteilte, die Blockade des Gaza-Streifens aber als legitim bezeichnete. Zudem hatte sich Israel geweigert, die türkische Forderung nach einer Entschuldigung für den Zwischenfall zu erfüllen. Die Türkei wies deswegen in der vergangenen Woche den israelischen Botschafter aus

Israel kündigt Gegenmaßnahmen an 

Als Reaktion erwägt Israels Außenminister Avigdor Lieberman von der rechten Partei „Unser Haus Israel“ offenbar ein Treffen mit armenischen und kurdischen Politikern, berichtet die israelische Zeitung Jediot Achronot. Dabei soll es auch um israelische Militärhilfe für die kurdische Arbeiterpartei PKK geben. „Wir werden einen Preis von Erdogan einfordern, der es ihm klar machen wird, daß es sich nicht lohnt, Israel vorführen zu wollen“, betonte Lieberman nach einer Meldung der dpa. (ho)

jeudi, 15 septembre 2011

Krantenkoppen - September 2011 (2)

Krantenkoppen
 
September 2011 (2)
 
THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE:
"The American Century, proclaimed so triumphantly at the start of World War II, will be tattered and fading by 2025, its eighth decade, and could be history by 2030":
http://www.thenation.com/article/156851/decline-and-fall-american-empire
 
 
JORDANIANS BURN US AND ISRAELI FLAGS:
"Chanting anti-US slogans, demonstrators on Wednesday condemned Washington's policy in the Middle East and called for the expulsion of Americans from their country":
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/199155.html
 
 
HELE STAD VERMIST NA REBELLENOFFENSIEF IN LIBIË:
"De inwoners van Tawarga waren loyaal aan de Libische leider Moammar Kadhafi en stonden daarmee lijnrecht ten opzichte van het nabijgelegen rebellenbastion Misrata. Maar er lijken ook racistische motieven mee te spelen. Zo worden al lange...r in heel Libië met de regelmaat van de klok zwarten als vermist opgegeven en de rebellen lijken mensen te arresteren op basis van hun huidkleur. Maar een hele stad die vermist wordt, roept wel erg veel vragen op. 
Het is in ieder geval erg verontrustend dat de rebellen in het verleden al openlijk praatten over het (etnisch) 'zuiveren' van de regio, en in juni nog zeiden dat de zwarte Libiërs beter hun boeltje zouden pakken."
 
 
11 SEPTEMBRE: EN FINIR (VRAIMENT) AVEC L'ÈRE PINOCHET!
Hundreds of thousands of Chileans are protesting already for months against the liberal heritage of CIA agent Pinochet:
http://www.michelcollon.info/En-finir-vraiment-avec-l-ere.html
 
 
DE JEUGD SCHUD CHILI WAKKER:
"Pinochet herstichtte niet alleen de politieke instellingen, maar op de eerste plaats de economie en dat nog veel ingrijpender. Chili werd het laboratorium van het superliberalisme en diende als model voor de neoliberale globalisatie":
http://www.dewereldmorgen.be/artikels/2011/09/02/de-jeugd-schudt-chili-wakker
 
 
LIBYA: THE REAL WAR STARTS NOW:
"Gaddafi’s decision to go underground has caught everyone by surprise. (...) Gaddafi could become the new «Lion of the Desert»":
http://www.voltairenet.org/Libya-The-real-war-starts-now
 
 
ORWELLIAN SEPTEMBER 11 COMMEMORATION HERALDS NEW WARS:
"In Paris, a replica of the Twin Towers was built on the Trocadero esplanade in honor of the 3000 victims of September 11. (...) No memorial has been planned for the one million victims of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya":
http://www.voltairenet.org/Orwellian-September-11
 
 
HET BALTISCHE DRAMA:
"De economie begon, door de instroom van krediet, vanaf 2000 enorm te groeien, op jaarbasis met wel 10%. Het economisch succes van de ‘Baltische tijgers’ werd door economen en Europese beleidsmakers geprezen. Net als de ‘Keltische tijger’ kenden de ‘Baltische tijgers’ echter een groot probleem. Hoewel de economie explosief groeide door de instroom van buitenlands krediet, werd dit geleende geld vooral gebruikt om te speculeren en consumeren, niet om te investeren in productieve capaciteit. Alle 3 de Baltische landen ontwikkelden een vastgoedbubbel van Ierse proporties. (...)
Toen in 2008 de crisis toesloeg draaide de stroom van buitenlands krediet zich om. Het piramidespel, waarin schulden constant geherfinancierd moesten worden tegen de steeds maar oplopende woningwaarde, kon niet langer worden volgehouden. De Letse economie kromp met 24 procent van de piek tot het dieptepunt en de woningprijzen daalden met maar liefst 65%".
 
 
IJSLAND ZOCHT TOENADERING TOT CHINA OMDAT HET DOOR DE EU EN DE VS WERD VERLATEN:
"China en India staken ons een helpende hand toe, net op een moment dat Europa ons vijandig was en de VS totaal afwezig waren":
http://www.express.be/business/nl/economy/ijsland-zocht-toenadering-tot-china-omdat-het-door-de-eu-en-de-vs-werd-verlaten/151849.htm
 
 
WIE REGEERT DE WERELD? EEN SUPERENTITEIT VAN 147 BEDRIJVEN:
"Een harde kern van 787 bedrijven controleert zowat 80% van de globale handel. Binnen die kern is een superentiteit actief die bestaat uit 147 bedrijven en die 40% van het netwerk controleert":
http://www.express.be/business/nl/economy/wie-regeert-de-wereld-een-superentiteit-van-147-bedrijven/152309.htm
 
 
‎25 JAAR NA TOP GUN WORDT RELATIE HOLLYWOOD EN AMERIKAANS LEGER NOG INNIGER: 
"Onderuitgezakt in de zetel waren de kijkers er zich zelden van bewust dat ze naar 'door de regering gesubsidieerde propaganda' (de woorden zijn van The Washington Post) aan het kijken waren":
http://www.dewereldmorgen.be/artikels/2011/09/08/25-jaar-na-top-gun-wordt-relatie-hollywood-en-amerikaans-leger-nog-inniger
 
 
WALTER FAUNTROY, FEARED DEAD IN LIBYA, RETURNS HOME. GUESS WHO HE SAW DOING THE KILLING:
"Former U.S. Congressman Walter Fauntroy (...) watched French and Danish troops storm small villages late at night beheading, maiming and killing rebels and loyalists to show them who was in control":
http://www.afro.com/sections/news/national/story.htm?storyid=72369
 
 
58% DES FRANCAIS DOUTENT DE LA VERSION DES ATTENTATS DU 11 SEPTEMBRE:
"Le sondage fut réalisé en juin 2011 auprès d’un échantillon représentatif de la population française":
http://www.voltairenet.org/58-des-Francais-doutent-de-la
 
 
BIG BROTHER IN MECHELEN:
"Een inzameling van de verplaatsingsgegevens van iedereen zonder onderscheid schendt het recht op privacy. (...) Overigens, geen enkele studie toont aan dat dergelijke registratie een impact heeft op het voorkomen of opsporen van criminaliteit. (...) Dat van ‘de rondtrekkende dievenbendes' neigt dan ook naar volksverlakkerij. Deze bendes komen niet met hun eigen nummerplaat naar Mechelen om in te breken. Zij draaien hun hand niet om voor een nagemaakte nummerplaat":
http://www.standaard.be/artikel/detail.aspx?artikelid=6I3EUED7&word=mechelen+privacy
 
 
DESTABILIZATION AND THE LOOTING OF ASSETS. AFTER LIBYA: IS VENEZUELA NEXT?
"Venezuela’s embassy was the only one looted in the whole neighborhood, meaning that the attack which was guided by individuals of European appearance and military posture, specifically targeted the country’s mission":
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6468
 
 
NICARAGUA ONTSNAPT AAN CENTRAAL-AMERIKAANS GEWELD:
"De politieaanpak maakt in Nicaragua het verschil: 'In de noordelijke [landen] zag je de invloed van de VS, waarbij de politie het leger hielp en de staat beschermde via REPRESSIE, terwijl de Nicaraguanen zich op het Cubaanse model gebaseerd hebben dat op de GEMEENSCHAP is gericht":
http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/990/Buitenland/article/detail/1315221/2011/09/06/Nicaragua-ontsnapt-aan-Centraal-Amerikaans-geweld.dhtml
 
 
'FREE TRIPOLI' - JUST DON't MENTION THE CORPSES:
"The war on Libya has (...) been a war that has reasserted the western mainstream media's power to not just fabricate events but to create":
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/05-09-2011/118962-Free_Tripoli_do_not_mention_corpses-0/
 
 
THE REAL DIRT ON FARMER JOHN:
Farmer John Peterson about his CSA: "This is how farming should be":
 
 
INTERVIEW WITH HISTORIAN HANS-JOACHIM VOTH: 'THE EURO CAN'T SURVIVE IN ITS CURRENT FORM':
"DER SPIEGEL: Why do you think the euro was a dumb idea?
VOTH: Because, at its core, it is a bad solution for a nonexistent problem -- a political object of prestige with massive economic disadvantages":
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,783281,00.html
 
 
GOING ROGUE: NATO'S WAR CRIMES IN LIBYA:
"Armed soldiers force young Libyan women out of their beds at gun-point. Hustling the women and teenagers into trucks, the soldiers rush the women to gang bang parties for NATO rebels—or else rape them in front of their husbands or fathers":
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/06/07/going-rogue-natos-war-crimes-in-libya/
 
 
DIE JUDEN BEHANDELN DIE CHRISTEN WIE MENSCHEN ZWEITER KLASSE:
"Es gibt in Bethlehem geborene Priesterseminaristen, die ihr ganzes Leben noch nie in Jerusalem waren, das mit dem Auto in 10 Minuten zu erreichen wäre":
http://www.kreuz.net/article.13801.html
 
 
EGYPT WARMS TO IRAN AND HAMAS, ISRAEL'S FOES:
"Egyptian officials (...) are seeking to reclaim the influence over the region that waned as their country became a predictable ally of Washington and the Israelis in the years since the 1979 peace treaty with Israel. (...) Many Egyptian analysts, including some former officials and diplomats who served under then-President Hosni Mubarak, say they are thrilled with the shift. 'This is the new feeling in Egypt, that Egypt needs to be respected as a regional power'":
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/world/middleeast/29egypt.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=David+kirkpatrick+egypt+looks&st=cse
 
 
GESCHEIDEN ONDERWIJS? JA!
"Als ouder zie ik heel duidelijk de voordelen van dit gedifferentieerd onderwijssysteem voor mijn kinderen. Allereerst goede academische prestaties voor zowel de jongens als de meisjes. Het onderwijzend personeel vindt onder meer baat bij een hoger niveau van orde en discipline bij de leerlingen":
http://www.katholieknieuwsblad.nl/opinie/item/972-gescheiden-onderwijs?-ja.html
 
 
BRITSE OUD-MINISTER NOEMT BANKIERS 'ARROGANT EN DOM':
"Mijn bezorgdheid was dat ze zodanig arrogant en stupide zijn, dat ze er toe in staat waren om ons allen neer te halen":
http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/990/Buitenland/article/detail/1313305/2011/09/02/Britse-oud-minister-noemt-bankiers-arrogant-en-dom.dhtml
 
 
MANIFESTO OF THE LIBYAN TRIBAL COUNCIL:
“What is called the Transitional Council in Benghazi was imposed by NATO on us and we completely reject it. Is it democracy to impose people with armed power on the people of Benghazi, many of whose leaders are not even Libyan or from Libyan tribes but come from Tunisia and other countries.”
 

Obama a adopté la "Doctrine Nixon"

 

nixon_and_kissinger.jpg

Ferdinando CALDA:

Obama a adopté la “Doctrine Nixon”

 

Bombardements aériens, opérations secrètes et vietnamisation du conflit: c’est ainsi que les Etats-Unis étaient sortis du conflit vietnamien!

 

La comparaison qui s’impose entre le conflit qui secoue aujourd’hui l’Afghanistan et la guerre du Vietnam a été faite à maintes reprises au cours de ces dernières années. Souvent, cette comparaison a été émise de manière inflationnaire et hors de propos, dans les descriptions que faisaient les observateurs du bourbier sanglant dans lequel les Etats-Unis semblent empétrés depuis peu. Quoi qu’il en soit, Barack Obama lui-même, dans son discours tenu à la fin de l’année 2009 à l’Académie militaire de West Point, a bien dû reconnaître qu’il y avait plus d’un parallèle à tracer entre les deux conflits.

 

Il est tout aussi vrai que les différences entre les deux guerres sont nombreuses; d’abord, parce que l’époque n’est plus la même et parce que les équilibres internationaux et les acteurs en jeu ont changé. On demeure dès lors stupéfait de constater que les stratégies adoptées par les locataires successifs de la Maison Blanche sont fort similaires. Cette similitude frappe d’autant plus que nous avons, d’une part, le démocrate Barack Obama, Prix Nobel de la Paix, et d’autre part, le républicain Richard Nixon, considéré comme le président belliciste par excellence.

 

Nixon avait hérité de son prédécesseur démocrate Lyndon B. Johnson (qui avait accédé à la Maison Blanche après l’assassinat de John F. Kennedy) une guerre toujours plus coûteuse et impopulaire. Nixon avait donc élaboré la fameuse “Doctrine Nixon” pour tenter d’obtenir en bout de course une “paix honorable”, permettant aux Etats-Unis de se “désengager” sans perdre la face. La nouvelle stratégie visait à réduire les pertes en hommes, toujours mal acceptées par l’opinion publique, en recourant massivement à l’utilisation des forces aériennes, y compris pour bombarder des pays voisins comme le Laos ou le Cambodge (ce qui n’a jamais été reconnu officiellement; le scandale a éclaté ultérieurement à la suite de la publication des “Pentagon Papers”). Parallèlement aux bombardements, la “Doctrine Nixon” prévoyait des opérations secrètes dirigées contre des objectifs stratégiques et doublées d’une vaste opération de renseignement pour identifier et frapper les combattants du Vietcong (c’est ce que l’on avait appelé le “Programme Phoenix”).

 

Dans le “Quadriennal Defence Review”, le rapport du Pentagone qui paraît tous les quatre ans, le ministre de la défense américain Robert Gates présentait, début février 2010, les principales lignes directrices de la nouvelle stratégie de guerre, annonçait l’augmentation du financement des opérations spéciales et secrètes et un recours croissant aux bombardements par drônes (avions sans pilote). Ces avions sans pilote ont mené à bien des centaines d’attaques “non officielles” en territoire pakistanais. Toutes ces manoeuvres ont été flanquées d’un reforcement général des appareils destinés à glaner du renseignement.

 

Mais les analogies entre la “Doctrine Nixon” et l’ “exit strategy” d’Obama ne s’arrêtent pas là. Il y a aussi la tentative d’acheter le soutien de la population par l’intermédiaire de “projets de développement”, comme l’était le “Civil Operations and Rural Development Support” (CORD; = “Opérations civiles et soutien au développement rural”) au Vietnam et comme l’est actuellement son équivalent afghan, le “Provincial Reconstruction Team” (PRT; =”Equipe de reconstruction des provinces”). On constate aussi que se déroulent des tractations secrètes avec le parti ennemi (ou, du moins, des tentatives de dialogue), qui se font en dehors de toutes les rencontres officielles. Il y a ensuite et surtout le programme mis en oeuvre pour un retrait graduel qui implique de transférer les missions proprement militaires à l’armée du “gouvernement local”.

 

Selon la stratégie vietnamienne élaborée en son temps par le Secrétaire d’Etat Henry Kissinger, le renforcement de l’armée sud-vietnamienne et la vietnamisation du conflit devaient assurer aux Etats-Unis un “espace-temps satisfaisant”, un “decent interval”, entre le retrait américain et l’inévitable victoire du Vietcong; ou, pour reprendre les paroles mêmes de Henry Kissinger: “avant que le destin du Sud-Vietnam ne s’accomplisse”. Tout cela était mis en scène pour que le retrait américain ne ressemble pas trop à une défaite. Comme prévu, l’armée nord-vietnamienne est entrée à Saigon, quatre années après le départ des troupes américaines.

 

Aujourd’hui cependant, Obama doit se contenter d’une armée afghane à peine capable de tenir pendant le “decent interval” envisagé, c’est-à-dire pendant l’espace-temps entre le retrait définitif des troupes américaines et la rechute terrible et prévisible de l’Afghanistan dans une guerre civile où s’entre-déchireront les diverses ethnies qui composent le pays.

 

Ferdinando CALDA (f.calda@rinascita.eu).

(Article tiré de “Rinascita”, Rome, 27 mai 2011 – http://www.rinascita.eu/ ).

mardi, 13 septembre 2011

Le parachèvement de l'oléoduc de la Baltique plus rapide que prévu!

Le parachèvement de l'oléoduc de la Baltique plus rapide que prévu!

 

Le dernier lien vient d’être installé!

 

L’oléoduc de la Baltique, baptisé “Nord Stream”, est en voie d’achèvement définitif: une étape décisive vient d’être franchie dans la mesure où, à Lubmin près de Greifswald, notre oléoduc vient d’être soudé à l’oléoduc continental “Opal”. La liaison pour l’acheminement de gaz naturel de Russie vers l’Europe occidentale par la Baltique est devenue réalité. Quelque 55 milliards de m3 de gaz naturel devraient arriver à Lubmin chaque année. L’année prochaine un nouveau tronçon devrait logiquement amener le gaz de Lubmin à Brème. Mais les premières fournitures de gaz sibérien doivent arriver en Europe cette année déjà.

 

Tout cela indique que les travaux ont été parachevés plus rapidement que prévu. Le gaz naturel, qui arrive à Lubmin, emprunte l’oléoduc continental “Opal” de Wingas jusqu’à la frontière tchèque. Grâce à cela, 26 millions de foyers recevront ce gaz. Gazprom a déjà conclu des accords avec Dong Energy (Danemark), Eon Ruhrgas et Wingas (Allemagne), GDF-Suez (France) et Gazprom Marketing & Trading (Grande-Bretagne).

 

Gazprom détient 51% des actions du consortium “Nord Stream”. Les entreprises allemandes BASF Wintershall et Eon Ruhrgas détiennent chacune 15,5%, les Néerlandais de “Gasunie” et les Français de GDF-Suez détiennent tous deux 9%.

 

Contrairement à ce projet “Nord Stream”, le projet Nabucco, soutenu avec énormément de zèle par l’UE, ne va pas dans le sens des intérêts économiques et énergétiques allemands et européens: la politique de l’UE suit davantage les ukases politiques (et irréalistes) émis par l’eurocratie bruxelloise et par Washington. A partir de 2015, l’oléoduc Nabucco devrait faire transiter le gaz naturel en provenance de la région caspienne, via la Turquie puis la Bulgarie, la Roumanie et la Hongrie, pour aboutir à Baumgarten en Autriche.

 

Pour la Turquie, le projet Nabucco n’est jamais qu’un instrument pour favoriser la politique de candidature et d’adhésion à l’UE; il n’est qu’un atout de plus dans le jeu turc. Mais, dans ce cas, il n’est pas difficile de constater qu’Ankara n’est jamais autre chose qu’une pièce du jeu d’échec que jouent contre l’Europe les stratégistes américains. Ceux-ci ont grand intérêt à voir se réaliser ce projet caspien/turc, au détriment de toute liaison directe entre la Russie, d’une part, l’Allemagne et l’Europe occidentale, d’autre part. En réalité, le projet Nabucco est un pion dans la stratégie générale et globale que pratiquent les Etats-Unis sur l’échiquier eurasien.

 

(article paru dans “DNZ”, Munich, n°36/2011, 2 sept. 2011).

 

Il rafforzamento dell’alleanza sino-pakistana

Il rafforzamento dell’alleanza sino-pakistana

Francesco Brunello Zanitti

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

Il legame strategico tra Pechino e Islamabad è sempre più forte. Il tradizionale rapporto diplomatico tra i due paesi si è consolidato recentemente con l’intensificarsi dei legami economici, commerciali, energetici e militari, unitamente all’allontamento pakistano nei confronti degli Stati Uniti. La stabilità dell’alleanza sino-pakistana è però messa alla prova dalle sfide poste dai gruppi armati degli estremisti islamici operanti nello Xinjiang cinese.

La crisi dei rapporti tra Stati Uniti e Pakistan degli ultimi mesi ha comportato il rafforzamento dello storico legame esistente tra Islamabad e Pechino. Le relazioni tra i due paesi sono in realtà ottime da circa un trentennio, a differenza di quelle pakistano-statunitensi; il proficuo rapporto diplomatico tra Stati Uniti e Pakistan ha, infatti, ricoperto un ruolo fondamentale nelle rispettive politiche estere durante l’intervento sovietico in Afghanistan tra anni ’70 e ’80, per poi subire un deciso deterioramento all’inizio degli anni ’90. Il rapporto tra Washington e Islamabad è tornato ad essere importante in seguito all’invasione afghana statunitense del 2001, nella quale il Pakistan è stato utilizzato come fondamentale punto d’appoggio per il controllo di Kabul. L’unilaterale bombardamento dei territori nord-occidentali del Pakistan, la crescente ingerenza statunitense nella politica interna pakistana, mediante mezzi militari e servizi d’intelligence, e i comportamenti ambigui pakistani in alcune questioni di primaria importanza hanno comportato un deciso peggioramento delle relazioni tra Stati Uniti e Pakistan. Questo deterioramento ha raggiunto l’apice tra maggio e giugno, in seguito alla rivendicazione statunitense dell’uccisione di Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan.

I sempre più tesi rapporti tra i due paesi sono legati, inoltre, all’avvicinamento statunitense nei confronti dell’India, il quale ha raggiunto il proprio culmine nel 2007, mai così evidente rispetto al passato; l’amminsitrazione Bush e l’attuale governo di Manmohan Singh avevano delle ottime relazioni diplomatiche. Il Pakistan non gradisce, inoltre, il ruolo affidatogli dopo l’invasione statunitense dell’Afghanistan nel 2001, nel quale osserva un pericoloso calo del proprio ascendente strategico su Kabul. L’Afghanistan è tradizionalmente considerato da Islamabad una propria area d’influenza, strategicamente importante nel caso di un conflitto con l’India, poiché visto come territorio di supporto o di ritirata nell’ipotesi di una massiccia invasione del Pakistan dell’esercito di Nuova Delhi.

Il primo paese a difendere il rispetto dell’integrità territoriale di Islamabad in seguito alla notizia della morte di Bin Laden è stata la Cina; visitata poche settimane dopo dal primo ministro Gilani. Il Pakistan avrebbe, inoltre, permesso ai militari cinesi di visionare i resti del velivolo statunitense di tecnologia Stealth impiegato dagli Stati Uniti nel territorio pakistano.

Il legame sino-pakistano rappresenterà un importante elemento delle future relazioni internazionali, in particolar modo nel confronto tra Stati Uniti e Cina, tra quest’ultima e l’India, nonché negli interessi cinesi in Afghanistan e nel più generale contesto del cosiddetto “Nuovo Grande Gioco” in Asia Centrale. Mentre il Pakistan nel corso degli anni ’80 fu un importante alleato degli Stati Uniti durante la guerra sovietica in Afghanistan, fondamentale territorio di transito per i rifornimenti militari destinati ai combattenti anti-sovietici, oggi Islamabad non garantisce, nell’ottica nordamericana, il medesimo contributo per il tentativo statunitense di controllare l’Afghanistan. La relazione con Islamabad rappresenta per gli Stati Uniti un elemento di vitale importanza per i propri interessi a Kabul. Basta considerare l’importanza strategica del paese pakistano, dotato degli unici punti d’accesso via mare per le truppe statunitensi e della NATO e per i rifornimenti militari, nonché territorio di collegamento geostrategico nel cuore dell’Eurasia. Il porto di Karachi è fondamentale per l’arrivo e invio di truppe e materiale bellico, passante poi in territorio pakistano mediante trasporto su strada, giungendo successivamente a Kabul e Kandahar. Gli Stati Uniti stanno ricercando una possibile alternativa ai rifornimenti via Pakistan, data l’insicurezza di Karachi e del confine lungo la linea Durand. Gli altri collegamenti ai porti situati in paesi confinanti con l’Afghanistan, Iran e Cina, sono impraticabili per evidenti motivi politici. Una via d’accesso alternativa è potenzialmente quella passante attraverso le ex-repubbliche sovietiche dell’Asia Centrale: esiste un discorso aperto con l’Uzbekistan, dal quale passerebbero i rifornimenti provenienti dal porto di Riga, in Lettonia, passando per il territorio russo e kazako. Esiste un’altra opzione, probabilmente maggiormente fattibile rispetto a quella precedente, vista la lunghezza del percorso e la possibile inclusione della Russia nell’affare afghano, prospettiva non gradita a Washington. E’ quella attraverso la Georgia, l’Azerbaigian, il Mar Caspio e il Turkmenistan oppure via Kazakistan e Uzbekistan. L’attenzione statunitense nei confronti di Baku, Ashagabat, Astana e Tashkent è in ogni caso in costante aumento.

Negli ultimi mesi è comunque evidente come il Pakistan punti maggiormente ad adottare una politica estera più autonoma nei confronti di Washington, attivandosi, inoltre, nel potenziamento delle relazioni con i vicini, soprattutto con la Cina, ma anche con Iran e Russia.

L’importanza strategica del Pakistan, unito al suo attivismo in politica estera, ha reso il governo del paese molto più convito nel richiedere il termine dei bombardamenti dei droni statunitensi nelle province nord-occidentali. Nel caso in cui ciò non avvenga, il Pakistan è pronto ad adottare una politica ancor più marcatamente filo-cinese, avendo, inoltre, l’appoggio della Cina, critica nei confronti delle azioni statunitensi nel paese. Un ulteriore fattore è legato al termine dell’aiuto economico statunitense, unito al declinare dei rifornimenti militari: il Pakistan guarda anche in questo caso a incrementare i propri legami economici e militari con la Cina.

Un’altra arma spendibile a livello diplomatico dal Pakistan è legata alle risorse energetiche. Lo stretto rapporto con Pechino, oltre ad aumentare l’influenza cinese in Asia Meridionale e Centrale, comporterebbe un’importante vittoria per la Cina nella competizione riguardante l’approvigionamento di petrolio e gas naturale.

La Cina è interessata a investire massicciamente in Pakistan. I punti chiave della strategia energetica sino-pakistana sono rappresentati dal potenziamento del porto di Gwadar, dalla quale possono passare i gasdotti e oleodotti provenienti dall’Iran. I progetti d’investimento cinese nel paese sono legati alla realizzazione del gasdotto IP, al quale potrebbe partecipare in sostituzione dell’India, con evidenti vantaggi in termini economici per il Pakistan grazie ai diritti di transito. La Cina è interessata al potenziamento di infrastrutture, strade e ferrovie pakistane, unitamente alla costruzione dei collegamenti per il petrolio e il gas naturale lungo il territorio pakistano partendo dalla città beluca per arrivare al Gilgit-Baltistan. I progetti sino-pakistani sono legati al potenziamento degli assi viari che assieme alle pipeline collegherebbero il Pakistan allo Xinjiang. A questo proposito sono in progetto la costruzione di diversi collegamenti stradali e ferroviari tra Kashgar e Abbotabad, e tra la città dello Xinjiang e Havelian. Un ulteriore collegamento tra i due paesi lungo confine è quello delle fibre ottiche, mentre il più importante e ambizioso progetto caratterizzante la cooperazione sino-pakistana è il collegamento stradale, ferroviario ed energetico tra Gwadar e Urumqi.

La recente visita di Gilani a Pechino si è conclusa con la firma di importanti accordi commerciali, finanziari e tecnologici, seguito dei colloqui del dicembre 2010, nei quali erano previsti il potenziamento della cooperazione in diversi settori: energia, sistema bancario, tecnologia, costruzione, difesa e sicurezza. Il crescente legame economico tra Pechino e Islamabad è unito alla tradizionale e comune avversione verso l’India, la quale può essere ostacolata nella sua ascesa in Asia Meridionale dall’azione comune dei due paesi asiatici. La Cina aiutò militarmente il Pakistan in seguito alla guerra sino-indiana del 1962, così come fornì la tecnologia nucleare al paese dopo che l’India nel 1974 iniziò i suoi primi test nucleari. Tra gli anni ’80 e ’90 la Cina ha stabilito un’alleanza militare e nucleare con Islamabad, ancora oggi molto forte. Più del 40% delle esportazioni militari cinesi sono destinate al Pakistan. I due paesi hanno in progetto la produzione congiunta degli aerei da combattimento JF-17 Thunder (FC-1 Fierce in Cina). Durante il mese di marzo 2011 si è svolta un’importante esercitazione aereonautica tra la Pakistan Air Force (PAF) e la People’s Liberation Army Force (PLAFF) denominata Shaheen 1 (in urdu significa aquila). Si tratta della prima manovra militare tra PAF e PLAFF, alla quale si aggiungeranno nel corso del 2011 delle esercitazioni tra il PLA e l’esercito pakistano. Un simile legame militare tra i due paesi, oltre ad essere un importante fattore all’interno degli equilibri asiatici, dimostra come oggi la Cina possa agire molto più attivamente rispetto al passato in uno Stato considerato strategico per gli Stati Uniti per la propria politica in Afghanistan, ma anche in Asia Meridionale. Dato il lento declino economico statunitense, il Pakistan ha individuato nella Cina un’alternativa importante, la quale, a differenza di Washington, è in costante ascesa economica e militare. La cooperazione militare sino-pakistana è valutata da Islamabad e Pechino anche come una forma di bilanciamento nell’area nei confronti delle simili politiche militari adottate da Russia e India.

Inoltre, mentre gli Stati Uniti premono sul Pakistan per il proprio arsenale nucleare, la Cina rappresenta un’importante fonte di tecnologia in questo settore. A questo proposito Pechino sarebbe intenzionata a finanziare i progetti di costruzione per nuovi reattori nucleari in Pakistan.

Per quanto riguarda un fattore negativo legato alle relazioni tra Cina e Pakistan, è possibile fare riferimento all’attuale situazione dello Xinjiang. La regione cinese è un’area ricca di gas e petrolio, confinante con le repubbliche centro-asiatiche e con una considerevole presenza di abitanti di religione musulmana. Il territorio è attraversato da decenni dalla spinta indipendentista degli uiguri. La Cina ha sostenuto che i responsabili degli attentati avvenuti nello Xinjiang poche settimane fa sono estremisti islamici dello East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) o Turkistani Islamic Party (TIP) provenienti da campi d’addestramento situati nelle zone tribali del Pakistan. L’ETIM ha legami con la rete Haqqani e con il Tehrik – e – Taliban Pakistan (TTP). L’accusa cinese di simili resposabilità pakistane per le violenze degli uiguri rappresentano un campanello d’allarme per Islamabad. Secondo l’intelligence pakistana la Cina starebbe premendo il Pakistan affinché crei delle basi militari nelle aree tribali in modo da controllare la possibile azione degli estremisti e il loro successivo sconfinamento in territorio cinese. La Cina avrebbe anche intenzione di inviare delle proprie truppe nelle FATA e nella Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, senza comunque l’intenzione di creare delle basi militari permanenti. Sarà da valutare come gli Stati Uniti considereranno la possibile presenza militare cinese in Pakistan.

I media cinesi hanno criticano significativamente le autorità pakistane per l’incapacità dell’esercito di controllare le aree tribali del paese. Il quotidiano pakistano “Dawn” ha sostenuto come gli attentati possano portare a della conseguenze negative nelle relazioni bilaterali tra Islambad e Pechino, comportando delle serie ripercussioni soprattutto per il Pakistan. Allo stesso modo l’incapacità di Islamabad nel prevenire l’azione dei terroristi può risultare controproducente per la potenziale cooperazione sino-pakistana in Afghanistan. Una possibile azione congiunta delle autorità pakistane assieme a quelle cinesi potrebbe garantire, invece, nell’ottica di Pechino, un possibile miglioramento della condizione delle aree nord-occidentali del Pakistan, avendo come conseguenza dei possibili benifici per la situazione dello Xinjiang. Una condizione importante per la Cina è rappresentata dal contemporaneo termine dei bombardamenti statunitensi nell’area, i quali possono fomentare l’estremismo islamico. Senza dubbio la cooperazione tra Islamabad e Pechino nelle FATA e nella Khyber Pakhtunkhwa renderà ancora più evidente lo stretto legame sino-pakistano, foriero di interessanti conseguenze nel contesto dell’attuale competizione in corso nella regione.

*Francesco Brunello Zanitti, Dottore in Storia della società e della cultura contemporanea (Università di Trieste). Ricercatore dell’IsAG per l’area Asia Meridionale, è autore del libro Progetti di egemonia (Edizioni all’Insegna del Veltro, Parma 2011). In “Eurasia” ha pubblicato Neoconservatorismo americano e neorevisionismo israeliano: un confronto (nr. 3/2010, pp. 109-121).

I risvolti geopolitici delle violenze etniche a Karachi

I risvolti geopolitici delle violenze etniche a Karachi

Francesco Brunello Zanitti

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

Il Pakistan è scosso da una considerevole spirale di violenza. Ai bombardamenti statunitensi lungo il confine con l’Afghanistan si sono aggiunti gli scontri etnici nelle province del Belucistan e del Sindh. Per quanto riguarda quest’ultima regione, il carattere d’indiscriminata conflittualità contraddistingue soprattutto la sua capitale, Karachi. L’estrema violenza caratterizzante la città potrebbe comportare delle conseguenze imprevedibili per l’intero Pakistan, mettendo in seria discussione l’unità e l’intregrità territoriale del paese. La conflittualità interna è strettamente connessa agli interessi dei paesi limitrofi e degli Stati Uniti, con potenziali ripercussioni anche per l’Afghanistan.

Karachi rappresenta il centro urbano e portuale economicamente più importante del Pakistan. La città è il traino dell’industria, del commercio e delle comunicazioni, in particolar modo per quanto riguarda i settori tessile e automobilistico, l’editoria, l’informatica e la ricerca medica. Il centro urbano è, inoltre, un fondamentale nodo geostrategico affacciato sul Mar Arabico. Data l’importanza economica di Karachi, già florido centro prima della nascita del Pakistan, la capitale del Sindh ha attirato nel corso degli ultimi due secoli un gran numero di migranti provenienti da diverse aree del Subcontinente, trasformandosi in una città multietnica e multilinguistica. Nella città, prima del 1947, convivevano diverse etnie, attirate dalle possibilità commerciali; erano presenti differenti comunità religiose, principalmente musulmani, hindu, parsi e cristiani. Karachi e il Sindh intero, in seguito alla partizione tra India e Pakistan, sono stati contraddistinti da una massiccia migrazione di musulmani provenienti dall’India, demominati mohajirs e di lingua urdu (mohajirs in urdu significa “migrante”). Rispetto ad altre aree del Pakistan, nel Sindh la migrazione urdu è stata più evidente ed ha generato una situazione di maggiore criticità. Mentre nelle restanti zone del paese la minoranza dei mohajirs è stata assimilata perché il suo numero era inferiore rispetto alla popolazione autoctona, nel Sindh, molto più vicino geograficamente all’India, i nuovi arrivati di lingua urdu superarono numericamente le etnie locali, modificando considerevolmente il carattere etnico della provincia.

Una delle cause scatenanti l’attuale stato di violenza della città è da ricercare nel composito carattere etnico del Sindh, complicato a partire dal 1947. La conflittualità tra etnie a Karachi e nella regione circostante non è, infatti, un problema che caratterizza il Pakistan da pochi anni, ma è invero una situazione perdurante da decenni. Tra gli anni ’50 e ’80 la regione era contraddistinta in particolare dagli scontri tra la popolazione di lingua urdu, rappresentanti solitamente la classe urbana, commerciale e maggiormente istruita della provincia, e i sindhi, gruppo etnico per la maggior parte dei casi rurale e meno istruito, trasformatosi minoranza nel proprio territorio storico. Gli scontri vennero, inoltre, utilizzati a seconda dei mutevoli interessi delle autorità centrali di Islamabad, tradizionalmente intenti a privilegiare l’etnia punjabi. La presenza a Karachi dei mohajirs è, inoltre, considerevolmente aumentata a partire dal 1971, in seguito alla migrazione di ulteriori gruppi musulmani di lingua urdu provenienti dall’ex Pakistan orientale dopo l’indipendenza del Bangladesh.

 

I motivi degli scontri etnici a Karachi e le possibili conseguenze per l’integrità territoriale del Pakistan

 

Le violenze quotidiane che hanno trasformato Karachi in un pericoloso centro, teatro di scontro tra bande, mafie locali e gruppi armati artefici di rapimenti, estorsioni ed esecuzioni sommarie, è dovuto principalmente alla conflittualità tra i mohajirs e i pashtun, questi ultimi di recente immigrazione. Il nesso tra criminalità e politica è molto forte, mentre le forze di sicurezza locali e le autorità centrali di Islamabad non sono in grado, per il momento, di riportare la città in una situazione di normalità. I partiti politici più importanti di Karachi, il Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM) rappresentante gli urdu, 45% della città, e l’Awami National Party (ANP), partito della minoranza pashtun, 25% degli abitanti di Karachi, si accusano a vicenda per la responsabilità delle violenze; i due gruppi politici, assieme al partito nazionale e governativo del Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), che a Karachi rappresenta gli interessi sindhi, sono i diretti responsabili delle violenze. Queste sono esplose soprattutto a partire dal 27 giugno, quando l’MQM decise di uscire dalla coalizione di governo del Sindh per l’avversione nei confronti dell’ANP e per incompresioni politiche con il governo nazionale di Islamabad guidato dal PPP. Il carattere etnico della città è complicato ulteriormente dalla presenza di altre minoranze, in particolare balochi, punjabi, kashmiri, saraiki e numerose altri gruppi etnici. A Karachi è presente anche una minoranza sciita, la quale si è sovente scontrata con la maggioranza sunnita. I sindhi, 60% della popolazione di Karachi nel 1947, oggi rappresentano il 7% della città.

La massiccia presenza pashtun a Karachi è recente ed è dovuta soprattutto alla considerevole migrazione verso sud delle popolazioni provenienti dalle regioni settentrionali del Pakistan, soprattutto dalla provincia di Khyber Pakhtunkhwa e dalle Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), ma anche dall’Afghanistan; le migrazioni sono state causate dall’invasione sovietica del 1979, da quella USA nel 2011 e dai bombardamenti statunitensi lungo la linea Durand. Le recenti migrazioni di pashtun, ma anche di tagiki, hazara, turkmeni e uzbeki provenienti dall’Afghanistan, hanno modificato considerevolmente il carattere etnico di Karachi, la quale unitamente alle violenze tra urdu e sindhi, è diventata teatro di scontri tra urdu e pashtun, e tra questi ultimi e i sindhi. Senza dimenticare i punjabi, rappresentanti gli interessi dei militari e delle autorità centrali pakistane, attente a favorire una o l’altra etnia a seconda delle circostanze politiche. La recente storia del paese è caratterizzata da questa particolare linea di politica interna.

L’attuale importanza dell’MQM, terzo gruppo politico a livello nazionale, è derivata, infatti, dall’azione governativa del regime di Zia ul-Haq tra anni ’70 e ‘80. Avendo come fine l’indebolimento del PPP e del suo capo, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, di etnia sindhi e il cui governo venne rovesciato proprio da Zia, il generale favorì la nascita e il consolidamento politico del partito urdu. L’MQM si rafforzò nel corso degli anni ’80, trasformandosi in un’importante forza di equilibrio nel panorama politico pakistano, alleandosi, a seconda delle circostanze, con il PPP o con la conservatrice Pakistan Muslim League (PML). Dopo il crollo di Zia, l’ISI accusò l’MQM di essere una forza cospirativa filo-indiana, finanziata dai servizi segreti di Nuova Delhi e avente come obiettivo primario la creazione di uno Stato autonomo di lingua urdu, il Jinnahpur con Karachi capitale. Durante gli anni ’90, infatti, l’MQM ha subito una violenta repressione da parte del governo centrale di Islamabad, in particolar modo quando salirono al potere Nawaz Sharif (PML-N) e Benazir Bhutto (PPP). Il partito degli urdu contò invece sull’appoggio del generale Pervez Musharraf, anch’esso di etnia mohajirs. Nell’ultimo decennio, infatti, l’MQM ha registrato una considerevole espansione, aumentando la propria influenza nell’intero paese, ma soprattutto in Punjab, cuore politico e militare del Pakistan. Diversi analisti sostengono il fatto che l’MQM possa contare attualmente sul decisivo appoggio dell’apparato militare pakistano e dell’ISI, vicini all’etnia punjabi, in modo da poter controbilanciare l’influenza pashtun nel Sindh, ma soprattutto nell’intero Pakistan.

Le violenze a Karachi sono dunque legate alla complicata situazione della politica interna pakistana, ricalcante le differenze etnico-linguistiche del paese. La forza politica dell’MQM non è attualmente riscontrabile solo nella città portuale, ma è evidente nell’intero paese. In questa fase politica è necessario per gli altri partiti, soprattutto per il PPP, scendere a patti con l’MQM, il quale si è trasformato in un indispensabile partito, garante del mantenimento dell’equilibrio politico del Pakistan. A Karachi le violenze sono aumentate in seguito all’abbandono da parte dell’MQM del governo federale del Sindh: i mohajirs accusano Zardari e il PPP di essere troppo vicini all’ANP. Lo scontro tra MQM e governo centrale è legato anche ai recenti arresti di attivisti mohajirs di Karachi accusati di terrorismo.

Una spiegazione delle violenze che stanno attraversando Karachi è connessa certamente alle migrazioni di popolazione pashtun nella città. Non si tratta solamente di un problema sociale ed economico, per l’evidente accresciuta competizione tra etnie diverse nella ricerca di lavoro e nell’acquisto di terre. Una questione fondamentale riguarda una problematica di tipo politico, ovvero quale gruppo etnico assumerà il controllo di Karachi, la città economicamente più importante del Pakistan che garantisce il 68% delle entrate nazionali. Le preoccupazioni dei diversi gruppi etnici sono evidenti: gli abitanti di lingua urdu temono la “talebanizzazione” della città ad opera della minoranza pashtun; questi ultimi denunciano l’eccessiva violenza dei mohajirs; i sindhi osservano negativamente sia i pashtun sia i mohajirs. Tutti e tre i gruppi etnici maggioritari di Karachi accusano il governo centrale di Islamabad di privilegiare l’etnia punjabi, favorendo lo sviluppo del solo Punjab a discapito degli altri territori dello Stato.

Le violenze fra etnie, fomentate dall’MQM, dall’ANP e dal PPP, possono portare a della serie conseguenze non solo per la città, ma anche per il resto del paese, generando una potenziale situazione d’instabilità. Se si pensa all’attuale situazione del Belucistan, tale scenario non sembra lontano dalla realtà. Di fondamentale importanza sono i risvolti geopolitici connessi alla stabilizzazione del paese e l’azione che intraprenderanno i diversi attori internazionali attenti alle sorti del Pakistan e dell’Afghanistan.

 

I collegamenti internazionali delle violenze a Karachi e nel Pakistan

 

Secondo l’ottica pakistana, una delle cause della situazione di completa anarchia e settarismo di Karachi deriva dall’appoggio esterno alle diverse fazioni in lotta. Questo sarebbe garantito in primo luogo dall’India, ma anche da Stati Uniti e Israele. Una delle spiegazioni offerte dal governo nel passato per descrivere la conflittualità del Sindh, ripresa recentemente, è connessa all’azione svolta da attori esterni, i quali aizzano le diverse etnie del paese una contro l’altra, in modo da favorire la destabilizzazione e lo smembramento del Pakistan.

La situazione in Belucistan, zona ricca di gas naturale e minerali, ma molto povera, è particolarmente tesa. Secondo Islamabad, i servizi segreti dell’India appoggerebbero le spinte indipendentiste dei beluci e le violenze anti-punjabi. Il Belucistan è teatro, inoltre, del violento scontro tra governo centrale e movimenti sciiti della regione. Secondo la visuale pakistana, oltre ai servizi segreti indiani, agirebbero in Belucistan la CIA e l’MI6 britannico, i quali fomenterebbero le azioni anti-governative dei beluci. Il Pakistan guarda con sospetto all’attivismo indiano nella città iraniana di Chabahar, anch’essa beluca. L’azione statunitense potrebbe avere dei chiari risvolti negativi per gli interessi cinesi nell’area e per l’Iran, dato l’indipendentismo beluco presente nella provincia iraniana del Sistan-Belucistan.

Sempre secondo Islamabad, la RAW indiana, il Mossad e la CIA favorirebbero il traffico illegale di armi nell’emporio di Karachi, la cui zona portuale è controllata dall’MQM. All’indomani della visita di Karzai e Zardari a Tehran lo scorso giugno, il ministro degli interni pakistano Rehman Malik ha riferito pubblicamente alla stampa del ritrovamento di armi di fabbricazione israeliana a Karachi.

Il Pakistan, se da una parte ha visto deteriorarsi i propri legami con gli Stati Uniti, ha migliorato i propri rapporti con l’Iran, testimoniati concretamente dal possibile avvio dei lavori in territorio pakistano del gasdotto di collegamento tra Tehran e Islamabad. L’Arabia Saudita osserva con particolare preoccupazione l’avvicinamento tra i due paesi, foriero di una pericolosa messa in discussione del teorema dell’inevitabile scontro e competizione tra sunniti e sciiti nel mondo musulmano. Un problema comunque di primo piano da risolvere nel dialogo iraniano-pakistano sarà legato al finanziamento del gruppo terroristico Jandullah, il quale opera nel Sistan-Belucistan e, secondo l’Iran, ha legami diretti con l’ISI. L’Iran ha sospetti anche sull’Afghanistan, mentre la stessa Islamabad ritiene che ci siano dei collegamenti tra Tehran e l’indipendentismo beluco in Pakistan. Islamabad ha, inoltre, intensificato i propri rapporti con la Cina. In questo modo il governo pakistano, legandosi maggiormente a Tehran e Pechino, sta aumentando considerevolmente il proprio potere negoziale nei confronti degli Stati Uniti. Un altro fattore da considerare è, inoltre, il crescente interesse di Russia, Iran e Cina per la questione afghana. Gli Stati Uniti guardano naturalmente con estremo interesse l’evolversi della situazione interna del Pakistan, un paese del quale non possono fare a meno per la propria strategia in Afghanistan. Vista la recente intenzione di mantenere una base militare a Kabul fino al 2024 è necessario, nell’ottica statunitense, sostenere un dialogo con i talebani, i quali non appaiono comunque troppo favorevoli alla presenza di truppe nordamericane in Afghanistan; del medesimo parere sono Russia, Cina, Pakistan e Iran. Islamabad, possibile canale privilegiato per il dialogo con i talebani, diventa dunque fondamentale per l’azione statunitense in Afghanistan, data anche l’attuale debolezza politica di Karzai.

La destabilizzazione del Pakistan e il suo potenziale controllo si collegano alle recenti violenze di Karachi, connesse a una strategia volta al favorire lo smembramento del paese asiatico discussa in diversi think tank nordamericani (vedi l’articolo http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/gwadar-la-competizione-sino-statunitense-e-lo-smembramento-del-pakistan/9828/). Tutto ciò è collegabile alla notizia secondo la quale gli Stati Uniti avrebbero come obiettivo il controllo diretto dell’arsenale nucleare pakistano, alle richieste di Islamabad di poter disporre del diritto di veto per gli unilaterali bombardamenti statunitensi sul proprio territorio e alle schermaglie tra CIA e ISI, con l’insolito avvicendarsi nel giro di pochi mesi di tre diversi capi del servizio segreto statunitense a Islamabad. Se da una parte, inoltre, gli Stati Uniti vogliono ricercare un dialogo con i talebani, dall’altro lato non si curano dei bombardamenti nei confronti di quei gruppi che hanno già raggiunto una pacificazione con il Pakistan, ma che operano in Afghanistan, vedi la rete Haqqani, con possibili ripercussioni negative per la sicurezza interna di Islamabad. Un’altra fondamentale questione riguarda il temine degli aiuti finanziari di Washington nei confronti del Pakistan, uniti alla crisi finanziaria e all’impossibilità da parte degli Stati Uniti di mantenere un costoso apparato militare in Afghanistan, vista anche l’attenzione crescente per il Vicino Oriente e il Nord Africa. Resta da capire se le strategie sul Pakistan discusse nei think tank statunitensi verranno concretamente messe in azione. Sta di fatto che un’interpretazione dell’attuale fase critica del Pakistan è connessa al teatro afghano, poiché il carattere di estrema precarietà del paese può essere valutato come una diretta conseguenza dell’invasione e destabilizzazione dell’Afghanistan, propagatasi successivamente in territorio pakistano. Il collasso del sistema statale è concretamente in atto lungo il confine tra i due paesi e le migrazioni dei pashtun verso Karachi degli ultimi anni rendono la situazione della città e del paese in generale sempre più complicata.

E’ da valutare, inoltre, quanto le violenze a Karachi possano favorire gli interessi statunitensi, vista la sua posizione strategica come unico porto in grado di supportare le truppe NATO in Afghanistan. Kabul non ha collegamenti via mare e risulta essenziale l’attenzione nordamericana su Karachi, importante porto sul Mar Arabico e attualmente punto strategico per il riformimento di mezzi e truppe via mare da indirizzare in Afghanistan. Nell’emporio di Karachi si può individuare un ulteriore elemento che testimonia l’importanza del Pakistan per gli Stati Uniti. Collegato alla questione della città e alle sue minoranze, saranno da valutare anche gli impatti sull’etnia pashtun del potenziale dialogo che potrebbe stabilirsi tra i talebani e gli Stati Uniti, così come il ruolo che ricoprirà il Pakistan nei colloqui.

Dialogo valutato negativamente dall’India e dall’Iran. Per quanto riguarda Nuova Delhi è da valutare quanto convenga all’India fomentare l’indipendentismo delle minoranze etniche presenti in Pakistan. La destabilizzazione dell’Afghanistan, avvenuta a partire dal 2001, con la successiva caotica situazione pakistana, non è detto che non si espanda anche in India. Se da una parte, con l’annichilimento del Pakistan si conorerebbe il sogno della definitiva sconfitta del nemico, da una diversa prospettiva tutto ciò potrebbe comportare delle serie ripercussioni per l’autonomismo e l’indipendentismo di vaste aree interne del paese, soprattutto in Kashmir e nel nord-est indiano. Se da una parte gli Stati Uniti hanno come obiettivo il caos per poi controllare la situazione, sembra che recentemente Nuova Delhi stia addontando una politica più accorta nei confronti del Pakistan.

 

*Francesco Brunello Zanitti, Dottore in Storia della società e della cultura contemporanea (Università di Trieste). Ricercatore dell’ISaG per l’area Asia Meridionale, è autore del libro Progetti di egemonia (Edizioni all’Insegna del Veltro, Parma 2011). In “Eurasia” ha pubblicato Neoconservatorismo americano e neorevisionismo israeliano: un confronto (nr. 3/2010, pp. 109-121).

 

lundi, 12 septembre 2011

La distruzione della Libia, una crescente minaccia per la Russia

La distruzione della Libia, una crescente minaccia per la Russia

Guennadi Ziouganov

Ex: http://gazeta-pravda.ru/content/view/8768/34/

Pravda, 1 Settembre 2011

 

Secondo i media, le forze che cercano di rovesciare il governo della Libia hanno occupato la capitale, Tripoli, e diverse altre città. Ovunque siano commettono omicidi di massa e saccheggi. E’ stato anche saccheggiato l’eccezionale museo nazionale di Tripoli.

 

Tutto questo parla da se del tipo di persone coinvolte nella lotta contro il governo legittimo. E’ ben noto che l’”opposizione” che si sarebbe ribellata contro la “tirannia” di Gheddafi, sta ricevendo armi dall’estero. Ma ancora, non avrebbero potuto affrontare le truppe del governo libico, senza il sostegno massiccio dell’aviazione della NATO, che ha distrutto i centri di comando, depositi di munizioni e armi e le linee di comunicazione. I “ribelli” appaiono solo dopo che la tempesta di fuoco della NATO ha distrutto ogni cosa sul suo cammino.

 

Questo è certamente un intervento militare, accuratamente nascosto dietro lo schermo trasparente dei “ribelli”. In Libia, si sta perfezionando una nuova tattica per rovesciare i governi indesiderabili all’Occidente, con ampio uso di eserciti privati e di mercenari come ausiliari alla NATO. Tutto questa orgia si svolge sotto la copertura della risoluzione 1973 del Consiglio di Sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite e con l’attuazione del “no-fly zone”, il cui presunto obiettivo era proteggere la popolazione civile della Libia dai bombardamenti. In pratica, gli aerei della NATO ha lanciato attacchi con missili e bombe, non solo contro le posizioni dell’esercito libico, anche contro le strutture civili nelle città. Di conseguenza, essi hanno ucciso migliaia di civili, tra cui anziani e bambini. Fatti come questi sono, secondo il diritto internazionale, un crimine contro l’umanità. Ma la lingua dei Gesuiti della NATO, le vite distrutte vengono chiamate “danni collaterali”.

 

La Libia è l’ultima vittima dell’intervento globale della NATO, che è diventato possibile dopo la distruzione dell’Unione Sovietica. Proprio in questo momento, con la scomparsa di una forza capace di affrontare l’avventurismo dell’oligarchia mondiale, apparve al nostro attuale “partner” la sensazione dell’impunità. Imposta dall’esterno, ebbe inizio la guerra civile in Jugoslavia, che si è conclusa dopo 78 giorni di bombardamenti di città e cittadine indifese.

 

Poi gli Stati Uniti ed i suoi alleati hanno invaso l’Iraq, impigliandosi nel filo spinato di quel paese. Poi seguì l’Afghanistan, convertito dalle truppe di occupazione in un ritrovo per la produzione di droga. Nel frattempo, le agenzie d’intelligence dell’Alleanza avviarono le rivolte “arancione” in Georgia, Ucraina e Moldavia. Passando anni a cercare di rovesciare il Presidente bielorusso Lukashenko.

 

La Siria è prossimo della lista, sottoposta ad attacchi di insorti armati dall’esterno. Assistiamo alla guerra di informazione contro il governo siriano. Prova eloquente dei preparativi per l’intervento della NATO.

 

Oggi il mondo affronta un nuovo colonialismo, nella sua variante più disgustosa e cinica, proprio come lo era due secoli fa. L’ex potenze coloniali, USA, Regno Unito e Francia ancora rivendicano il diritto di decidere del destino di qualsiasi stato sovrano. Durante questa operazione “umanitaria” hanno calpestato la Carta delle Nazioni Unite e le norme del diritto internazionale. Come risultato, la Libia è stata sommersa nel caos, e potrebbe eventualmente svilupparsi successivamente nello scenario somalo: la divisione in innumerevoli tribù e clan che si combattono tra loro. La Russia è anch’essa responsabile della tragedia in Libia, dal momento che il governo ha dato il via libera alla risoluzione anti-Libia delle Nazioni Unite, non usando il suo potere di veto e, quindi, unendosi alle sanzioni contro la Libia. Questo ha significato non solo che abbiamo perso 20 miliardi di dollari di potenziali benefici dal commercio e della cooperazione economica con questo ricco paese africano, ma abbiamo anche perso uno degli stati amici che avevamo nella regione strategicamente importante del Mediterraneo.

 

Se non finisce questa orgia del neo-colonialismo, la Russia con i suoi sconfinati territori e le sue enormi riserve di materie prime, diventerà uno degli obiettivi futuri dell’esportazione atlantista della “democrazia”. Indebolito da due decenni di cosciente deindustrializzazione e decadenza, con un esercito demoralizzato e distrutto, il nostro Paese inevitabilmente diventerà un bersaglio per l’intervento.

 

Il PCRF condanna la pirateria mondiale dell’oligarchia coloniale ed esorta il governo della Federazione Russa a prendere coscienza delle conseguenze più pericolose che comporta la collusione con gli aggressori.

 

Solo un governo forte e patriottico, in grado di rilanciare l’industria, l’agricoltura, l’istruzione, la scienza e la cultura, il nostro passato di potenza e il ritorno delle nostre Forze Armate, può salvare la Russia dal ripetersi dello scenario libico delle rivoluzioni “colorate”.

 

Link: [1] http://josafatscomin.blogspot.com/2011/09/destruccion-de-libia-crecela-amenaza.html [2] http://gazeta-pravda.ru/content/view/8768/34/ http://tortillaconsal.com/tortilla/print/9378

Traduzione di Alessandro Lattanzio
http://www.aurora03.da.ru http://www.bollettinoaurora.da.ru http://aurorasito.wordpress.com

samedi, 10 septembre 2011

Wer wird das libysche Erdöl kontrollieren?

Wer wird das libysche Erdöl kontrollieren?

Auf einem Treffen französischer Diplomaten aus aller Welt am Mittwoch, dem 31. August, lobte der französische Staatspräsident Nicolas Sarkozy die Unterstützung der libyschen Rebellen durch das NATO-Bündnis als »unverzichtbares Instrument« und wichtigstes Ergebnis des Kriegs, auch wenn sich Washington entschieden habe, in den Hintergrund zu treten. »Zum ersten Mal stellte die NATO ihre Dienste einer Koalition zur Verfügung, die aus zwei entschlossenen europäischen Ländern bestand – Frankreich und Großbritannien«, bemerkte er in einem Tonfall, der seinen Stolz darüber, Frankreich mit der Entscheidung, sich dem militärischen Vorgehen der NATO in Libyen, die auf den Sturz Muammar al-Gaddafis abzielte, anzuschließen, wieder zu seiner früheren imperialen Größe zurückzuführen, nicht verhehlen konnte.

 

 

Die Prahlerei des französischen Präsidenten Sarkozy über einen erfolgreichen europäischen Krieg ist nur zum Teil berechtigt. Auch wenn Amerika die Führung an England und Frankreich abgetreten hatte, wäre keines dieser Länder ohne amerikanische Aufklärungssatelliten, Spionageflugzeuge und US-Nachschub in der Lage gewesen, Tripolis zu erobern, und Gaddafi hielte sich immer noch in Bab al-Aziziya versteckt.

Mehr: http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/geostrategie/redaktion/wer-wird-das-libysche-erdoel-kontrollieren-.html

 

La diplomatie des mosquées

Davutoglu-chez-lui11.jpg

La diplomatie des mosquées

Ex: http://www.insolent.fr/

Les faits et les photos peuvent passer avant les commentaires. Ici le ministre turc des affaires étrangères M. Ahmet Davutoglou fête la fin du Ramadan à Sarajevo. On le voit entouré de Bakir Izetbegovic, membre de la présidence collégiale de Bosnie-Herzégovine et du chef religieux, le "reis ul islam" Mustafa Ceric. Cela se passe en la mosquée édifiée au XVIe siècle par Gazi Husrev-beg (1480-1541) gouverneur ottoman de la Bosnie, puis de la Syrie, à l'époque de Soliman le Magnifique.

 

Les jours précédents le même professeur de géopolitique, devenu maître d'œuvre de la politique extérieure d'Ankara s'était rendu dans deux autres pays des Balkans. Au Kossovo, il avait accompli ses dévotions d'abord à la mosquée impériale de Pristina. Celle-ci est également connue sous le nom de "Mehmed Fatih", en l'honneur du conquérant de Constantinople Mehmet II qui en avait ordonné la construction en 1461. Puis, dans le même territoire majoritairement albanais, il avait visité l'élégante mosquée édifiée au XVIIe siècle par Sofi Sinan Pacha et dont une légende veut qu'elle aurait été bâtie avec les matériaux du monastère des Saints-Archanges. Enfin en Roumanie, il avait accompli les mêmes gestes en un lieu édifié en 1910, aujourd'hui centre de l'implantation islamique locale, à la frontière bulgare, la mosquée "Hinkar" de style maure mais dont les guides aiment à souligner qu'elle copie son homologue de Konya, capitale des derviches tourneurs en Anatolie.

Commentant ce qu'il appelle la "diplomatie des mosquées" le journal pro gouvernemental turc Zaman Today (1)⇓ souligne que, jusqu'en 2002, les diplomates turcs visitaient traditionnellement leurs compatriotes mais que, depuis l'arrivée au pouvoir de l'AKP ils se tournent désormais au-delà des Turcs, au mépris de la laïcité, vers l'ensemble de leurs coreligionnaires.

Ne doutons pas une seconde que, pour un nombre non négligeable de Turcs, le souvenir de ce grand passé impérial représente une perspective de réimplantation dans les Balkans. Davutoglou, du reste, avait fait sensation à l'automne 2009 en y proclamant "Sarajevo est notre ville". Il s'agissait là, remarquions-nous à l'époque, du premier membre d'une phrase qu'il complétait en ajoutant, à l'attention des musulmans balkaniques : "Istanbul est votre Ville". (2)⇓

La même semaine écoulée, les journalistes français présents à Tirana pour la rencontre de podosphère entre les "bleus" et l'équipe nationale albanaise ne remarquaient guère un incident ayant justifié l'intervention de la Police. En effet, les irrédentistes locaux avaient déployé dans le stade une immense banderole de 30 mètres sur 40 figurant une carte de la Grande Albanie occupant des territoires actuellement situés dans divers pays voisins dans le sud de la Serbie, au Monténégro, ou dans l'ancienne république yougoslave de Macédoine. Le moment venu, ce genre d'étincelles, montées en épingle, pourrait justifier une intervention de l'armée turque, sans même que soit levée l'hypothèque du PKK, et avec la bénédiction du Département d'État.

Il était évidemment beaucoup plus encourageant, pour nos excellents moyens hexagonaux de désinformation, de mettre en exergue les quelques gestes, attendus depuis des années et promis désormais par le chef du gouvernement Erdogan en faveur des minorités non-musulmanes qui n'ont pas encore fui le pays. Quelques hôpitaux et écoles en bénéficieront. Un bon point, pensera-t-on. Il faut se pencher attentivement sur "Zaman" pour relever qu'au moins deux catégories de chrétiens échapperont apparemment à cette libéralisation : les Syriaques et les Turcs protestants (3)⇓. Les premiers souffrent sans doute de témoigner de l'injustifiable annexion du sandjak d'Alexandrette, les seconds indiscutablement coupables de prosélytisme.

Certes on peut se féliciter de voir normaliser certains aspects des relations entre l'État turc et les organismes de bienfaisance ou religieux arméniens, grecs ou juifs. Mais on n'omettra pas non plus de remarquer que cela aussi fait partie des traditions ottomanes et des théories islamiques : les gens du Livre ont droit à un statut spécial à la fois protégé et inférieur. Ils payent un impôt particulier et sont généreusement "dispensés" du service militaire. Beaucoup d'autres choses leur sont interdites, mais ils survivent. Les lecteurs de mon livre sur "La Question turque et l'Europe" ont compris que les crimes commis au XXe siècle ont été inspirés, dans ce pays comme ailleurs, par les adeptes d'une idéologie jacobine. Aujourd'hui le mouvement de Fethullah Gulen, qui inspire le pouvoir AKP, milite pour un retour aux principes antérieurs à la république et, donc, à une plus grande tolérance à l'égard des chrétiens. On ne doit pas l'ignorer.

L'expert géopolitique Ahmet Davutoglou a jusqu'à maintenant échoué dans son programme poudre aux yeux "pas de problèmes avec nos voisins". Les problèmes existants ne sont pas résolus. D'autres sont même apparus. Mais il ne renoncera pas à sa vision tridimensionnelle de l'expansion turque, à la fois vers le Proche Orient en posant au protecteur des Arabes, vers l'Asie centrale en rivalisant avec les Russes, et en utilisant contre l'Europe les minorités islamiques.

Ne nous méprenons pas sur les bonheurs passagers de l'économie turque actuelle. Ce triple rêve tourne évidemment le dos aux derniers lambeaux des principes légués par Mustafa Kemal. Mais il confirme encore plus la grave erreur que développent encore les négociations d'adhésion de ce pays aux institutions encore fragiles de l'Union européenne.

JG Malliarakis
        
Apostilles

  1. cf. Zaman Today du 4 août 2011 article "Ahmet Davutoğlu conducts ‘mosque diplomacy’ in Balkans".
  2. cf. L'Insolent du 4 janvier 2010 "Comment les Turcs regardent leurs alliances".
  3. cf. cf. Zaman Today du 4 août 2011 article "Non-Muslims praise law to return properties, await its implementation".

    Vous pouvez entendre l'enregistrement de nos chroniques
    sur le site de

     

     

    Lumière 101

 

vendredi, 09 septembre 2011

Warum das Gaddafi-Regime gestürzt wurde

Geheimdienste, Euro-Krise und Libyen: Warum das Gaddafi-Regime wirklich gestürzt wurde

Udo Ulfkotte

Zugegeben, man kann das Wort »Libyen« inzwischen nicht mehr hören. Aber selbst in den Hauptnachrichtensendungen wird inzwischen so viel Unsinn über Libyen verbreitet, dass wir nachfolgend einfach einmal jene Fakten auflisten, die von offiziellen Medien aus Unwissenheit oder absichtlich verschwiegen werden. Die Wahrheit sieht dann etwas anders aus. Und Sie werden schnell merken, wie Sie als Durchschnittsbürger von Politik und Medien an der Nase herumgeführt wurden. Denn ohne die Aktionen in Libyen wären französische Banken zusammengebrochen.

 

 

Tatsache ist: In Ländern wie Bahrain, Saudi-Arabien oder den Vereinigten Arabischen Emiraten ist keine militärische Intervention geplant, um die dortigen Diktatoren zu stürzen. Im Gegenteil: Länder wie Deutschland wollen die Diktatoren dort sogar noch mit deutschem Fachpersonal und mit Waffen unterstützen. Warum also intervenierte man ausgerechnet in Libyen? Kennen Sie die Fakten, dann kennen Sie die Wahrheit.

Mehr: http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/europa/udo-ulfkotte/geheimdienste-euro-krise-und-libyen-warum-das-gaddafi-regime-wirklich-gestuerzt-wurde.html

 

Why Gaddafi got a red card

Why Gaddafi got a red card
By Pepe Escobar

Surveying the Libyan wasteland out of a cozy room crammed with wafer-thin LCDs in a Pyongyang palace, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's Dear Leader, Kim Jong-il, must have been stunned as he contemplated Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's predicament.

"What a fool," the Dear Leader predictably murmurs. No wonder. He knows how The Big G virtually signed his death sentence that day in 2003 when he accepted the suggestion of his irrepressibly nasty offspring - all infatuated with Europe - to dump his weapons of mass destruction program and place the future of the regime in the hands of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Granted, Saif al-Islam, Mutassim, Khamis and the rest of the
Gaddafi clan still couldn't tell the difference between partying hard in St Tropez and getting bombed by Mirages and Rafales. But Big G, wherever he is, in Sirte, in the central desert or in a silent caravan to Algeria, must be cursing them to eternity.

He thought he was a NATO partner. Now NATO wants to blow his head off. What kind of partnership is this?

MORE: http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MI01Ak02.html

jeudi, 08 septembre 2011

Presseschau - September 2011 (2)

Presseschau

September 2011 (2)

Noch ein paar Nachträge des Monats, die in die Presseschau spezial einzuarbeiten vergessen worden waren...

Bei DGB-Diskussion in Offenbach mit OB-Kandidaten will am Kopftuch-Tabu für Erzieherinnen keiner rütteln
Geschichten aus der Fremde
http://www.op-online.de/lokales/offenbach/ob-wahl/geschichten-fremde-1384914.html

(unaufgeregte Leserdiskussion)
Hanau
Rechtsextremismus in der Region: Verfassungsschutz beobachtet neue Gruppe "Nationale Sozialisten"
"Bewegung in der Szene"
http://www.op-online.de/nachrichten/hanau/bewegung-szene-1384223.html

Internet
Cyber-Mobbing auf dem Vormarsch
http://www.pcwelt.de/news/Internet-Cyber-Mobbing-auf-dem-Vormarsch-3396214.html

Cyber-Mobbing
Kommentar: Über Folgen aufklären
http://www.op-online.de/nachrichten/politik/kommentar-ueber-folgen-aufklaeren-1384573.html

mercredi, 07 septembre 2011

Krantenkoppen - September 2011 (1)

zeitungsleser3333.jpg

Krantenkoppen
 
September 2011 (1)
 
HONGARIJE VOERT 'CHIPSBELASTING' IN:
"De nieuwe belasting (...) is in de eerste plaats gericht op gezouten of gesuikerde koekjes, energiedrankjes en voorverpakte taarten. De regering van wil met de taks iets doen aan de voedingsgewoonten van de Hongaren, die te veel vetstoffen, suiker en zout gebruiken":
http://www.standaard.be/artikel/detail.aspx?artikelid=DMF20110901_051
 
 
NORTH DAKOTA'S ECONOMIC 'MIRACLE' - IT'S NOT OIL:
"If its secret isn’t oil, what is so unique about the state? North Dakota has one thing that no other state has: its own state-owned bank":
http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/the-north-dakota-miracle-not-all-about-oil
 
 
FAMILIES IN MODERN IRELAND SKIP FOOD TO PAY THE MORTGAGE:
"The fear of losing their home is causing many anguished families to go without enough to eat in order to ensure that they have sufficient money to pay their mortgage":
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/families-in-modern-ireland-skip-food-to-pay-the-mortgage-2859883.html
 
 
LIBYA - RESISTANCE TO US/NATO CONQUEST CONTINUES:
"The continued resistance exposes the lie of the so-called democratic 'rebel' forces that have been set up by Britain, France and the U.S. to facilitate the imperialist invasion of the oil-rich country. Meanwhile, arms have been distributed by the Libyan government to the whole population – something a hated dictator would never do":
 
 
SPECIAL OPERATIONS CLEAR PATH FOR REBEL FORCES:
"Defence sources have confirmed that British special forces have been on the ground in Libya for several weeks, along with special forces from Qatar, France and some eastern European states":
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0826/1224303000900.html
 
 
DIE DEUTSCHE KARTE:
"Gerd-Helmut Komossa, Generalmajor der Bundeswehr a.D., war Chef des MAD. In diesem Buch gewährt er einen erhellenden Blick hinter die Kulissen der Geheimpolitik. Hier lesen Sie, was Sie eigentlich nicht wissen sollten. (...) Dass sich jeder deutsche Bundeskanzler vor seinem Amtsantritt in den USA Anweisungen abholen und diese unterzeichnen muss (Kanzlerakte), dass die deutschen Goldreserven größtenteils in den USA und England liegen und als Pfand für die Alliierten dienen, wurde bislang immer nur als Verschwörungstheorie abgetan. Dass Deutschland bis heute kein souveräner Staat ist, haben viele bislang nur geahnt":
http://xinos.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/die-deutsche-karte/
 
 
COLOR REVOLUTIONS: WASHINGTON FUNDS VENEZUELA'S "MADE IN USA OPPOSITION":
"Washington continues to seek new mechanisms to achieve its eternal objective of recovering control over Venezuela’s strategic resources – the largest oil reserves on the planet – and this means putting an end to Hugo Chavez":
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25984
 
 
LIBIE: NAVO-BOMMEN GAVEN DE DOORSLAG:
"NAVO-militairen zijn ook op het terrein aanwezig om de rebellen te leiden of te omkaderen en om de luchtmacht op te roepen wanneer Khaddafi’s troepen tegenstand bieden":
http://www.dewereldmorgen.be/artikels/2011/08/23/libi-navo-bommen-gaven-de-doorslag
 
 
ETIENNE DAVIGNON EN DE ROEP OM NEOLIBERALE LIEFDADIGHEID:
"Wat Davignon en de 'bekeerde' superrijken eigenlijk voorstellen, is een nieuwe vorm van liefdadigheid. (...) Tijdelijke liefdadigheid om het systeem te redden dat hen superrijk heeft gemaakt":
http://www.dewereldmorgen.be/artikels/2011/08/26/etienne-davignon-en-de-roep-om-neoliberale-liefdadigheid
 
 
POURQUOI LES LIBYENS AIMENT LE COLONEL KHADAFFI:
"Nombre d’observateurs en Occident totalement intoxiqués par la propagande anti-Kadhafi ne parviennent pas à comprendre comment le dirigeant libyen conserve toujours l’appui de sa population (...). Comment les Libyens ne soutiennent-ils pas plus les 'courageux' insurgés du CNT?":
http://www.lepost.fr/article/2011/08/23/2573981_pourquoi-les-libyens-aiment-le-colonel-kadhafi.html
 
 
ISRAEL ACTEUR IMPORTANT DANS LA CONFLIT LIBYEN:
"Un accord a été signé entre Israël et le Conseil National de Transition (CNT) libyen à Benghazi, concernant l’installation d’une base militaire sioniste dans la région de Djebel Akhdar, pour une durée de 30 années":
http://www.lislamiste.com/2011/08/27/israel-acteur-important-dans-la-conflit-libyen/
 
 
FRENCH WANT T.O.T.A.L. CONTROL OF LIBYAN OIL:
"One of the first members of the French team in Bengazhi in March was a representative of Total, the French oil company":
https://rt.com/news/french-total-oil-libya-013/
 
 
BEJAARD KOPPEL STUURT DEURWAARDER NAAR DE BANK:
"Ze stuurden een deurwaarder en een verhuiswagen naar hun bankkantoor, waar ze beslag wilden laten leggen op het gebouw en de inboedel. De zaak bleek plots in een uur tijd geregeld te kunnen worden":
http://www.standaard.be/artikel/detail.aspx?artikelid=DMF20110824_175
 
 
THE PARADIGM SHIFT:
"I'm not a good American, ... cause I like to form my own opinion! (...) Rule number 1: I don't believe anything the government says."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRWF1hgBVQ0
 
 
LEAK OF A 70 PAGE CRIMINAL NATO PLAN TO OCCUPY LIBYA:
"The plan includes keeping large portions of the Gadhafian apparatus intact, on condition of loyalty to the new, pro-West regime. There will be the 'Tripoli task force', a 15,000-man force operated by the United Arab Emirates which will occupy Tripoli and conduct mass arrests of Gadhafi’s supporters":
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25947#.TlP09ULMOHw.facebook
 
 
BONNEN KNIPPEN ALS NATIONALE HOBBY:
"In 2010 werden ruim driehonderd miljard bonnen verspreid over het land. Couponing – met bonnen zo veel mogelijk korting krijgen – is een bestaand werkwoord. De politie in Arkansas hield onlangs een vrouw aan die 185 exemplaren van een lokale zondagskrant had gestolen. Het was haar om de bonnen te doen. In Alabama is de diefstal van kranten dit jaar met 30% gestegen".

Der Westen will die Kontrolle über den Erdölreichtum Libyens an sich reissen

Der Westen will die Kontrolle über den Erdölreichtum Libyens an sich reißen

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

Die libyschen Revolutionäre haben den Krieg in dem erdölreichen nordafrikanischen Land noch gar nicht gewonnen, da diskutieren die westlichen Mächten bereits etwa darüber, dass die Übergangsregierung in der Ära nach Gaddafi die Erdölverträge erfüllen müsse.

 

Wären die USA und ihre NATO-Verbündeten auch bereit, im Falle interner Streitigkeiten in der libyschen Krise ihre Erdölinteressen mit Bodentruppen durchzuzusetzen?

 

In einem Interview mit Press TV erläutert Michel Chossudovsky, Direktor des Zentrums zur Forschung zur Globalisierung, die derzeitigen Entwicklungen. Im Folgenden lesen Sie eine geringfügig überarbeitete Fassung des Interviews.

 

 

Interview mit dem Direktor des Zentrums für Forschung zur Globalisierung (CRG) Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

 

Die Westmächte haben erklärt, die internationale Gemeinschaft werde den politischen Übergang zu einem freien und demokratischen Libyen unterstützen. Welche Form wird diese »Unterstützung« annehmen? Soll Libyen eine »Demokratie nach westlichem Vorbild« aufgezwungen werden? Was bedeutet das für die libysche Bevölkerung? Die gleiche Sprache und die gleichen Begriffe waren auch zu hören, als sie vor zehn Jahren Afghanistan und vor acht Jahren den Irak angriffen. Die Vereinigten Staaten beharren immer noch darauf, dass ihre Soldaten Immunität vor Strafverfolgung genießen sollten. Womit ist in Libyen zu rechnen?

Mehr: http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/geostrategie/prof-michel-chossudovsky/der-westen-will-die-kontrolle-ueber-den-erdoelreichtum-libyens-an-sich-reissen.html

mardi, 06 septembre 2011

Presseschau - September 2011 (1)

Presseschau

September 2011 (1)

AUßENPOLITISCHES   

Nach Norwegen-Massaker
EU sagt Rechtsextremismus den Kampf an
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,776761,00.html

Krieger wider die Gleichheit
http://www.taz.de/1/archiv/digitaz/artikel/?ressort=me&dig=2011%2F08%2F04%2Fa0128&cHash=561da1c208

Jörges: „Vom Hass verblendete Anti-Islamisten“
http://www.pi-news.net/2011/08/jorges-vom-hass-verblendete-anti-islamisten/#more-205072

Das Monster, die Mitte und die Medien
http://www.sezession.de/26200/das-monster-die-mitte-und-die-medien.html

Fjordman tritt an die Öffentlichkeit
http://www.sezession.de/26279/fjordman-tritt-an-die-offentlichkeit.html#more-26279

(ehrliches Völkchen)
Erdbeben
Japaner finden Milliarden Yen unter Trümmern
http://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/erdbeben-japaner-finden-milliarden-yen-unter-truemmern_aid_656552.html

(Die problematische Rolle von Juden (wohlgemerkt nicht DER Juden!) bei der Propagierung des Multikulturalismus anhand eines Beispiels ...)
"Jews will play a leading role in multicultural Europe," says Jewish researcher
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYeZW-WcSlc

Berlin, Libyen und der Westen
http://www.sezession.de/27589/berlin-libyen-und-der-westen.html#more-27589

(und hier meldet sich mal wieder einer der Kriegshetzer zu Wort…)
Oettinger kritisiert deutsche Libyen-Politik
http://www.op-online.de/nachrichten/politik/oettinger-kritisiert-deutsche-libyen-politik-zr-1379384.html

Ursache für Absturz in Afghanistan klar
Granate traf US-Hubschrauber
http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Granate-traf-US-Hubschrauber-article4005316.html

"Geheimaktion Gross-Moskau"
Megapolis: Russlands Hauptstadt soll mächtig wachsen
http://www.abendblatt.de/vermischtes/article1978682/Megapolis-Russlands-Hauptstadt-soll-maechtig-wachsen.html

"Tigerstaat hineinlassen"
Daimler-Chef wirbt für Türkei-Beitritt der EU
http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article13464985/Daimler-Chef-wirbt-fuer-Tuerkei-Beitritt-der-EU.html

INNENPOLITISCHES / GESELLSCHAFT / VERGANGENHEITSPOLITIK

(umfassende Kritik der „political correctness“ !)
Der lange Arm des Teufels - oder:
das Unerklärbare erklären
http://www.freie-waehler-frankfurt.de/artikel/index.php?id=142

Die verdunkelte Aufklärung – Teil II
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M5e45bb27b2b.0.html

(Zum Zustand der CDU)
Eine Schwalbe macht noch keinen Sommer
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M54866b366a6.0.html

Bürgerliche Werte
„Ich beginne zu glauben, dass die Linke recht hat“
Im bürgerlichen Lager werden die Zweifel immer größer, ob man richtig gelegen hat, ein ganzes Leben lang. Gerade zeigt sich in Echtzeit, dass die Annahmen der größten Gegner zuzutreffen scheinen.
Von Frank Schirrmacher
http://www.faz.net/artikel/C30351/buergerliche-werte-ich-beginne-zu-glauben-dass-die-linke-recht-hat-30484461.html

Konservative zweifeln an ihren Analysen
Aus Erfahrung klüger
http://www.taz.de/Debatte-zu-Schirrmachers-Linksbekenntnis/!76617/

Die linke Versuchung des Bürgers Schirrmacher
…und die bürgerliche Klarsicht des Dramatikers Strauß
http://www.freie-waehler-frankfurt.de/artikel/index.php?id=157

Der rechte Abschied von der Politik
http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/ausland/amerika/Der-rechte-Abschied-von-der-Politik/story/22710602

LobbyControl. Initiative für Transparenz und Demokratie
http://www.lobbycontrol.de/blog/

Magistrat erhöht Limit
Streit um Darmstadts Schulden
http://www.hr-online.de/website/rubriken/nachrichten/indexhessen34938.jsp?rubrik=36098&key=standard_document_42289405

Der ideelle Schatten der Krise
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M5f2db01b426.0.html

(richtiger Kommentar…)
Wulffs Schelte an Politik
Kommentar: Präsidiale Luftnummer
http://www.op-online.de/nachrichten/politik/kommentar-praesidiale-luftnummer-1375357.html#

"...auch wenn es uns schmerzt."
BDI-Präsident Hans-Peter Keitel nennt den Preis für die Euro-Rettung
http://www.freie-waehler-frankfurt.de/artikel/index.php?id=159

Wowereit: Großes Verständnis für Papst-Proteste
http://www.morgenpost.de/printarchiv/titelseite/article1745295/Wowereit-Grosses-Verstaendnis-fuer-Papst-Proteste.html

Verquere Sprachpolitik im Ländle
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M5a7b705ec09.0.html

Stasi-Geschichte
Tausende West-Spione der DDR unentdeckt
http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/stasi-geschichte-tausende-west-spione-der-ddr-unentdeckt_aid_653060.html

Bild verkauft DDR-Nationaltrikots
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M50ff97f844a.0.html

Schwedische Königin Silvia
Nazi-Vergangenheit des Vaters widerlegt?
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/leben/schwedische-koenigin-silvia-nazi-vergangenheit-des-vaters-widerlegt-1.1129865

Rudolf Hess – ein Nachtrag
http://www.sezession.de/27335/rudolf-hess-ein-nachtrag.html#more-27335

(Auweia, soviel Dummheit tut schon weh…)
Skandal bei Kanu-WM! Nazi-Hymne für deutsches Sieger-Duo
http://www.bild.de/sport/mehr-sport/kanurennsport/nazi-hymne-bei-wm-siegerehrung-19492860.bild.html

Kanu-WM: Bei Siegesfeier ertönte plötzlich Nazi-Hymne
http://www.tt.com/csp/cms/sites/tt/%C3%9Cberblick/Sport%C3%BCberblick/Sport%C3%BCberblickContainer/3241093-8/kanu-wm-bei-siegesfeier-ert%C3%B6nte-pl%C3%B6tzlich-nazi-hymne.csp

Skandal um Nazi-Hymne bei Kanu-EM
Bei der Siegerehrung ertönte die seit der NS-Zeit in Deutschland geächtete erste Strophe des Deutschlandlieds.
http://kurier.at/sport/sportmix/4144195.php

(Jetzt wird der Run auf Billy-Regale erst richtig losgehen…)
Ikea
Dunkle Nazi-Vergangenheit des reichsten Schweden
http://de.finance.yahoo.com/nachrichten/Dunkle-Nazi-Vergangenheit-yahoofinanzen-1357646171.html

Der wahnsinnige Sklave – Teil I
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M59040361d7b.0.html

LINKE / KAMPF GEGEN RECHTS / ANTIFASCHISMUS

Mathias Brodkorb
Wo der rechte Rand verläuft
http://www.freitag.de/kultur/1130-medientagebuch

(Straßenbenennung nach Kommunisten in Berlin)
Freiwillig von West nach Ost
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M546e09b020c.0.html

(Zu „Antifa“-Mordaufrufen)
Quod erat demonstrandum
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M5cc50cdbb53.0.html

(Säure-Angriff)
„Demokratische“ Gewalt
„Kampf gegen Rechts“ wird immer krimineller!
http://www.npd-mv.de/index.php?com=news&view=article&id=2439&mid=7

(Eine Geschmacklosigkeit jagt die andere…)
Wahlkampf in Berlin
Jörg Haider im Kampf gegen die NPD
"Die Partei" überklebt Plakate der Rechtextremisten
http://derstandard.at/1313024746816/Wahlkampf-in-Berlin-Joerg-Haider-im-Kampf-gegen-die-NPD

Jungsozialist ruft zum Massenmord auf
http://www.pi-news.net/2011/08/jungsozialist-ruft-zum-massenmord-auf/#more-207872

Wieder brennende Autos in Berlin
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M58f828b3a3f.0.html

Berlin und die brennenden Autos: „Unsere Ehre heißt Feigheit“
http://www.sezession.de/27506/berlin-und-die-brennenden-autos-unsere-ehre-heist-feigheit.html#more-27506

Linksradikale Szene nimmt Berliner Politiker ins Visier
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M55013a4691c.0.html

Linksextremist attackiert Berliner Pro Deutschland-Chef
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M519302ac9b7.0.html

Brutaler Angriff auf Raimund Borrmann
http://www.mupinfo.de/?p=12828

Linke Gewalt wird totgeschwiegen
http://www.pi-news.net/2011/08/linke-gewalt-wird-totgeschwiegen/#more-204833

Nazis im Briefkasten
Ungewöhnliche Post: Die Antifa outet mit Flyern rechte Aktivisten - deren Nachbarn im Nord- und Ostend sowie in Bornheim sind überrascht.
http://www.fr-online.de/frankfurt/nazis-im-briefkasten/-/1472798/9679714/-/index.html

Nordrhein-Westfalen gründet Beratungsnetzwerk für Opfer rechtsextremer Gewalt
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M565350798a0.0.html

Prominente fordern Distanzierung von "Junger Welt"
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M584809cfc9d.0.html

Linken-Chef Ernst gibt CSU Schuld für Angriffe auf Parteibüros
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M5ba9d610023.0.html

Polizei durchsucht Räume von Jenaer Jugendpfarrer
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M54d1dd89c43.0.html

Linksextreme Internetseite ruft zum Mord an Polizisten auf
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M59409f2dfb0.0.html

Altermedia unter neuer Adresse
http://altermedia-deutschland.info/

Rechtsextremismus
Prüfstelle setzt Zeitschrift „Bock“ auf den Index
http://www.haz.de/Hannover/Aus-der-Stadt/Uebersicht/Pruefstelle-setzt-Zeitschrift-Bock-auf-den-Index

Am Pranger der Islamkritiker
Die Suche nach den Machern der rechtsextremen Internet-Seite "Nürnberg 2.0"
http://www.dradio.de/dlf/sendungen/dlfmagazin/1521383/

Islam-Kritiker betreiben Internet-Pranger
Unworte und Untaten
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/medien/islam-kritiker-betreiben-internet-pranger-unworte-und-untaten-1.1126349

Kult der Beliebigkeit
Teil 1: Grauzonen und rechte Lebenswelten in Punk und Oi
http://aib.nadir.org/index.php/archiv/59-kult-der-beliebigkeit-91

Kontroverse Blutachse
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M5146ba5f947.0.html

Linke Aggregatszustände (1): „Die Linke“ stumpf mit dem Kopf gegen die Wand der eigenen Schwächen
http://www.sezession.de/26342/linke-aggregatszustande-1-die-linke-stumpf-mit-dem-kopf-gegen-die-wand-der-eigenen-schwachen.html#more-26342

Linke Aggregatszustände (2): Pathologisch im Laufrad der NS-Geschichte
http://www.sezession.de/27134/linke-aggregatszustande-2-pathologisch-im-laufrad-der-ns-geschichte.html

Linke Aggregatszustände (3): Restbestände alter Analysefähigkeit
http://www.sezession.de/27220/linke-aggregatszustande-3-restbestande-alter-analysefahigkeit.html

EINWANDERUNG / MULTIKULTURELLE GESELLSCHAFT

Aufruhr in Tottenham, Nordlondon
http://www.pi-news.net/2011/08/aufruhr-in-tottenham-nordlondon/#more-205132

Tottenham und die Angst der Medien
http://www.sezession.de/26287/tottenham-und-die-angst-der-medien.html

(Eines der herrlichsten Zitate zu den Ausschreitungen war in diesem vielfach gedruckten dpa-Text von Michael Donhauser zu finden: „Die Bereitschaft, die Grenzen des Gesetzes zu überschreiten, scheint in den sozialen Brennpunkten stark ausgeprägt.“…)
Banden ließen Ruinen zurück
http://www.salzburg.com/online/nachrichten/newsletter/Banden-liessen-Ruinen-zurueck.html?article=eGMmOI8Vgjajhw1LDUly4fDZpmUm8F6fiZ5KgE7&img=&text=&mode=

Wer so alles krude ist …
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M524c457f24c.0.html

Schluß mit dem Geplärre!
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M57a38c5e869.0.html

Zweite Krawallnacht in London
Randale breiten sich aus
http://www.n-tv.de/mediathek/videos/politik/Randale-breiten-sich-aus-article3999501.html

Cameron droht mit harten Strafen
Toter bei Krawallen in London
http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Toter-bei-Krawallen-in-London-article4005781.html

Chaos in London
http://www.spiegel.de/video/video-1142507.html

Amateuraufnahmen zeigen Krawalle in London
http://www.welt.de/videos/panorama/article13534745/Amateuraufnahmen-zeigen-Krawalle-in-London.html#autoplay

London ist das Fukushima der Grünen
Dramatische Warnzeichen aus der „Vielfalt“-Gesellschaft
http://www.freie-waehler-frankfurt.de/artikel/index.php?id=145

Cameron will „moralischen Kollaps“ bekämpfen
http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/gesellschaft-cameron-will-moralischen-kollaps-bekaempfen_aid_655557.html

Britische Randalierer sollen Schäden selbst reparieren
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iVwINLb55sFNdRDkzTK6qiZh8JJw?docId=CNG.44ac13390f8c236c35d1544318f6c74a.1b1

Britische Randalierer
Das System in der Gangsta-Falle
http://www.faz.net/artikel/C30351/britische-randalierer-das-system-in-der-gangsta-falle-30487404.html

Wissenschaftler warnt vor ethnischen Unruhen in Deutschland
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M55aa240c4b8.0.html

Deutscheopfer.de – Der Verbrechens-Report und die islamische Paralleljustiz
http://www.sezession.de/27621/deutscheopfer-de-der-verbrechens-report-und-die-islamische-paralleljustiz.html

Ein Jahr nach Sarrazin – neue Studie des IfS
http://www.sezession.de/27577/ein-jahr-nach-sarrazin-neue-studie-des-ifs.html#more-27577

Ausstellung im MfK Frankfurt
Sarrazin im Fettnapf
http://www.hr-online.de/website/rubriken/kultur/index.jsp?rubrik=5986&key=standard_document_42304189&tl=rs

Von Sarrazin bis Guttenberg: Gewinner-Karikaturen
http://www.rp-online.de/kultur/Von-Sarrazin-bis-Guttenberg-Gewinner-Karikaturen_bid_66912.html

Böhmer erneuert Kritik an Sarrazin
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M5f0a5df5ca6.0.html

Die Feinde der Integration
Über die Stadtsoziologie an der Frankfurter Universität
http://www.freie-waehler-frankfurt.de/artikel/index.php?id=149

Alte Menschen, weniger Geburten
Super, Deutschland schafft sich ab!
Kolumne von Deniz Yücel
http://www.taz.de/!75707/

Der lustige Yücel
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M53ff82156f1.0.html

Die "Deutschen" mit An- und Abführungszeichen
Grüne DeutschlandhasserInnen
http://www.freie-waehler-frankfurt.de/artikel/index.php?id=158

Gemeine Integrationsministerin
„Je mehr Türken wir im Lande haben, desto mehr Unruhe haben wir.“
http://www.migazin.de/2011/08/23/bilkay-oeney-je-mehr-tuerken-wir-im-lande-haben-desto-mehr-unruhe-haben-wir/

(Wenn Vielfalt zur Einfalt wird…)
Berliner Wahlkampf in Kreuzberg
„Vier türkischstämmige Kandidaten für Marzahn!“
http://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article13545333/Vier-tuerkischstaemmige-Kandidaten-fuer-Marzahn.html

Türkischstämmiger Grünen-Politiker in Rangelei verwickelt
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M50941050834.0.html

Islamisten-Partei macht Stimmung gegen Schwule und Lesben
http://www.haolam.de/index.php?site=artikeldetail&id=6180

"Nein zu Sarrazin!"
Multikulturelle Partei kämpft gegen Migranten-Stigma
http://www.welt.de/regionales/berlin/article13549458/Multikulturelle-Partei-kaempft-gegen-Migranten-Stigma.html

Zigeuner fordern preiswerten Wohnraum
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M553974ed4c3.0.html

Fibelkinder gestern und heute
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M5afcb480036.0.html

Beschimpfungen und Gewalt
So chaotisch geht es an deutschen Schulen zu
http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article13437242/So-chaotisch-geht-es-an-deutschen-Schulen-zu.html

Die Hölle im Hamsterrad oder Brandbriefe aus Berlin
http://www.sezession.de/27587/die-holle-im-hamsterrad-oder-brandbriefe-aus-berlin.html#more-27587

(da müssen eben Vitamintabletten künftig durch HartzIV übernommen werden…)
Neue Studie
Verschleierung soll Vitamin-D-Mangel befördern
http://www.welt.de/gesundheit/article13558163/Verschleierung-soll-Vitamin-D-Mangel-befoerdern.html

Deutsche in Wedding
Zu Hause geblieben und fremd geworden
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/zu-hause-geblieben-und-fremd-geworden/4504750.html

Ein bißchen fremd im eigenen Land, ein bißchen Vorbürgerkrieg und ein „Haus Sarrazin“
http://www.sezession.de/27379/ein-bischen-fremd-im-eigenen-land-ein-bischen-vorburgerkrieg-und-ein-haus-sarrazin.html

No-Go-Areas in deutschen Stadtvierteln
http://www.pi-news.net/2011/08/no-go-areas-in-deutschen-stadtvierteln/#more-204982

Bad Kreuznach
Jahrmarkt nach Bombendrohung evakuiert
http://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/bad-kreuznach-jahrmarkt-nach-bombendrohung-evakuiert_aid_657390.html

Südländer prügeln Familienvater krankenhausreif
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M5911e5a07f0.0.html

Frankfurt-Ginnheim
Brutaler Überfall auf Rentnerin
http://www.op-online.de/nachrichten/frankfurt-rhein-main/brutaler-ueberfall-rentnerin-1362933.html

KULTUR / UMWELT / ZEITGEIST / SONSTIGES

Stadtplanung Berlin
Neumann verteidigt steigende Kosten für Stadtschloss
http://www.morgenpost.de/printarchiv/berlin/article1739713/Neumann-verteidigt-steigende-Kosten-fuer-Stadtschloss.html

Wenn deutsche Häuser könnten, würden sie flüchten
http://www.welt.de/debatte/kolumnen/Maxeiner-und-Miersch/article13525922/Wenn-deutsche-Haeuser-koennten-wuerden-sie-fluechten.html

Erst denken, dann dämmen
Symposium in Potsdam zur energetischen Gebäudesanierung
http://www.baunetz.de/meldungen/Meldungen-Symposium_in_Potsdam_zur_energetischen_Gebaeudesanierung_2300211.html

Lex Eigennutz
Schleswig-Holstein schafft den Denkmalschutz ab
http://www.baunetz.de/meldungen/Meldungen-Schleswig-Holstein_schafft_den_Denkmalschutz_ab_2141011.html

(Deutscher Denkmalschutz mal wieder gegen historisch angepasstes Bauen…)
Papenburger will investieren
Millionenobjekt droht an Optik zu scheitern
http://www.noz.de/lokales/56794960/millionenobjekt-droht-an-optik-zu-scheitern

Suburbia ohne Sub
Die meisten Menschen haben keineswegs das Bedürfnis nach Peripherie oder Suburbia. Was heißt das für die Stadt? Prognosen und Gebote für eine ­urbane Architektur
http://www.freitag.de/kultur/1131-suburbia-ohne-sub

(Eine deutsche Kirche, von der orthodoxen Kirche übernommen. Die evangel. Kirche durfte sie nicht bekommen. Das Ende der Fresken ...)
Kirche Domnau, Ostpreußen
http://neskromnii.livejournal.com/61471.html

Mitten in Deutschland
Der letzte Wirt
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/0,1518,778536,00.html

Wie die Marburger Altstadt (beinahe) abgerissen wurde
http://www.suite101.de/content/wie-die-marburger-altstadt-beinahe-abgerissen-wurde-a98627

Traditionalismus als kulturelle Prägung?
http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/33/33685/1.html

(Der Pinkelpolizistin-Jungkünstler bei seinem nächsten „Streich“…)
Grober Unfug und ganz viel Dummheit – Kunststudent demoliert Goldenen Reiter
http://www.dnn-online.de/dresden/web/dresden-nachrichten/detail/-/specific/Grober-Unfug-und-ganz-viel-Dummheit-Kunststudent-demoliert-Goldenen-Reiter-1617838083
Bekannter Künstler entzahnte Löwen
http://www.sz-online.de/nachrichten/artikel.asp?id=2832685

"Vom Aussteigen und Ankommen": Ideen vom alternativen Leben
http://www.stern.de/kultur/buecher/vom-aussteigen-und-ankommen-ideen-vom-alternativen-leben-1704011.html

Frank Ochmann
Verführt - Verwirrt - Für dumm verkauft
Wie wir Tag für Tag manipuliert werden und was wir dagegen tun können
http://www.randomhouse.de/book/edition.jsp?edi=360906

Aufstand der Videospieler
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M58171fc0c28.0.html

Unser täglich Talk: Plasberg räumt Mittwochsendeplatz für Jauch
Worte satt: Die ARD sendet von Ende August an fünf Talks die Woche. Inhaltliche Bereicherung oder Einheitsbrei? Nun hat sich der ehemalige Chef des Adolf-Grimme-Instituts, Bernd Gäbler, in einer kritischen 149-Seiten-Analyse zu Wort gemeldet.
http://www.stern.de/kultur/tv/unser-taeglich-talk-plasberg-raeumt-mittwochsendeplatz-fuer-jauch-1716948.html

30 Jahre Chaos Computer Club
Mit dem Hacken davongekommen
http://einestages.spiegel.de/static/topicalbumbackground/23185/mit_dem_hacken_davongekommen.html

Medien im digitalen Zeitalter
Journalismus extralang
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/medien/medien-im-digitalen-zeitalter-journalismus-extralang-1.1135014

Zu viele Facebook-Anmeldungen
CDU sagt Sommerfest ab
http://www.fr-online.de/rhein-main/cdu-sagt-sommerfest-ab/-/1472796/9554144/-/

Das Symbol des Bösen
Die Bekenntnisse des Massenmörders Charles Manson triefen vor Selbstmitleid und Selbstgerechtigkeit. Mehr Licht in die Motive und Hintergründe der Untaten bringen sie jedoch nicht
http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/35/35265/1.html

Abholzung im Amazonas-Gebiet
Regenwald stirbt schneller
http://www.n-tv.de/panorama/Regenwald-stirbt-schneller-article4013761.html

Anekdoten eines Vermieters
http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M58bc0a69174.0.html

Michael Klonovsky: „Der Held. Ein Nachruf“
http://www.sezession.de/27642/michael-klonovsky-der-held-ein-nachruf.html#more-27642

Die barbarische Moderne
Wie auf dem iPad der zivilisatorische Film rückwärts läuft
http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/35/35387/1.html

Stuckrad Late Night - Bushido liest Sarrazin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LYwFvU9DTQ

Helge Schneider als Karl Marx
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HH3OYlFoWQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mchm3o8KKe4

Sonnenkind (Liedermacher)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAna0ihXqYE&feature=related
--

vendredi, 02 septembre 2011

Aux sources de l'islamisme allemand contemporain

Wolfgang KAUFMANN:

Aux sources de l’islamisme allemand contemporain

 

L’islamisme allemand contemporain trouve ses racines chez les volontaires musulmans levés contre l’URSS de Staline

 

Depuis un discours controversé du Président fédéral Wulff, on discute de plus en plus intensément en Allemagne pour savoir si l’islam est propre à ce pays ou non. Les débatteurs ne sont à l’unisson que sur un point: l’islam est désormais présent en terre germanique. La même remarque vaut pour l’islamisme. Ce qui conduit tout naturellement à la question: comment l’islamisme est-il arrivé en Allemagne?

 

Vu l’immigration de plusieurs millions de Turcs musulmans, on peut supposer que l’islamisme présent aujourd’hui en terre allemande provient de cette vague migratoire. Toutefois, on doit bien constater que l’infiltration initiale d’un islamisme en Allemagne n’est pas un effet de l’immigration, après 1945, de travailleurs de confession musulmane. Deux livres publiés récemment le démontrent:

Stefan MEINING,

Eine Moschee in Deutschland. Nazis, Geheimdienste und der Aufstieg des politischen Islam im Westen, Verlag C. H. Beck, München, 2011, 316 pages, 19,95 euro.

 

&

 

Ian JOHNSON,

Die vierte Moschee. Nazis, CIA und der islamische Fundamentalismus, Verlag Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart, 2011, 360 pages, 22,95 euro.

 

Ces deux livres sont parus quasi simultanément, leurs titres se ressemblent fort et leurs couvertures également: ce qui pourrait faire penser à une action concertée. Cependant, à la lecture, on s’aperçoit quand même qu’il s’agit d’un hasard.

 

Les deux ouvrages décrivent le même phénomène. Stefan Meining, rédacteur du magazine politque “Report München”, dépendant de l’ARD, se concentre sur la responsabilité des services allemands dans l’émergence de l’islamisme, tandis que Ian Johnson, Prix Pulitzer, met surtout l’accent sur celle des services secrets américains. La lecture de ces deux ouvrages nous donne une belle image d’ensemble et nous permet de constater, en plus, que l’islamophilie peut prendre de multiples visages. La direction nationale-socialiste —rien moins!— fut la première a faire venir délibérément en Allemagne des représentants de la haute hiérarchie de l’islam politique, à commencer par Hadj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti de Jérusalem et chef religieux de la communauté musulmane de Palestine. Le motif de cette démarche se trouve dans la ferme résolution de Hitler lui-même, de son Ministre des affaires de l’Est Alfred Rosenberg, ainsi que des chefs de la Wehrmacht et de la Waffen-SS, d’utiliser et d’engager l’islam comme arme secrète contre l’URSS. Dans le cadre de cette politique, plusieurs centaines de milliers de musulmans du Caucase et d’Asie centrale ont été, jusqu’en 1945, enrôlés dans des unités de volontaires comme la “Division SS musulmane Nouveau Turkestan”. Ces unités avaient tout naturellement beoin d’un accompagnement politique et religieux.

 

La plupart de ces légionnaires musulmans, qui ont eu la chance, après la défaite de l’Allemagne, de ne pas avoir été rapatriés de force et d’avoir ainsi échapper à la mort par fusillade, se sont installés à Munich et ses environs. Parmi eux: quelques imams qui avaient auparavant servi dans les unités de la Wehrmacht ou de la Waffen-SS. Trois cents de ces “oubliés” fondèrent en 1953 la “Religiöse Gemeinschaft Islam” (“Communauté religieuse islamique”). Dès ce moment, le jeu a repris car le gouvernement fédéral allemand avait, lui aussi, l’intention d’utiliser à son profit les émigrants de confession musulmane. L’acteur principal de cette politique, côté allemand, fut le “Ministère fédéral des expulsés, réfugiés et victimes de la guerre”. A cette époque-là, ce ministère était placé sous la houlette de Theodor Oberländer (membre du parti “Gesamtdeutscher Block”/”Bund der Heimatvertriebenen und Entrechten” – “Bloc pour toute l’Allemagne”/”Ligue des Expulsés et Spoliés”). Pendant la guerre, Oberländer avait été le commandeur d’une unité spéciale de la Wehrmacht, la “Bergmann”, au sein de laquelle servaient d’assez nombreux volontaires musulmans venus du Caucase. L’objectif d’Oberländer était d’utiliser la “Religiöse Gemeinschaft Islam” pour faire éclater l’Union Soviétique en provoquant une révolte généralisée des peuples non russes, ce qui aurait entraîné, comme effet second, la réunification de l’Allemagne dans les frontières de 1937. C’est la raison pour laquelle, par l’entremise d’Oberländer, l’association musulmane de Munich a reçu le soutien financier du gouvernement fédéral allemand.

 

L’islam politique a été une arme pendant la Guerre Froide

 

Parallèlement aux tentatives ouest-allemandes d’enrôler l’association musulmane de Bavière, la CIA, et son organisation satellite, l’AMCOMLIB (“American Committee for Liberation from Bolshevism”) commencent, elles aussi, à s’intéresser aux exilés ex-soviétiques et musulmans de Munich et de sa grande banlieue. Or les Américains paient beaucoup mieux que les Allemands: les membres de la “Communauté Religieuse Musulmane”, fixés à Munich, vont progressivement se faire recruter pour agir dans le cadre de la guerre psychologique menée par les Etats-Unis. Ils vont commencer par une collaboration au micro de “Radio Liberty” où ils vitupèreront contre la politique soviétique à l’égard des nationalités et de la religion islamique. L’islam politique allemand s’est donc transformé en un instrument américain dans la Guerre Froide, chargé de “tordre le cou” au communisme athée, avec, pour corollaire, d’amener à une révision générale des conséquences de la seconde guerre mondiale.

 

Les ex-légionnaires anti-soviétiques, qui se laisseront embrigader dans les services allemands ou américains, ne se présenteront pas, à l’époque, comme des fondamentalistes musulmans, à l’instar de ceux que nous connaissons aujourd’hui: ces anciens soldats de la Wehrmacht ou de la Waffen-SS s’étaient assimilés au mode de vie allemand; ils aimaient boire de l’alcool et se livrer à de joyeuses libations; leurs femmes et leurs filles ignoraient délibérément les prescriptions vestimentaires islamiques; toutes les autres consignes religieuses n’étaient pas davantage prises au pied de la lettre. Chose curieuse et digne d’être rappelée: c’est justement cette liberté par rapport aux prescrits rigoureux de la religion musulmane qui va provoquer une mutation décisive de la situation. Elle a eu lieu à l’occasion de la première “conférence islamique d’Allemagne”, tenue le 26 décembre 1958 dans la salle paroissiale catholique Saint-Paul à Munich.

 

Lors de cette manifestation, pour la première fois, des étudiants très croyants et très rigoristes, venus des pays arabes, rencontrent les émigrés issus des régions islamisées de l’URSS. Au départ, il n’y a pas de confrontation directe entre les deux groupes: tous s’accordent pour que soit réalisé un premier objectif, celui de construire un lieu central de prière à Munich. Pour y parvenir, ils créent au début du mois de mars de l’année 1960, une “Commission pour la Construction de la Mosquée”. Le directeur de cette commission, que les participants ont élu, n’était pas un ancien légionnaire issu du Turkestan ou du Caucase mais l’Egyptien Said Ramadan, figure de proue du mouvement des “Frères musulmans” qui était aussi, à l’époque, secrétaire général du “Congrès islamique mondial”. La raison principale qui a justifié l’élection de Said Ramadan fut qu’on espérait qu’il ramènerait des subsides en provenance des pays arabes pour la construction de l’édifice religieux. C’est ce qu’il fit. Mais, simultanément, il entama une campagne de dénigrement des anciens légionnaires des armées allemandes, parce que leur mode de vie n’était plus “pur”, ce qui conduisit à leur marginalisation totale.

 

Au bout de ce processus d’éviction, qui se situe en mars 1962, les protagonistes arabes d’une interprétation pseudo-traditionaliste et rigide de l’islam ont pris le contrôle de la Commission, qui, quelques mois plus tard, allait se dénommer “Islamische Gemeinschaft in Süddeutschland” (“Communauté Islamique d’Allemagne du Sud”). Depuis le 4 décembre 1982, elle s’appelle, en bout de course, “Islamische Gemeinschaft in Deutschland”. Depuis lors, l’organisation établie à Munich a servi de plaque tournante à un réseau islamiste qui n’a cessé de croître à la manière d’un rhizome sur tout le territoire de la République fédérale, sans que les autorités allemandes ne s’en alarment outre mesure.

 

Celles-ci n’ont montré de l’intérêt pour ce réseau qu’à partir du 11 septembre 2001, lorsque le troisième président en fonction, le Syrien Ghaleb Himmat, fut soupçonné de terrorisme: d’après les renseignements fournis par le “Financial Crimes Enforcement Network”, une instance dépendant du Ministère américain des finances, il aurait fonctionné comme fournisseur de fonds pour al-Qaïda.

 

Wolfgang KAUFMANN.

(article paru dans “Junge Freiheit”, Berlin, n°35/2011; http://www.jungefreiheit.de ).

 

jeudi, 01 septembre 2011

Boreas Rising

amazone 01.jpg

Boreas Rising:
White Nationalism & the Geopolitics of the Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis, Part 1

By Michael O'MEARA

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/ 

 “History is again on the move.”
—Arnold Toynbee

For a half-century, we nationalists stood with the “West” in its struggle against the Asiatic Marxism of the Soviet bloc. There was little problem then distinguishing between our friends and our foes, for all evil was situated in the collectivist East and all virtue in the liberal West.

Today, things are much less clear. Not only has the Second American War on Iraq revealed a profound geopolitical divide within the West, the social-political order associated with it now subverts our patrimony in ways no apparatchik ever imagined. Indeed, it seems hardly exaggerated to claim that Western elites (those who Samuel Huntington calls the “dead souls”)[1] have come to pose the single greatest threat to our people’s existence.

For some, this threat was discovered only after 1989. Yet as early as the late forties, a handful of white nationalists, mainly in Europe, but with the American Francis Parker Yockey at their head, realized that Washington’s postwar order, not the Soviet Union, represented the greater danger to the white biosphere.[2] Over the years, particularly since the fall of Communism, this realization has spread, so that a large part of Europe’s nationalist vanguard no longer supports the West, only Europe, and considers the West’s leader its chief enemy.[3]

For these nationalists, the United States is a kind of anti-Europe, hostile not only to its motherland, but to its own white population. The Managerial Revolution of the thirties, Jewish influence in the media and the academy, the rise of the national security state and the military-industrial complex have all had a hand in fostering this anti-Europeanism, but for our transatlantic cousins its roots reach back to the start of our national epic. America’s Calvinist settlers, they point out, saw themselves as latter-day Israelites, who fled Egypt (Europe) for the Promised Land. Their shining city on the hill, founded on Old Testament, not Old World, antecedents, was to serve as a beacon to the rest of humanity. America began—and thus became itself—by casting off its European heritage. The result was a belief that America was a virtuous land, dedicated to liberty and equality, while Europe was mired in vice, corruption, and tyranny. Then, in the eighteenth century, this anti-Europeanism took political form, as the generation of 1776 fashioned a new state based on Lockean/Enlightenment principles, which were grafted onto the earlier Calvinist ones. As these liberal modernist principles came to fruition in the twentieth century, once the Christian, Classical vestiges of the country’s “Anglo-Protestant core” were shed, they helped legitimate the missionary cosmopolitanism of its corporate, one-world elites, and, worse, those extracultural, anti-organic, and hedonistic influences hostile to the European soul of the country’s white population.[4]

This European nationalist view of our origins ought to trouble white nationalists committed to a preserving America’s European character, for, however slanted, it contains a not insignificant kernel of truth. My intent here is not to revisit this interpretation of our history, but to look at a development that puts it in a different racial perspective. So as not to wander too far afield, let me simply posit (rather than prove) that the de-Europeanizing forces assailing America’s white population are only superficially rooted in the Puritan heritage. The Low Church fanatics who abandoned their English motherland and inclined America to a biblical enterprise, despite their intent, could not escape their racial nature, which influenced virtually every facet of early American life. Indeed, the paradox of America is that it began not simply as a rejection but also as a projection of Europe. Thus, beyond their ambivalent relationship to Europe, Americans (until relatively recently) never had any doubt that their race and High Culture were European. As such, they showed all the defining characteristics of the white race, taming the North American continent with little more than rifles slung across their backs, and doing so in the European spirit of self-help, self-reliance, and fearlessness. As Francis Parker Yockey writes: “America belongs spiritually, and will always belong to the [European] civilization of which it is a colonial transplantation, and no part of the true America belongs to the primitivity of the barbarians and fellaheen outside of this civilization.”[5]

As long, then, as Americans were of Anglo-Celtic (or European) stock, with racially conscious standards, their Calvinist or liberal ideology remained of secondary importance. Our present malaise, I would argue, stems less from these ideological influences (however retarding) than from a more recent development—the Second World War—whose world-transforming effects were responsible for distorting and inverting our already tenuous relationship to Europe. For once our motherland was conquered and occupied (what the apologists of the present regime ironically refer to as its “liberation”) and once the new postwar system of transnational capital was put in place, a New Class of powers with a vested interest in de-Europeanizing America’s white population was allowed to assume command of American life. The result is the present multiracial system, whose inversion of the natural order negates the primacy of our origins and promises our extinction as a race and a culture. The only possibility of escaping its annihilating fate would seem, then, to be another revolutionary transformation of the world order—one that would throw the existing order into crisis and pose an alternative model of white existence. The “Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis” formed during the recent Iraq war, I believe, holds out such a possibility.

Genesis of an Axis

As part of its Mobiles Géopolitique series, the Franco-Swiss publisher L’Age d’Homme announced in April 2002 the release of Paris-Berlin-Moscou: La voie de l’indépendance et de la paix (Paris-Berlin-Moscow: The Way of Peace and Independence). Authored by Henri de Grossouvre, the youngest son of a prominent Socialist party politician, and prefaced by General Pierre Marie Gallois, France’s premier geostrategic thinker, Paris-Berlin-Moscou argued that Europe would never regain its sovereignty unless it threw off American suzerainty and did so in alliance with Russia.

In recommending a strategic alliance between France, Germany, and Russia for the sake of a Eurasian federation stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, Grossouvre’s thesis seemed entirely utopian. For although the prospect of such an alliance had long animated the imagination of revolutionary nationalists, it seemed more fantasy than possibility, even when proposed by a well-connected and reputable member of the governing elites. Fantasy, however, rather unexpectedly took hold of the international arena. Within months of the book’s publication, its thesis assumed a life of its own, as the new Likudized administration in Washington started beating the drums for another war on Iraq.

The axis and the war it sought to avoid will be looked at in the following sections. Here, a few words on Grossouvre’s book are in order, for, besides being one of those novel cases where life seemed to imitate art, it stirred the European public, was extensively reviewed, led to the organization of several international conferences attended by diplomats, military leaders, and parliamentarians, and culminated in a website with over two thousand pages of documentation.[6] Its effect on the European—especially on the anti-liberal—spirit has been profound. If the axis it proposes is stabilized as an enduring feature of the international order (and much favors that), a realignment as significant as 1945 could follow.

Paris-Berlin-Moscou begins by acknowledging the common values linking America and Europe, the so-called Atlantic community, as well as the US role in guaranteeing European security during the Cold War. On both these counts, the author’s establishment ties are evident, for no anti-liberal views the Atlantic relationship in quite such uncritical terms. Nevertheless, in arguing that these two factors no longer justify Europe’s dependence on the United States, he breaks with the prevailing system (or at least what was the prevailing system) of strategic thought.

In Grossouvre’s view, Europe’s geopolitical relationship to the United States was fundamentally altered between 1989 and 1991, when Eastern Europe threw off its Soviet yoke, Germany reunified, and Russia called off the Communist experiment begun in 1917. Then, as Europe’s strategic dependence on the US came to an end, so too did its heteronomy.[7] Moreover, it is only a matter of time, Grossouvre predicts, before Russia recovers, China develops, and US power is again challenged. In the meantime, US efforts to perpetuate its supremacy, defend its neo-liberal system of global market relations, and stifle potential threats to its dominance are transforming it into a force of international instability. But even if this were not the case, Grossouvre contends that Europeans would still need to separate themselves from America’s New World Order (NWO), for their independence as a people is neither a luxury nor a vanity, but requisite to their survival.[8] For as Carl Schmitt contends, it is only in politically asserting itself that a people truly exists—conscious of its place in history, oriented to the future, and secure in its identity.[9]

Europe’s ascent—and here Grossouvre most distinguishes himself from the reigning consensus—will owe little to the European Union (EU). Although its GNP is now approaching that of the US; its share of world imports and exports is larger; its manufacturing capacity and productivity are greater; its population is larger, more skilled, and better educated; its currency, the euro, sounder; and its indebtedness qualitatively lower, the EU does not serve Europe in any civilizational sense.[10] Its huge unwieldy bureaucracy serves only Mammon, which means it lacks a meaningful political identity and hence the means to play an international role commensurate with its immense economic power. It indeed caricatures the “European idea,” representing a technocratic economism without roots and without memory, focused on market exchanges and financial orthodoxies that are closer in spirit to America’s neo-liberal model than to anything native to Europe’s own tradition. (As one French rightist argues, “Every time the technocrats in Brussels speak, they profane the idea of Europe.”)[11] The EU’s growth has, in fact, gone hand in hand with the weakening of its various member states—and the corresponding failure to replace them with a continental or federal alternative.[12] Given its current enlargement to twenty-five members, political unity has become an even more remote prospect, particularly in that many of the new East European members lack any sense of the European idea.

A strong centralized state, however, is key to Europe’s future. Since the Second World War, power is necessarily continental: Only a Großraum (large space), a geopolitically unified realm animated by a “distinct political idea,” has a role to play in today’s world.[13] Yet even with the dissolution of the East-West bloc, a continental state is not likely to emerge from the EU’s expanding market system. If earlier state-building is any guide (think of Garibaldi’s Italy, Kara-George’s Serbia, Pearse’s Ireland, or Washington’s America), political unification requires a vision, a mobilizing project, emanating from a history of blood and struggle. As Jean Thiriart writes: “One does not create a nation with speeches, pious talk, and banquets. One creates a nation with rifles, martyrs, jointly lived dangers.”[14] For Grossouvre, this mobilizing vision is De Gaulle’s Grande Europe: a political-civilizational Großraum pivoted on a Franco-German confederation (encompassing Charlemagne’s Francs de l’Ouest et Francs de l’Est), allied with Russia, and forged in opposition to the modern Carthage.

The three great continental peoples, he believes, constitute the potential “core” around which a politically federated Europe will coalesce. Like De Gaulle, who refused to accept his country’s defeat in 1940 and who fought all the rest of his life against the conquerors of 1945, Grossouvre views the entwined cultures of the French, Germans, and Russians as fundamentally different from les Anglo-Saxons (the English and the Americans), whose thalassocratic, Low Church, and market-based order favors a rootless, economic definition of national life. Accordingly, for most of her history, with the tragic exception of the 1870–1940 period, France’s great enemy was “perfidious Albion,” not Germany.[15] Then, after 1945, this larger historical relationship was resumed, as numerous cooperative ventures succeeded in blunting nationalist antagonisms—to the point that war between them is now inconceivable.[16] Finally, in 1963, when De Gaulle and Konrad Adenauer signed the Treaty of Elysée, their reconciliation was formalized on the basis of an institutionalized system of social, economic, and political collaborations. Their supranational commitment to Europe has since had a powerful synergetic effect, influencing virtually every significant measure undertaken in the name of continental unity. The complementary nature of these closely related peoples has, in fact, triumphed over the political disunity that came with the Treaty of Verdun (843).[17] While a confederation between France and Germany is probably still on the distant horizon, the history of the last 60 years suggests that their national projects are converging.[18] Until then, they are likely to continue to speak with a single voice, for France and Germany are more than two states among the EU’s twenty-five. In addition to being the crucible of European civilization, their combined populations (142 million), their economic power (41 per cent of the EU), and, above all, their capacity to transcend national interests make them special—the nucleus, the motor, the vanguard of a potentially united Europe. Whatever political organization the EU eventually achieves will undoubtedly be one of their doing.

A somewhat different convergence is also under way in the East. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and Germany’s ensuing reunification shifted Europe’s center of gravity eastward. The EU’s enlargement to Eastern Europe this year moved it even farther in this direction. The consolidation of Europe’s eastward expansion hinges, though, on Russia, whose white, Christian people, as the historian Dieter Groh argues, represents one of the great primeval stirrings of the European conscience.[19] (It was the Roman Catholic Church, in its schism with Orthodox Christianity in 1054, not Russia’s history, culture, or racial disposition that kept it from being recognized as a European nation.) France has ancient ties with Russia and today shares many of the same geopolitical interests. But it is Germany that is now most involved in Russian life. She is Russia’s chief trading partner, her banks are the chief source of Russian investment capital, and her 1800 implanted entrepreneurs the leading edge of Russian economic development.[20] Thanks to these ties, along with bimonthly meetings between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Germany’s Gerhard Schröder, Russia is presently engaged in numerous joint ventures with the EU. Together, they have put seven communications satellites into orbit, developed a global positioning system (Galileo) to rival the American one (GPS), signed numerous agreements in the field of aerospace research, given one another consultative voice in the other’s military operations, upgraded and expanded the roads, canals, and railways linking them, brokered a series of deals related to gas and energy, and established an elaborate system of cultural exchanges. Visa-free travel between Russia and the EU is expected by 2007. And though Russia is too big to be integrated into the EU, she is nevertheless developing relations with it that portend ones of even greater strategic significance.

Russia also sees its future in Europe. Since the collapse of Communism and the imposition of what critical observers characterize as a “Second Treaty of Versailles,” it has been on life-support.[21] The economy is in shambles, the state discredited, society afflicted with various pathologies, and its former empire shattered. The appointment of Vladimir Putin in 1999 and his subsequent election as president in 2000 and again in 2004 represent a potential turnaround (even if he is not the ideal person to lead Russia). Full recovery is probably still far off, but it has begun and Europe—its capital, markets, and expertise—is necessary to it. Putin also believes Europe’s growing estrangement from America’s unilateral model of hegemony will eventually lead it into a collective security pact with Russia.[22] Having distanced himself from the pro-American regime of the corrupt Yeltsin, whose liberal market policies were an excuse to plunder the accumulated wealth of the Russian people, and having had his various efforts at rapprochement rebuffed by the Bush administration (which continues to encroach on Russia’s historical spheres of interest), this Deutsche im Kreml now looks to exploit his German connections to gain a wedge in European affairs.[23]

His Eurocentric policies are already assuming strategic form, for Russia’s vast oil reserves have the potential of satisfying all of Europe’s energy needs. (As russophobes say, Russia will build her hegemony in Europe with pipelines.) To consolidate these emerging East-West exchanges, Russia has recently received a €400 million grant to modernize its institutional, legal, and administration apparatus to accord with the EU’s. At the same time, tariffs on Russian imports have been slashed (50 percent of Russian exports now go to the EU) and the EU is sponsoring Russia’s admission to the World Trade Organization. Putin’s arrest of the oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, one of the principal proponents of US-style “casino capitalism,” and the seizure of his massive Yukos oil concern, the resignation of the last Yeltsin holdovers, especially Alexander Voloshin; and an ongoing series of internal reforms, however incomplete, represent further steps toward a restoration of Russian state power.[24] Finally, Russia possesses the military capacity, even in its debilitated state, to guarantee Europe’s security, for in a period when America’s “new liberal imperialism” runs roughshod over European concerns, threatening endless conflicts detrimental to their interests, Russia suddenly becomes a credible defense alternative.[25]

Grossouvre concludes that an axis based on France’s political leadership, Germany’s world class economy, and Russia’s military might represent the potential nucleus of a future Eurasian state. Five distinct advantages, he argues, would follow from such a rapprochement: It would guarantee Europe’s independence from America, correct certain imbalances in the globalization process, enhance the EU’s security, solve its energy needs, and complement the different qualities of its allied members. If such an axis draws the chief continental powers into a more enduring alliance, it will inevitably reshape the international order, making the white men of the North—the Boreans—the single most formidable force in the world.[26] It should come as no surprise, then, that Grossouvre’s most strident critics are to be found in those former left-wing Jewish ranks (as represented by Bernard-Henri Lévy, André Gluckmann, Alain Finkielkraut, etc.), who, like our home-grown neocons, champion the raceless, deculturated policies of Washington’s New World Order.

Notes

1. Samuel P. Huntington, Who Are We? The Challenge to America’s National Identity (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004), pp. 264ff.

2. Francis Parker Yockey, The Enemy of Europe (Reedy, W.V,: Liberty Bell Publications, 1981). In this same period, a related argument can be found in the works of Maurice Bardèche, Julius Evola, Otto Strasser, and, later, Jean Thiriart.

3. For example: Claudio Finzi, “‘Europe’ et ‘Occident’: Deux concepts antagonistes,” Vouloir (May 1994); Guillaume Faye, Le système à tuer les peuples (Paris: Copernic, 1981).

4. For example, Robert de Herte (Alain de Benoist) et Hans-Jürgen Nigra (Giorgio Locchi), “Il était une fois l’Amérique,” Nouvelle Ecole 27–28 (Fall 1975); Robert Steuckers, “La menace culturelle américaine” (January 16, 1990), http://foster.20megsfree.com [2]; Reinhard Oberlercher, “Wesen und Verfall Amerikas” (n.d.), http://www.deutsches-kolleg.org [3]

5. Francis Parker Yockey, “The Destiny of America” (1955), http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/06/the-destiny-of-america/ [4]

7. Emmanuel Todd, Après l’empire: Essai sur la décomposition du système américain (Paris: Gallimard, 2002); Charles A. Kupchan, The End of the American Era: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the 21st Century (New York: Knopf, 2002).

8 Henri de Grossouvre, Paris-Berlin-Moscou: La voie de l’indépendence et de la paix (Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme, 2002), p. 47.

9 Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, tr. by G. Schwab (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 53.

10 Robert Went, “Globalization: Can Europe Make a Difference?,” EAEPE 2003 conference paper, http://eaepe.infomics.nl/papers/Went.pdf [6]

11. Louis Vinteuil, “Discours sur l’Europe” (July 20, 2004), http://www.voxnr.com

12. Pierre-Marie Gallois, Le consentement fatal: L’Europe face aux Etats-Unis (Paris: Seuil, 2001).

13. In 1943, at the height of the Second World War, Pierre Drieu La Rochelle wrote: “The national era has come to an end and an age of [continental] empires is dawning.” See Révolution Nationale: Articles 1943–44 (Paris: L’Homme Libre, 2004), p. 7. Theoretically, the notion of a European Großraum was worked out in Carl Schmitt, Der Nomos der Erde im Völkerrecht des Jus Publicum Europaeum (Cologne: Greven Verlag, 1950); its most impressive programmatic formulation is Jean Thiriart, Un empire de 400 millions d’hommes: L’Europe (Brussels, 1964).

14. Jean Thiriart, For the European Nation-State (Paraparaumu, NZ: Renaissance Press Pamphlet,  n.d.).

15. Pauline Schnapper, La Grande Bretagne et l’Europe: Le grand malentendu (Paris: Eds. Presses de Sciences Po, 2000); Christian Schubert, Grossbritannien: Insel zwischen den Welten (Munich: Olzog, 2004).

16. Brigitte Sauzay, “L’Allemagne et la France: Quel avenir pour la coopération?” (n.d.), http://geogate.geographie.uni-marburg.de [7]

17. This treaty divided Charlemagne’s empire, separating the Germanic tribes of the West from those of the East. In one respect, the fratricidal history of nineteenth and twentieth century nationalism was a history of this separation.

18. Blanine Milcent, “La ‘Françallemagne’ attendra,” L’Express, December 11, 2003.

19. Dieter Groh, Russland und das Selbstverständis Europas (Neuwied: Luchterhand Verlag, 1961). Also see Georges Nivat, Russie-Europe: La fin du schisme (Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme, 1993); Andreas-Renatus Hartmann, “Die neue Nachbarschaftspolitik der Europäischen Union” (April 16, 2004), http://www.boschlektoren.de [8]

20. Klaus Thörner, “Das deutsche Spiel mit Russland” (February 2003), http://www.diploweb.com

21. Nikolai von Kreitor, “Russia and the New World Order” (1996). Published years before the Iraq war, Kreitor’s article is perhaps the single most important analysis to have been made of the international situation leading up to the war. My views here are much indebted to it.

22. Wladimir Putin, “Russland glaubt an die große Zukunft der Partnerschaft mit Deutschland,” Die Zeit (April 10, 2002).

23. Alexander Rahr, “Ist Putin der ‘Deutsche’ im Kreml?” (September 2002), http://www.weltpolitik.com [9]

24. Jacques Sapir, “Russia, Yukos, and the Elections” (February 2004), worldoil.com ; “Poutine restaure l’Etat: Un entretien avec Jacques Sapir,” Politis 774 (November 6, 2002); Wolfgang Strauss, “Putin oder Chodorkowski: 14. März, eine Niederlage Amerikas” (March 29, 2004), http://staatsbriefe.de [10]

25. One sign of this capacity is the fact that in 2003, Russia became the world’s number one arms exporter. See P. Schleiter, “Defense, securité, relations internationales” (April 25, 2004), http://www.polemia.com [11]; also Yevgeny Bendersky, “Keep a Watchful Eye on Russia’s Military Technology” (July 21, 2004), http://www.pinr.com [12]

26. The notion of a possible northern imperium of white men is taken from Guillaume Faye, Le coup d’Etat mondial: Essai sur le Nouvel Impérialisme Américain (Paris: L’Æncre, 2004), pp. 183ff. On the myth of the Boreans (or Hyperboreans), see Jean Mabire, Thulé: Le soleil retrouvé des hyperboréens (Lyon: Irminsul, n.d.).

Boreas Rising:
White Nationalism & the Geopolitics of the Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis, Part 2

A Defensive Alignment

The Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis arose in reaction to the Second American War on Iraq. It needs thus to be understood in the context of that war, which the Bush administration treated as the second phase of its war on terror, the first being the invasion of Afghanistan and the assault on the Taliban regime harboring bin Laden’s al-Qa’ida (both of which, incidentally, were, via the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI, made in the USA).[1] However much it resembled the Anglo-Afghan and Russo-Afghan wars of the nineteenth century, the American assault on Afghanistan did not provoke the kind of opposition that Iraq would, for there was still enormous sympathy for the US after “9/11.” “Victory,” moreover, came quickly, as it had for all former conquerors. The Taliban were chased from Kabul and the warring tribes associated with the US-supported Northern Alliance, which did most of the fighting on the ground, soon gained control of the countryside. While Afghanistan has since reverted to a pre-state form of regional, tribal rule (ideal for narco-terrorists) and most al-Qa’ida fighters succeeded in dispersing, the Bush administration was nevertheless able to broadcast publicly satisfying TV images of swift, forceful action.[2]

Buoyed up by the nearly effortless rout of the medieval Taliban, Bush adopted the policies recommended by his neoconservative advisers,[3] whose neo-Jacobin assertion of American power not only has nothing to do with fighting Islamic terrorism, but cloaks a Judeo-liberal vision of global domination which threatens to turn the entire Middle East into something akin to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. Key to their vision is Iraq, whose threat to Israel has been repackaged by such Jewish propaganda mills as the Project for the New American Century as a threat to US security. Besides promoting a peculiar blend of liberal statist and Zionist strategic concerns that represents a turn (not a break) in US foreign policy, the Krauthammers, Wolfowitzes, and other sickly neocon types advising the administration seek to “Sharonize” Washington’s strategic culture. To this end, military force is designated the option of choice, and a moralistic Manichaeanism which pits the US and Israel against the world’s alleged evils is used to legitimate the most dishonorable policies.[4] As the former wastrel of the Bush dynasty signed on to this Likud-inspired agenda, he began making a case for extending his antiterror crusade to Mesopotamia. Iraq’s “Hitler-like tyrant,” he claimed, had links with al-Qa’ida and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capable of reaching the United States.

While America’s TV-besotted masses had little difficulty swallowing his unsubstantiated argument, the rest of the world balked.[5] At this point in early 2002, the two shores of the Atlantic began pulling apart. German chancellor Gerhard Schröder was the first major European figure to oppose Bush’s war plans. He was soon joined by French president Jacques Chirac. In July 2002 they issued a joint declaration formally rejecting the US proposal, stating that the UN’s embargo and its inspectors were doing their job and that the proposed attack would only distract from the “real war on terror.” By September, Russia (whose economic situation required the good graces of Washington) hinted that it too would veto a UN resolution sanctioning war. Then, on February 10, 2003, Putin joined Chirac and Schröder in issuing a declaration condemning what one senior US intelligence officer later called “an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat.”[6]

The Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis thus originated as a temporary coalition organized around a single point of agreement. Convinced that Bush had failed to make his case for war, the French, Germans, and Russians thought the evidence for al-Qa’ida links and WMD was unconvincing (we know now, by the government’s own admissions, that it was a tissue of lies, distortions, and manipulations).[7] Their coalition was nevertheless more than a response to a momentary disturbance in the world system. As one high-level Russian analyst characterized it, the coalition was a “rebellion against a unilateral America unwilling to accommodate European interests.”[8] As such, it announced a possible geopolitical power shift from the Atlantic to Eurasia.

Globalism at Gunpoint

Since the Cold War’s end, international relations have undergone changes as fundamental as those following the world-historical realignment of 1945.[9] The neoconservatives influencing Bush, in their preemptive crusade for what is tendentiously labeled “global democracy,” have been anxious to take advantage of these “shifting tectonic plates in international politics . . . before they harden again.”[10] As Robert Kagan and William Kristol, two of the chief neocon publicists, argue: There is a danger today that an unassertive US will lose control of the world order it created in 1945. Beginning with the fall of the Soviet Union, when the field was cleared of possible rivals, they believe the US should have consolidated its “benevolent hegemony,” turning the unipolar moment into the unipolar era. Instead, George I and Clinton allegedly failed to exploit the moment, further ensnaring the US in multilateral relations that compromised its power and interests.[11]

Against this trend, the Bush administration has carried out what some characterize as a “revolution in foreign policy.” Without abandoning Washington’s objective of developing a global market system based on American-style liberal-democratic principles, it now employs hegemonist methods, codified in the new Bush Doctrine, that change the way the US asserts its power abroad.[12] In this vein, the administration dismisses international laws and institutions, as it asseverates America’s unilateral right to alter the world system however it wishes, including attacking and overthrowing states deemed a threat to its security. Traditional strategies of deterrence and containment have consequently been supplanted by a proactive policy of prevention and preemption, just as ad hoc coalitions are given precedence over established alliances and collective security arrangements, regime change over negotiations with “failed” states, and ideological goals over previous notions of the national interest.[13]

The entire tenor of American power has thus altered, but against those who claim Bush has abandoned the core assumptions of the liberal internationalist tradition, the conservative Andrew J. Bacevich points out that his foreign policy innovations are largely methodological in character. For the past half century, no matter which party occupied the White House, US policy has pursued a single overarching goal: “global openness”—as in Hay’s “Open Door” imperialism—which promotes the movement of goods, peoples, and fashions into and out of world markets for the sake of US capitalist concerns.[14] Moreover, in assuming responsibility for this integrated international trading system—this “empire”—the US wins the right not only “to sell Big Macs and Disney products round the world,” but to govern the system itself.

While Bacevich’s argument is an excellent foil to those seeking to portray Bush as a revolutionary—somehow different from the Democrats who have manipulated the United States into most of the 20th century wars and played a leading role in semantically transforming “democracy” and “human rights” into the totalitarian double-speak of the NWO—Bacevich nevertheless ignores the different ways in which the two parties implement their liberal internationalist principles. Republicans, especially since Reagan, are inclined to see the growth of US national power as the precondition for sustaining their imperial system, while Democrats look to the universalization and institutionalization of their liberal principles. This disposes Republicans to a unipolar model of liberal internationalism based on military supremacy, unlike Democrats, who favor a world-government model emphasizing the economic facets of globalization and the need for international regulation. (Lately, though, the Democratic world-government types, if such influential liberal internationalists as those associated with Richard Haas of the Council on Foreign Relations and Helmut Sonnenfeldt of the Brookings Institution are any guide, seem increasingly disposed to the unipolar model; John Kerry’s neocon cloning of Bush’s foreign policy also suggests a shift toward the Republican vision.) But whether pursued by Republicans or Democrats, this liberal internationalist agenda, with its emphasis on the antitraditional and anti-Aryan forces of free trade, free markets, and open societies, has been a bane to white people everywhere—for it wars against “the fundamental value of blood and race as creators of true civilization.”[15]

In pressing into areas which were off-limits during the Cold War, Washington’s imperial market system has become increasingly aggressive. Under Clinton, the Weinberger/Powell Doctrine of avoiding military engagements unless absolutely necessary was discarded, as the “unipolar moment” ushered in by the Soviet collapse was treated as a blank check for “intervening practically wherever and whenever it chose.” In this spirit, Clinton’s Secretary of State contemplated invading Iraq and disparaged the principle of national sovereignty. Her distinction between war and the use of military force has since reoriented US policy, as military interventions overseas cease being labeled wars and become armed forms of “humanitarianism.”[16] Finally, the Clinton Doctrine of Enlargement, in championing the worldwide spread of US-style democracy and free markets (that is, the globalist assault on national identity and national institutions), privileged unilateralism (rechristened “assertive multilateralism”) over containment and disarmament.[17]

Although he avoided Bush’s swaggering brand of leadership, Clinton was only slightly less coercive in promoting the totalitarian ideology of openness.[18] It is hardly irrelevant that Iraq was bombed nearly every day of his administration, that Bosnia was turned into a US military protectorate, and that unilateral military action, in one of the great “war crimes” of the 20th century, was taken against Serbia. Though smaller in scale than Operation Iraqi Freedom, the terrorist air assault on this proud little country (whose historical role was the defense of the white borderlands) aimed at “spreading democracy” for the sake of openness. Symptomatic of the “openness” Washington favors, the Albanian Liberation Front (UCK), an Islamic, drug-smuggling, terrorist mafia with links to al-Qa’ida, was armed and trained by Clinton’s government and a quarter million Christian Serbs, whose nationalist aspirations represented an affront to the New World Order, were ethnically cleansed from Kosovo.[19] These interventions by the Clintonistas also played a leading role in destabilizing the international state system, giving rise to new stateless groups whose megaterrorism is historically unprecedented. The horror of 9/11 and the unfathomable massacre of Russian children at Beslan, not to mention numerous lesser affronts to our humanity, have roots in Clinton’s Yugoslavian intervention. Bush has simply accelerated this process, which is nourishing new, more nihilistic forms of terrorism.[20]

Although he came into office complaining of Clinton’s immodest foreign policy, Bush II has actually gone further, introducing methods which removed the existing restraints on Washington’s use of military force and whatever reservation it might have in violating national sovereignty.[21] Like Clinton, he is a man beholden to alien and dishonorable interests, and inspired by a juvenile notion of power. His “faith-based foreign policy,” like the alley-cat policies of his predecessor, privileges the liberalization of global trade relations, imposes the cosmopolitan imperatives of his corporate supporters on virtually every issue pertinent to the nation’s biocultural welfare, rejects the American tradition of “isolationism,” and runs roughshod over whoever resists an order hostile to ethnocultural particularisms (unless they take innocuous folkloric forms). He might differ with Clinton in favoring a missile defense system, a different approach to China, and a Likudnik rather than a Laborite Zionism, but he is no less committed to a global system of market democracies “open to trade and investment, and policed by the United States.” As one Marxist puts it: “Playboy Clinton, Cowboy Bush, same policy.”[22] With his “Judeo-Protestant” rhetoric of American exceptionalism and his willingness to remove the velvet glove from America’s mailed fist, Bush’s “jackbooted Wilsonianism” differs from that of his predecessor mainly in linking economic globalization to “military modernization.”

As the neoconservatives Thomas Barnett and Henry Gaffney argue, the Bush Doctrine ought to be viewed as a necessary complement to the globalizing process. They claim that before 9/11 globalization (which much of the world identifies with Americanization) was mainly economic, thought best left to business. The collapse of the Twin Towers has since (allegedly) triggered a more serious reflection on America’s role as globalism’s “system administrator.” In their view, bin Laden’s al-Qa’ida, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and all the “rogue states”—Bush’s “axis of evil”—act as “dangerous disconnects” from a world based on interdependence and a single framework of economic governance. (Although they refrain from taking their argument to its logical conclusion, globalization here is inadvertently revealed as the harbinger of global terror.)[23] Faced with these threats to its one-world system, the market not only needs to be policed, the US has a responsibility to maintain its harmonious functioning. Bush’s unilateralist use of force, in applying military power whenever violent “disconnects” interrupt the international flow of labor, raw materials, and energy, Barnett and Gaffney argue, aims at ensuring the security and operability of the globalizing process.[24] But what they do not mention is that once economic globalization is joined with “military globalization,” the globalizing process is not so much ensured as altered, becoming less a neutral extension of economic trends (not that it ever was simply that) and more a classic expression of imperial power. In Iraq, for instance, the American army had no sooner occupied Baghdad than its neoconservative viceroy, Paul Bremer, began to dismantle the Iraqi state, privatize the economy, open the borders to unrestricted imports (unless they came from France or Germany), and, within two weeks of his arrival, had declared that Iraq was “now open for business.”[25]

September 11, then, did not change the long-range goal of US foreign policy (global openness), only the way in which it was pursued. The restraints on military force, already compromised under Clinton, were formally thrown off and a proactive doctrine of preemption superseded the more reactive methods of containment and disarmament. At the same time, Clinton’s human rights rhetoric and “humanitarian” militarism were jettisoned for the bellicose language of “strategic vital interests” and “imperial responsibilities.” It would be misleading, however, to think the transatlantic rift was due solely to Bush’s militaristic assertion of US global interests. Long before 9/11, real policy differences had begun to emerge: over trade; agriculture; armament exports; relations with Cuba, Iran, and Korea; the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; the Echelon economic espionage system monitoring European faxes, e-mails, and phone calls; the Kyoto Protocol; globalization; the abrogation of the ABM treaty; the euro and the dollar, etc. All these differences, in one way or another, reflected Europe’s unwillingness to remain a pawn on Washington’s global chessboard.[26] In the year leading up to Iraq, as Europe sought to check Bush’s unilateralist moves, the transatlantic relationship went into crisis, forcing France and Germany to assert their autonomy sooner than they might otherwise have intended.[27]

Notes

 

1. Alexandre del Valle, Islamisme et Etats-Unis: Une alliance contre l’Europe (Laussanne: L’Age d’Homme, 1999).

2. Justin Raimondo, “Afghanistan: The Forgotten War” (June 21, 2004), http://antiwar.com; Elaine Sciolino, “NATO Chief Offers Bleak Analysis,” New York Times, July 3, 2004.

3. Louis R. Browning, “Bioculture: A New Perspective for the Evolution of Western Populations,” The Occidental Quarterly 4(1) (Spring 2004).

4. There is still no satisfactory treatment of neocon foreign policy. One of the better recent ones, although highly flawed, especially in ignoring its Jewish roots, is Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: Neo-Conservativism and the Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). On neoconservatism’s racial basis, see Kevin MacDonald, “Understanding Jewish Influence III: Neoconservatism As a Jewish Movement,” The Occidental Quarterly 4(2) (Summer 2004). The previous, and in many ways, still existing strategic basis of U.S. policy is perhaps best represented by Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (New York: Basic Books, 1997). On the larger historical contours of U.S. foreign policy, see Walter A. McDougall, Promised Land, Crusader State: The American Encounter with the World since 1776 (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1997).

5. John Le Carré, “The United States Has Gone Completely Mad,” London Times, January 15, 2003. With some irony, one Russian general, Leonid Ivashov, characterized the U.S. media coverage of the war debate (and not simply that of Fox News) as something one might expect in a “police state.” See Johannes Voswinkel, “Schmallippig im Kreml,” Die Zeit (15/2003). For one of the more interesting critiques of the controlled media’s role in mobilizing the population behind Bush’s crusade, see David Miller, “Caught in the Matrix” (April 26, 2004), http://www.scoop.co.nz [2]

6. The anonymous author of Imperial Hubris (2004), quoted in Julian Borgen, “Bush Told He Is Playing into Bin Laden’s Hands,” The Guardian, June 19, 2004.

7. Andrew Buncombe, “Carter Savages Bush and Blair,” The Independent, March 27, 2004; David Corn, The Lies of George W. Bush (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2004); F.-B. Huyghe, “Pour en finir avec les ADM” (February 2004), http://vigirak.com [3]; the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “WMD in Iraq” (January 2004), http://www.ceip.org [4]

8. Viatcheslav Dachitchev, “La Turkie doit-elle faire partie de l’Europe?” (July 8, 2004), http://www.voxnr.com [5]

9. Gabriel Kolko, “The U.S. Must Be Contained: The Coming Elections and the Future of American Global Power” (March 12, 2004), http://www.counterpunch.org [6]; Robert L. Hutchins, “The World after Iraq” (April 8, 2003), http://www.cia.gov

10. Norm Dixon, “What’s behind War on Terrorism? (September 2002), www.globalresearch.ca [7]

11. Robert Kagan and William Kristol, “The Present Danger,” The National Interest 59 (Spring 2000).

12. The Bush Doctrine was elaborated in three key documents, which can be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov [8].  They are: “Presidential Speech of 17 September 2001,” “President Bush Delivers Graduation Speech at West Point” (June 1, 2002), “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America” (September 2002).

13. François Géré, “La nouvelle stratégie des Etats-Unis” (May 2002), http://www.diploweb.com [9]; Ivo H. Daalder and John M. Lindsay, America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2003), p. 13; Chalmers Johnson, “Sorrows of Empire” (November 2003), http://www.fpif.org [10]

14. Andrew J. Bacevich, American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002).

15. Julius Evola, Three Aspects of the Jewish Problem (N.P.: Thomkins & Cariou, 2003), p. 36.

16. Thomas W. Lippman, Madeleine Albright and the New American Diplomacy (Boulder: Westview Press, 2004). In his treatment of the subject, James Mann suggests (correctly, in my view) that the move to military assertiveness begins, haphazardly, with George I. See Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet (New York: Viking, 2004), pp. 179–97.

17. Phillipe Grasset, “Finalement, Clinton sera-t-il réélu?” (June 25, 2004), http://www.dedefensa.org [11]

18. Nikolai von Kreitor, “American Political Theology” (n.d.), http://foster.20megsfree.com [12]; Mann, Rise of the Vulcans, pp. 214–15.

19. Michael A. Weinstein, “Containment or Concessions: The Eclipse of Regime Change” (June 28, 2004), http://www.yellowtimes.org [13]; Hunt Tooley, “The Bipartisan War Machine” (September 17, 2003), http://www.mises.org [14]; Pierre M. Gallois, La sang du pêtrole: Bosnie (Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme, 1996).

20. Brendan O’Neill, “Beslan: The Real International Connection” (8 September 2004), http://www.spiked-online.com [15]; David Halberstam, War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton and the Generals (New York: Scribner, 2001).

21. Bacevich, American Empire, p. 199; Daalder and Lindsay, America Unbound, pp. 36–40.

22. Samir Amin, “Le contrôle militaire de la planète” (February 17, 2003), http://www.alternatives.ca [16]

23. “Globalization inevitably generates global terror. For if the U.S. claims the entire planet as its sphere of vital interests, then all the territory of the U.S. becomes a possible sphere of vital interests for global terrorists.” See Alexander Dugin, “Premiers signes de l’apocalypse” (October 18, 2004), http://www.voxnr.com [17]

24. Thomas Barnett and Henry Gaffney, “Operation Iraqi Freedom Could Be the First Step toward a Larger Goal: True Globalization,” Military Officer 1(5) (May 2003); also Thomas Barnett, The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the 21st Century (New York: Putnam, 2004). Cf. Alain Joxe, “Les enjeux stratégiques globaux après la guerre d’Iraq” (May 27, 2003), http:www.ehess.fr [17]

25. Naomi Klein, “Baghdad Year Zero: Pillaging Iraq in Pursuit of a Neocon Utopia,” Harper’s Bazaar (September 2004).

26. Charles A. Kupchan, “The End of the West,” The Atlantic Monthly (November 2002).

27. Europe’s growing alienation from the U.S. is thus not just about the latter’s unilateralist bullying. In addition to the above cited issues, it also touches on the drug-running, mafia, terrorist, and espionage networks that the U.S. operates in Europe. For example, see Rémi Kaufer, L’arme de la désinformation: Les multinationales américains en guerre contre l’Europe (Paris: Grasset, 1999); Xavier Rauffer, Le grand réveil des mafias (Paris: Lattés, 2003); Karl Richter, Tödliche Bedrohung USA: Waffen und Szenarien der globalen Herrschaft (Tübingen: Hohenrain Verlag, 2004); Alexander del Valle, Guerres contre l’Europe (Paris: Syrtes, 2001); Robert Steuckers, “Espionage par satellites, guerre cognitive, manipulation par les mafias” (November 2003), http://www.centrostudaruna.it; Thierry Meyssen, “Propagande états-unien” (January 2, 2003), http://www.reseauvoltaire.net [18]

Boreas Rising:
White Nationalism & the Geopolitics of the Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis, Part 3

A Promising Rapprochement

In the last instance, the US-European rift of 2002–2003 followed from the Cold War’s end, which destroyed the rationale for the transatlantic alliance and hence the restraints on European autonomy. For without the Red Army on the Elbe, Europe was no longer obliged to take orders from the West Wing. Because NATO has outlived its usefulness and Bush’s unipolar security system made no accommodation to Europe’s post-Cold War status, the more self-confident Europeans have begun to distance themselves from Washington.

However headline-capturing, their modest assertion of autonomy has nevertheless been carried out in ways that are thoroughly inadequate to Europe’s independence, based as they are on principles of jurisprudence and ethics, rather than on more consequential forms of power. In Robert Kagan’s now famous characterization, Europeans are from Venus and Americans from Mars, with the former acting as if the world were governed by abstract Kantian principles, ignorant of or unwilling to acknowledge the violent Hobbesian reality which Americans, especially after 9/11, have been forced to confront.[1] In other words, Europeans look to negotiations, diplomacy, and international law to resolve international disputes, while Americans emphasize the importance of military force. These differing “perspectives and psychologies of power,” the anti-white Kagan suggests, explain something of what divides the two shores of the Atlantic.[2] But perhaps more debilitating than Europe’s “Kantianism” (which will not last) is the fact that its increasingly autonomous foreign policy is less an expression of its political identity (although it is that) than a symptom of its liberal evasion of what such an identity ought to entail.

In France, for instance, which is the sole continental country to have defended the European idea in the last half century, as well as maintained a nuclear arsenal and professional army worthy of a “power,” opposition to US unilateralism has been framed largely in liberal internationalist terms that draw attention away from the state’s failed domestic policies. Since De Gaulle’s death, France has been in decline. The population is aging, millions of inassimilable Muslim immigrants are colonizing its lands, and virtually all the major institutions are in need of reform. Having eyes only for the “poor immigrant,” the metastasizing state bureaucracy imposes unrealistic social laws that hamper production and serve as a force for national decline. At the same time, the historical sources of nationalism have been dissolved, the native French dispirited by the institutionalization of multiculturalism, and the country’s extraordinary military and diplomatic apparatus, the necessary basis of both French and European power, if not neglected, then underfunded.[3] The hoopla that comes with France’s resistance to Bush simply focuses attention away from these failures and toward geopolitical developments that are potentially key to Europe’s future, but whose import is limited by the state’s misconceived domestic policies. As Julius Evola puts it: “The measure of freedom is power.”[4] And because Europeans are now uncomfortable with the exercise of power, their freedom is necessarily limited.

It is worth recalling that Jacques Chirac was responsible for the totalitarian mobilization against the presidential candidacy of the nationalist Jean Marie Le Pen in 2002.[5] Like much of the European governing class, he is a product of the same plutocratic system that subordinates national interests to international finance, indifferent to everything associated with his people’s blood and soil.[6] Such a system, as our own experiences reveal, is incapable of producing anything other than mediocrities. In this spirit, Chirac’s opposition to Washington’s unipolar order orients to a multipolar model based on liberal market principles hostile to Europe’s unique bioculture. As Guillaume Faye points out, Chirac’s opposition to the Iraq war was motivated less by his Gaullist nationalism (which he routinely betrays) than by his pacifist and Third World politics.[7] With the 2007 presidential elections in view, his foreign policy seems, in fact, aimed at the new Muslim electorate, which thrives on his anti-American, Third World, and multilateralist posturing.[8]

Faye also claims that American power is ultimately a reflex of Europe’s refusal of power.[9] Like many commentators, he stresses that US power in this period is greatly exaggerated and goes unchecked mainly for want of challengers. Revealingly, Chirac has, for all his opposition to Bush, done little to rearm Europe and what he does do he does for the worst of reasons, neglecting Grande Europe in the name of a legalistic idealism that contradicts the biocultural foundations of European life. Rather than fixating on the illegalities and incivilities of American unilateralism (which has proven to be a paper tiger in Iraq), he and other establishment leaders would make a greater contribution to Europe’s destiny if they devoted more attention to its military, restored the basis of its national identity, and addressed the real dangers coming from the South. Worse, they wholeheartedly subscribe to the American model of ethnopluralism, communitarianism, and multiculturalism. Just as US leaders think nothing of sending troops halfway around the world to fight a war whose immediate beneficiary is Israel, ignoring the more serious security threat posed by the Third World’s incessant assaults on the country’s southern border, European elites (and the demonstrators massed behind them) trumpet their solidarity with the Islamic Middle East, whose immigrants are presently rending the fabric of European life. There are good reasons for opposing Bush’s war, but the liberal ones motivating Chirac cannot but come back to haunt the continent.

Germany’s relationship with the US is significantly different than France’s, but no less infused with noxious anti-identitarian influences. Germany was virtually remade by the Americans after 1945 and throughout the Cold War remained subservient to them. Yet Germany is slowly beginning to throw off her tutelage. Schröder nevertheless adheres to values and policies that qualify as examples of Kagan’s Kantianism (i.e., pure liberalism). More than Chirac, he upholds Washington’s earlier liberal internationalism, criticizing Bush for violating its principles.[10] (As one journalist for the Süddeutsche Zeitung writes: “We [Germans] owe a great debt to the US for contributing to our transformation into truly democratic citizens after World War II. . . . They [Americans] must forgive us if we have difficulty letting go some of the lessons we have learned.”)[11] It was thus his pacifism—his Social Democratic opposition to power per se—rather than any geopolitical ambition for a powerful Europe that seems to have prompted his opposition to the Iraq war.[12] And in this, alas, he resembles much of the German population, which prefers bourgeois comforts to those virtues that made earlier generations great. Finally, Schröder, like Chirac, supports Turkey’s admission to the EU and panders to the new “German Turk” electorate. He might therefore have been the first German chancellor since Hitler to frontally oppose Washington, but he has no intention of letting the old anti-liberal dream of white renaissance out of the bag.[13]

Despite the mediocre stature of these politicians, which makes them ill-suited to the great tasks at hand, I would argue that the “force of things”—the realities of power and the dictates of survival—is greater than those charged with carrying them out.[14] This seems especially evident in Europe’s rapprochement with Russia. For as France and Germany become increasingly alienated from the US, they lean eastward—even though French and German elites have much more in common with their American than their Russian counterparts.[15]

A rapprochement between the three great European peoples promises great things. As Karl Haushofer once said: “The day when Germans, Frenchmen, and Russians unite will be the last day of Anglo-Saxon [i.e., liberal] hegemony.”[16] Bush—and this is why his administration seems destined to achieve world-historical significance—has brought about what a century of US geostrategists have sought to prevent. Conversely, it is hardly coincidental that even at the Cold War’s height, a wing of the French military looked to Russia as a possible ally. In 1955, the prominent geostrategist, Admiral Raoul Castex, published an article titled “Moscou, rempart de l’Occident?” (Moscow, rampart of the West?), in which he wondered if Russia might not one day become “the vanguard of the white world’s defense.”[17] Today, in a period when Grande Europe—from Dublin to Vladivostok—is at peace, white nationalists in Europe and America again pose Castex’s question and again affirm the possibility that Russia has a leading role to play in the white race’s defense. Indeed, the question now possesses a qualitatively greater weight than it did a half century ago, before the Third World hordes, abetted by the West’s liberal elites, began their colonization of our lands. Russia, moreover, is not just the last white nation on earth, but the only one to have shown the slightest interest in defending its ethnoracial identity. (Our russophobic nationalists might be reminded that the former Soviet Union was the sole white power to define nationality racially.) Its heritage of nationalism, socialism, and anti-liberalism also lends it something of that “Prussian socialism” which Spengler and Yockey saw as the one viable antidote to Western liberalism.[18] In courting Russian support in their conflict with the US, French and German elites might think Putin will be converted to their misconceived Kantianism, but in the great racial-civilizational battles that lie ahead, it is far more likely that Russia’s ethnonationalism will prevail.[19]

America’s Future

Since the rise to world power of the United States, white America has been in decline. For most of the twentieth century, but especially since the end of the Second World War, the country’s overlords have taken one step after another to de-Europeanize its white population. To this end, white culture and identity have been socially re-engineered. White communities, schools, and businesses have been forced to integrate with races previously considered inferior and inimical. And, for the last 40 years, whites have been expected to replace themselves with Third World immigrants. As the biocultural identity of white Americans gives way to a universal, transnational, and global one (the ideological analogue of the New World Order), they are further alienated from who they are.[20] Against this de-Europeanization and the postnational, multiracial regime succeeding it, the small, isolated pockets of white resistance confront a seemingly impossible task—similar to the one King Canute faced when he tried to hold back the ocean tide. Because of this, I would argue that only a catastrophe will save white America. Only a catastrophic collapse of the political, institutional, and cultural systems associated with imperial America—call it the managerial state, liberal democracy, corporate capitalism, the NWO, or whatever label you prefer—holds out any possibility that a small, racially conscious vanguard of white Americans will succeed in defending their people’s existence.[21] With the Iraq war, Bush—”this Buster Keaton of the apocalypse”—has opened a Pandora’s box of catastrophes. He, in fact, has done more to discredit, weaken, and vilify the existing systems of liberal subversion than any previous president, inadvertently creating conditions that should give white Americans another chance to regain control of their destiny. In this spirit, his administration acts as “a lightning rod for catastrophes.”  As one foreign observer notes: “The paradox of the present situation is that the worse the crisis becomes, the more Washington reinforces the position that evokes so much resistance.”[22] Indeed, his “war on terror creates more monsters than its destroys.”[23] Lacking the cognitive and normative tools to deal with a complex area like the Mideast, the president ends up managing the Iraqi occupation “by the seat of his pants.”[24] And as he does, the real dangers threatening the country are totally ignored: the dangers posed by the mestizo and Asiatic colonization of our lands, the growth of US Muslim communities, the denationalization of the economy and the looming fiscal crisis of the state, the Zionist domination of the political and information systems, the replacement of truth with propaganda and disinformation, the deculturation and miscegenation of our people, and the unrelenting assault on everything associated with the “freedoms” he allegedly defends in Mesopotamia. Instead of inaugurating a new era of unchallenged American power and enhancing national security, Bush seems set on preparing their demise.[25] Since the murderous terror of 9/11, his administration has shattered the myth of American military omnipotence, tarnished the country’s moral authority, alienated its allies, squandered its once formidable diplomatic powers, created the basis of an anti-US realignment, and undermined America’s image not only as a force for democracy and order, but as a secure economic haven. This latter tendency is now causing overseas investors to think twice about sending their capital to the US, which, combined with the ballooning expenses of the Iraq war, is hastening the dollar’s decline and the country’s economic deterioration. But more than undermining American power and prestige, the Bush administration has discredited the liberal civilizational model associated with the United States, provoking, in the process, a worldwide revulsion against the “American way of life.”[26]

The simple-minded, dishonorable, and raceless character of Bush’s government—riddled with Israeli spies and unsavory influence peddlers and premised on the belief that truth is irrelevant to its political calculus—seems to epitomize nothing so much as the debilitated state of our governing classes and their inability to serve as a nation-bearing stratum. That for the first time in American history Europe is not the focus of US strategic thinking, but rather Israel, should say it all.[27] It would be misleading, though, to think the failures at the highest level of state are simply the result of an unusually incompetent administration or its alien controllers. For even the “opposition” party produces candidates who are but variants of the reigning mediocrity.[28] This suggests that the system itself is bankrupt. Not coincidentally, the telltale signs of blockage, symptomatic of regimes heading toward the abyss (or “staying the course,” as George II says), appear now with increased frequency. The great bard of our decline, H. Millard, likens America to a runaway train. “The Israel firsters, neurotics, low IQ PTA types, political opportunists, easily susceptible dupes, genocidal blenders, party loyalists, war profiteers, and opportunists of various stripes” who are at the controls either have no idea of what they are doing or an unwillingness to profess it publicly.[29]

Contrary to the pipedreams of both our conservatives and liberals, there will be no going back.[30] Like the Soviet Union in the 1980s, the US has become bogged down in a protracted war at the very moment its economy is in steep decline. The slash-and-burn policies Bush has introduced will also be extremely difficult to retract, no matter who captures the White House in 2008. But even if there were a desire to retract them, the means are lacking. For example, in 1956, when Dwight Eisenhower warned France and England not to retake the Suez Canal, after Egypt nationalized it, he was able to threaten the stability of their national currencies. Today, the dollar is itself threatened.[31] For all the fabled shock and awe of US power in this period, the country is qualitatively weaker than it was a generation ago, when it was able to rein in the largest European empires. This erosion of its economic, diplomatic, moral, and even military power, combined with the near universal opposition to its increasingly unilateral and militaristic foreign policy, cannot but provoke a geopolitical realignment. The prospect of the Iraq war spreading to Iran and elsewhere will simply compound these destabilizing forces.[32] Increased conflict abroad, growing dissent at home, and deep division within the government itself are also likely to foster decisional paralysis, further exacerbating the crisis.

But however this crisis plays out, America and Europe seem set on a collision course.[33] Already wary of Washington, France and Germany (along with Spain, Belgium, and Italy, once Berlusconi goes) will eventually have no choice but to reposition themselves in opposition to it, for their strategic imperatives are increasingly at odds. This is certain to trigger new conflicts and new alignments, compelling Europeans to reaffirm their sovereignty—and their distinct strategic identity. As they do, their cooperation is bound to deepen and their nationalist consciousness to grow. At the same time, certain mentalities will be forced to change and certain taboos to fall, including the postmodern ones that leave Europe powerless. The collapse of the Cold War alliance system also throws open the strategic-political parameters of the international arena. The future, as a consequence, now holds out several possible alternatives. The Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis may still lack credibility, but this is probably less important than the effect it has had—and will continue to have—on the European spirit. It thus promises a possible renewal. The big question is whether or not Europeans have the will and acumen to realize it.

Fundamental to virtually all schools of geopolitical thought is the notion that the augmentation of power in one part of the world inevitably comes at the expense of another part. If the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis continues to affect the continent and shift power out of the Atlanticist camp, this cannot but destabilize the United States, for without its omnipotent dollar and its domination of global markets, it will no longer be able to consume more than it produces, to live on credit, to afford the social-welfare measures that buy off the Africans and tame the Mexicans, to sustain the social-engineering schemes discriminating against the talents and energies of its white majority, to afford the police, the drugs, the TVs, and the computer toys that narcotize its cretinized masses. The institutionalization of such an axis is also likely to dislodge America’s dominant place in the world system, setting off economic disruptions that will make it impossible for whites to live in the old way, to lose themselves in vacuous material comforts, to accept the lies that fly in the face of reality. Once this point is reached, European-Americans will be forced to act like people elsewhere who are suddenly thrown into a do-or-die situation.[34]

Like the “American Century” Henry Luce announced in 1941, the “New American Century” of Washington’s current generation of schemers and chiselers promises an even greater holocaust of our people. The future they envisage might indeed be called the New Anti-White Century. For like the order issuing from their Second World War, the one planned for the period following Iraq will not serve white America, only the alien, plutocratic, and cosmopolitan interests aligned in the current Washington-London-Tel Aviv axis.

No one should be surprised, then, that when the inevitable collapse comes, white America’s front fighters will not mourn the eclipse of the so-called American Century, for they are nationalists not in the nineteenth century sense. They do not fight for the petty-statism of the so-called “nation-state”—which is now made up of peoples from many different nations. The American, German, and French states—none of these entities any longer represent the descendants of those who founded them. As Sam Francis puts it, “the state has become the enemy of the nation.”[35] And as a thousand years of European history demonstrate, whenever the state and the nation come into conflict, the latter inevitably proves the stronger. I think it is no exaggeration to claim that only on the ruins of the existing political order will white America be reborn—and reborn not as another constitutional “nation-state” which elevates abstract rights above biocultural imperatives, but as a northern imperium of white peoples who, as Bismarck exhorted, “think with their blood.”

Those who would dismiss the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis as a temporary happenstance, a product of convenience, inflated with purely speculative significance, should be reminded that the 21st century will decide if white people have a future or not. From this perspective, collapse and realignment are necessities—and necessities have a way of engendering the imagination appropriate to them. For when the world’s population reaches ten billion, when China, India, and all Asia challenge the white man’s dominance, when the colored multitudes crossing our borders are magnified by ten or a hundred, when oil is depleted and raw materials are used up, when all the forests have been cut down and all the cultivable lands claimed, and—hopefully—when the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis has established an alternative realm of white existence, the ensuing chaos cannot but sunder whatever misbegotten allegiance white Americans have had to the present system. Then, in alliance with their kinsmen in Europe and Russia, they—if they are to survive as a people—will have no choice but to accept that they are made not in the multihued images of a deracinated humanity, but in that of the luminous Boreans, whose destiny opposes the darkening forces of Bush’s America.

Let us prepare for the coming collapse.

Notes

1. Robert Kagan, Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order (New York: Knopf, 2003), p. 3. Actually, the unreferenced metaphor originates with Denis MacShane, “Europe and America Need Each Other More Than Ever,” http://www.post-gazette.com [2]

2. Kagan, Of Paradise and Power, p. 28.

3. Guillaume Faye, La colonisation de l’Europe: Discours vrai sur l’immigration et l’Islam (Paris: L’Æncre, 2000); Nicolas Baverez, La France qui tombe (Paris: Perrin, 2004).

4. Julius Evola, Imperialismo pagano: Il fascismo dinanzi al pericolo euro-cristiano (Padua: Ar, 1996), p. 45.

5. Yves Daoudal, Le tour infernal: 21 avril–5 mai (Paris: Godefroy de Bouillon, 2003).

6. Yves-Marie Laulan, Jacques Chirac et le déclin français 1974–2002 (Paris: François-Xavier de Guilbert, 2001); Emmanuel Ratier, Le vrai visage de Jacques Chirac (Paris: Facta, 1995).

7. Faye, Le coup d’Etat mondial, p. 113.

8. Omer Taspinar, “Europe’s Muslim Streets,” Foreign Policy (MarchApril 2003).

9. As Schröder says: “Es gibt nicht zu viel Amerika, es gibt zu wenig Europa.” See “Die Krise, die Europa eint: Ein Gespräch mit Gerhard Schröder,” Die Zeit (14/2003). Cf. Philippe Grasset, “Le dilemme stratégique des U.S.A: Sa faiblesse militaire” (June 15, 2004), http://www.dedefensa.org

10. Günter Maschke, “Vereinigte Staaten sind die Macht der Unordnung,” Deutsche Stimme (June 2003).

11. Quoted in Richard Lambert, “Misunderstanding Each Other,” Foreign Affairs (March–April 2003).

12. Alexander Rar, “Europa ist Zerspaltet” (December 15, 2003), http://evrazia.org [3]

13. Edouard Husson, “Crise allemande, crise européenne?” (March 2003), http://www.diploweb.com [4]

14. As Joseph de Maistre said of the revolutionaries of 1789: “Ce ne sont point les hommes qui mènent la révolution, c’est la révolution qui emploie les hommes.” See Considérations sur la France (Lyon: Vitte, 1924), p. 7.

15. Maja Heidenreich, “Europa und Russland: Eine rückblickende und analysierende Darstellung” (n.d.), http://www.boschlektoren.de/ [5]

16. Quoted in Sacha Papovic, “De la dialectique géopolitique” (August 2003), http://www.voxnr.com.

17. Cited in “Russie-France-Allemagne” ( n.d.), http://www.paris-berlin-moscou.org [6]

18. Oswald Spengler, Preussentum und Sozialismus (Munich: Beck, 1919); K. R. Bolton, ed., Varange: The Life and Thoughts of Francis Parker Yockey (Paraparaumu, NZ: Renaissance Press, 1998), pp. 36–38. Also N. N. Alexeiev, “Raisons spirituelles de la civilisation eurasiste” (1998), http://www.voxnr.com [7]

19. W. Joseph Stoupe, “The Inevitability of a Eurasian Alliance” (August 17, 2004), http://atimes.com [8]

20. James Kurth, “The War and the West,” Orbis (Spring 2002).

21. Guillaume Faye, Avant-Guerre: Chronique d’un cataclysme annoncé (Paris: L’Æncre, 2002).

22. Philippe Grasset, “Comment Rumsfeld devient le garante de l’aventure irakienne” (May 11, 2004), http://www.dedefense.org [9]

23. François-Bernard Huyghe, Quatrième guerre mondiale: Faire mourir et faire croire (Paris: Rocher, 2004), p. 9.

24. D. Priest and T. E. Ricks, “Growing Pessimism on Iraq: Doubts Increase within U.S. Security Agencies,” The Washington Post, September 29, 2004.

25. Philippe Grasset, “La destruction méthodique de la puissance américaine” (September 27, 2004), http://www.dedefensa.org [10]; Guatam Adhikari, “The End of the Unipolar Myth,” International Herald Tribune, September 27, 2004.

26. Philippe Grasset, “Comment l’américainisme est en train d’apparaître pour ce qu’il est: un problème de civilisation” (September 1, 2004), http://www.dedefensa.org [10]

27. Brent Scowcroft, George I’s national security adviser, has publicly criticized George II for being “inordinately influenced by Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. ‘Sharon just has him wrapped around his little finger’, Scowcroft said. ‘I think the president is mesmerized.’“ See “Key GOP Figure Raps Bush on Mideast,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 17, 2004.

28. Ehsan Ahari, “How Bush, Kerry Are One and the Same” (September 2, 2004), http://www.latimes.com [11]

29. H. Millard, “Ridin’ the Runaway Train Named America” (2004), http://www.newnation.org [12]

30. Françoise Vergniolle de Chantal, “Les débats américains sur la relations transatlantiques” (2004), http://robert-schuman.org [13]

31. Ian Williams, “Deterring the Empire” (May 13, 2003), http://www.alternet.org [14]

32. David Wood, “U.S. to Sell Precision-Guided Bombs to Israel” (September 23, 2004), http://www.newhousesnews.com [15]

33. Ian Black, “The Transatlantic Drift,” The Guardian, September 20, 2004; Philippe Grasset, “L’UE: Une stratégie de rupture avec l’Amérique” (September 20, 2004), http://www.dedefensa.org [10]

34. Faye, Avant-Guerre.

35. Sam Francis, “When the State Is the Enemy of the Nation” (July 19, 2004), http://www.vdare.com [16] This is not to say that the state is inherently the enemy of the nation—only that this is the case with the existing liberal state. On the difference between statism and nationalism, see Walker Connor, Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994).


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

mardi, 30 août 2011

Türkei: Regierung unterrichtet NATO über Kriegsvorbereitungen

Türkei: Regierung unterrichtet NATO über Kriegsvorbereitungen

Udo Ulfkotte

Vor wenigen Monaten noch begründeten viele EU-Politiker die Notwendigkeit der Aufnahme der Türkei in die EU mit dem großen Wirtschaftswachstum des Landes. Jetzt aber geht es mit der türkischen Wirtschaft steil bergab. Um das Volk abzulenken, bereitet die Regierung nun (für die Zeit nach dem Ende Gaddafis in Libyen) Krieg gegen das türkische Nachbarland Syrien vor. Die türkische Wirtschaft erlebt ein Desaster: Die Lira wurde seit Jahresbeginn gegenüber dem Euro um 25 Prozent abgewertet. Immer mehr junge Türken sind arbeitslos. 95 Prozent der Bevölkerung sind hoffnungslos überschuldet. Diplomaten berichten, dass mehr als 2 Millionen junge Türken nach Europa wollen. Mit dem Krieg gegen Syrien will man die Lage wieder in den Griff bekommen.

Mehr: http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/geostrategie/udo-ulfkotte/tuerkei-regierung-unterrichtet-nato-ueber-kriegsvorbereitungen.html