Ice Station Obama

by Wayne Madsen

Wayne MADSEN

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

Although President Obama's «pivot to Asia» is receiving media attention, his little-known push to establish American hegemony over the rapidly melting Arctic polar zone has gone largely unnoticed. Using three NATO allies, all of them monarchies, Obama is trying to establish a U.S.-led condominium of the United States, Canada, Norway, and Denmark over the Arctic, conspicuously leaving Russia out of the equation. Obama’s military and intelligence push into the Arctic could be taken from the pages of the 1960s Cold War thriller by Alistair MacLean, «Ice Station Zebra», With the depletion of the Arctic ice pack opening up formerly non-navigable Arctic maritime zones to shipping, Obama and his Wall Street handlers are eyeing the Arctic as America’s new region for natural resource exploitation. And, as always, the Pentagon and the U.S. intelligence Community are ready to act as the centurions for the investment bankers and hedge fund tycoons.

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s Arctic Strategy was unveiled in Halifax in November 2013. Hagel said the Pentagon’s «Arctic Strategy» is centered upon the U.S. bolstering its military capabilities in the Arctic region with the opening of new sea lanes for natural resource «exploration», 

The first step of the Obama «polar pivot» has been to militarize it under the NATO umbrella. The Svalbard Treaty of 1920, ratified by 40 nations, agreed to demilitarize the Norwegian-owned Arctic archipelago of Svalbard and to permit commercial activities on the islands by the signatories. Only Norway and Russia (and the former Soviet Union) exercised the right to commercially exploit the resources of the islands, mainly by mining coal. Russia has largely withdrawn its commercial interests from the islands with only some 370 Russians and Ukrainians remaining in Svalbard, many of them living at the mining community in Barentsburg, the Russian research station at Ny-Ålesund, and the small mining outpost at Sveagruva.

A dependency of Norway, Svalbard has seen its Norwegian population grow with many of the Norwegians living in the capital of Longyearbyen. As signatories of the Svalbard Treaty, Americans, Canadians, and Britons are free to travel and reside on Svalbard without restrictions imposed by Norwegian authorities. Americans first started to arrive in Svalbard as part of the team that oversees the operation of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, a project of Global Crop Diversity Trust, which stores most of the world's crop and botanical varieties in an underground vault.

Russia believes that NATO has violated the Svalbard Treaty by covertly operating military functions at the Svalbard Satellite Station at Ny-Ålesund, which is connected to Harstad and Andoya, Norway by the Svalbard Undersea Cable System. Andoya was the site of a Norwegian Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) array, art of the U.S. Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS) that acoustically tracked Soviet and Russian submarines. There is a belief that the Norwegians have continued to employ acoustic intelligence devices against the Russians and that Svalbard is part of the Norwegian monitoring activities, in violation of the Svalbard Treaty. The U.S. also maintains a Globus II HAVE STARE radar station in Vardo in the Norwegian Arctic, which is used to collect electronic intelligence for the U.S. National Security Agency from Russian military targets across the Norwegian border. The mushroom-like radome that conceals the HAVE STARE radar is a tell-tale sign of a U.S. military-intelligence presence. Radomes have appeared in increasing numbers from the National Security base at Menwith Hill, England to northern Norway, Svalbard, Greenland, Iceland, the Faeroes, northern Canada, and even remote and uninhabited Jan Mayen Island in the Norwegian Sea. 

Complementing America's operations in Svalbard and Norway is the increasing use by NATO of Sweden's Arctic Lapland for military purposes. Most NATO activities in Sweden involve NEAT, which stands for NATO Exercises and Advanced Testing.

The U.S. is also expanding its military presence at the Thule airbase in Greenland as part of the U.S. Air Force 21st Space Wing's missile defense network. Thule provides missile launch sensor data to the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) and the Air Force Space Command. A number of Greenland «home rule» governments have wanted the United States to withdraw its military forces from Greenland but Washington and Denmark, which remains the sovereign authority over Greenland through the contrivance of calling Greenland a self-governing country within the «Kingdom of Denmark,» have rejected Greenlandic calls for the demilitarization of Greenland. The «kingdom» contrivance has also been used to keep the independence-minded Faeroe Islands in the Norwegian Sea firmly under Denmark's, and by default, NATO's, control. The Faeroes and Greenland are part of Denmark's Joint Arctic Command, which in turn reports to NATO.

Although Greenland's Prime Minister Aleqa Hammond of the social democratic Siumut Party favors independence, she, like other past leaders, face determined opposition from Washington and Copenhagen, where NATO lobbyists exercise final say. Hammond stated «We will stand up as a people and demand what is rightfully ours.» According to a document found in the CIA archives, The U.S. has always believed it has ultimate authority over Greenland. And Denmark has not always been such an obedient slave to the dictates of Washington. A formerly TOP SECRET CIA document, dated January 31, 1947, states that the U.S. Minister to Denmark, Josiah P. Marvel, Jr., raised the issue of Greenland with the Danish Foreign Minister, Gustav Rasmussen. The U.S., at the time, was interested in wresting control of Greenland from Denmark to use it as a military base against the Soviet Union. When Marvel insisted on discussing the future of Greenland with Rasmussen, the Danish Foreign Minister replied, «While we owe much to America, I do not feel we owe them the whole island of Greenland.»

What a difference a generation makes. Former Danish Prime Minister and outgoing NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, nicknamed the «Fogh of War» by his many critics, handed Greenland to the United States on a Georg Jensen silver platter and warned the Faeroes not to even think about independence. Whatever the Americans paid for Rasmussen’s knee-jerk loyalty, it was worth it to Washington.

U.S. dominance over the Arctic is spelled out in the Pentagon's National Strategy for the Arctic Region, a policy that was developed under the stewardship of Daniel Y. Chiu, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy. Chiu sees the rapid climate change that is affecting the Arctic facilitating a greater U.S. naval and other military presence in the region.

Last February, U.S. forces participated in the first airborne operation north of the Arctic Circle. The exercise, codenamed SPARTAN PEGASUS, saw paratroopers from the Army's 25th Infantry Division parachute into Deadhorse on Alaska's North Slope.

In 2012, the commander of the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and NORAD signed the Tri-Command Framework for Arctic Cooperation with the Commander of Canadian Joint Operations Command. The agreement «enhances military cooperation to support safety, security and defense operations in the region.» NORTHCOM has assumed sole responsibility for military operations in the Arctic region, placing Greenland, Svalbard, Jan Mayen Island, and the North Pole within NORTHCOM's jurisdictional domain. And NORTHCOM has not been shy about ordering U.S. fighter planes to engage Russian military aircraft in dangerous «cat-and-mouse» games over the Bering Sea between Siberia and Alaska.

NORTHCOM has increased its presence in Canada's first Inuit-ruled territory, Nunavut. In March, NORTHCOM conducted Exercise ARCTIC WARRIOR/GUERRIER NORDIQUE in Iqaluit, Nunavut. The Stephen Harper government in Ottawa has increasingly stymied the rights of Native Canadians over the natural resources on their lands. The presence of NORTHCOM military units in the Nunavut capital of Iqaluit last March was a message by Ottawa and Washington to the local leaders that their self-government has «limits,» just like those imposed by Washington and Copenhagen on their Inuit cousins in Greenland. The same restrictions by the neo-colonialists of Ottawa and Washington will be imposed on the emerging Deline Gotine nation, the first native Canadian self-governing entity in Canada's Northwest Territories. In addition, the people of Deline Gotine will have no authority to ban natural gas fracking in their territory.

NATO has urged Denmark and Canada to resolve a dispute over ownership of Hans Island, a 1.3 kilometer barren uninhabited island between Greenland and Canada's Ellesmere Island. The island will be ruled as a shared condominium between Canada and Denmark. Left out of the agreement are Greenland and Nunavut, the two Inuit governments that actually would have had no problems resolving sovereignty issues between the same native people. However, in the Arctic, the decisions are made in Washington, while the NATO puppets of Ottawa, Copenhagen, and Oslo obediently wag their tails.

 

26 juin : NON AU TRAITE TRANSATLANTIQUE !

Jeudi 26 juin : NON AU TRAITE TRANSATLANTIQUE !

 

L'obiettivo degli Usa è la Germania

L'obiettivo degli Usa è la Germania

 

Scritto da Gianfranco La Grassa   

Ex: http://www.noreporter.org

Certo che se aspettavamo che se ne accorgesse qualcuno di noi...

Stiamo attenti a quanto è avvenuto dal 2011 ad oggi. Credo che il tutto sia teso al controllo dell’Europa, che oggi ha qualche incrinatura con l’avanzata di certi anti-UE (non però del tipo Farage o Grillo!). Anche la minaccia che sembra sia stata rivolta da Cameron a Merkel circa Juncker che non deve diventare presidente della Commissione europea sembra dimostri la preoccupazione che un giorno (non subito, non con la cancelliera attuale) la Germania possa diventare un problema per gli Usa in quanto magari vuole riprendere ampi contatti verso est per accrescere il peso in Europa. Questo spiega anche perché i più servi degli Usa insistano con la polemica contro la Germania. E contrabbandino pure la predominanza del capitale finanziario, la fine degli Stati nazionali, ecc. sempre in quanto servi dei servi degli Usa. Attenti a questi furfanti, si annidano anche fra i critici del capitalismo, critici critici di tutto. Maledetti imbroglioni. Serpenti di cui schiacciare la testa; sono i più pericolosi. Il male non sta nel “capitalismo” (magari “assoluto”); ma nel predominio statunitense che deve essere incrinato, in specie proprio in Europa. Addosso ai farabutti che deviano le critiche verso obiettivi fasulli per nascondere l’essenziale del predominio degli Usa. 

 

---

Noreporter - Tutti i nomi, i loghi e i marchi registrati citati o riportati appartengono ai rispettivi proprietari. È possibile diffondere liberamente i contenuti di questo sito .Tutti i contenuti originali prodotti per questo sito sono da intendersi pubblicati sotto la licenza Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs-NonCommercial 1.0 che ne esclude l'utilizzo per fini commerciali.I testi dei vari autori citati sono riconducibili alla loro proprietà secondo la legacy vigente a livello nazionale sui diritti d'autore.

What Obama Told Us At West Point

Paul Craig ROBERTS

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

At West Point Obama told us, to the applause of West Point cadets, that «American exceptionalism» is a doctrine that justifies whatever Washington does.  If Washington violates domestic and international law by torturing «detainees» or violates the Nuremberg standard by invading countries that have undertaken no hostile action against the US or its allies,  «exceptionalism» is the priest’s blessing that absolves Washington’s sins against law and international norms. Washington’s crimes are transformed into Washington’s affirmation of the rule of law.  

Here is Obama in his own words:  »I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it is our willingness to affirm them through our actions.» 

Actions indeed. In the 21^st century «American exceptionalism» has destroyed seven countries in whole or in part. Millions of people are dead, maimed, and displaced, and all of this criminal destruction is evidence of Washington’s reaffirmation of international norms and the rule of law. Destruction and murder are merely collateral damage from Washington’s affirmation of international norms.

«American exceptionalism» also  means that US presidents can lie through their teeth and misrepresent those they choose to demonize.  Listen to Obama’s misrepresentations of the Putin and Assad governments:  »Russia’s aggression towards former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe . . . In Ukraine, Russia’s recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern Europe .»  Obama misrepresents Assad as «a dictator who bombs and starves his own people.»

Did any of the cadets in Obama’s West Point audience wonder why, if Assad is a brutal dictator who bombs and starves his own people, the Syrian people are supporting Assad instead of the American-backed «liberation forces,» the combination of imported jihadists and al Qaeda fighters who object to Assad’s government because it is secular? The US military is taught to respect its civilian commander-in-chief, but if West Point cadets actually do obtain an education, it is remarkable that Obama’s audience did not break out in laughter.

The reference to Soviet tanks rolling into Europe is a reference to the Hungarian (1956) and  Czech (1968) «revolutions» when the Hungarian and Czech communist leaders attempted to assert independence from Moscow.  It is doubtful that Washington’s response to countries attempting to exit NATO would be any different.  A few months ago Washington responded to political talk in Germany and England about leaving the EU by informing both governments that it was not in Washington’s interest for them to depart from the European Union.

Obama used the image of Soviet tanks in order to color Russia with the Soviet Threat, to mischaracterize Russia’s response to the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia, and to misrepresent Crimea’s vote in favor of reunification with Russia as «Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea.»  These lies are still a mainstay in the US media and in Washington’s official propaganda.

Obama’s speech is probably the most disingenuous ever given by a Western politician. We could have fun for hours with all the crimes that Washington commits but buries in rhetoric directed at others.  Perhaps my favorite is Obama evoking a world in which «individuals aren’t slaughtered because of political belief.»  I am sure Obama was thinking of this just world when he murdered without due process of law four American citizens «outside of areas of active hostilities.» 

Another favorite is the way Obama flushed the US Constitution of its meaning. Obama said, with reference to bringing the Guantanamo prisoners to the US, that «American values and legal traditions don’t permit the indefinite detention of people beyond our borders.» No, Obama, the US Constitution prevents the indefinite detention of US citizens by the US government anywhere on earth, especially within our borders.  

By detaining and by murdering US citizens without due process of law, Obama has violated his oath of office and should be impeached.  It was only a short time ago that President Bill Clinton was impeached by the US House of Representatives (the Senate saved him from conviction) for lying about his sexual affair with a White House intern.  How times change. Today a president who violates his oath of office to protect the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic gets a free ride.  The Constitution has lost its power to protect citizens from the arbitrary power of government. The US is the Constitution.  Without the Constitution the US ceases to exist, and the country becomes a tyranny, both at home and abroad. Today the US is a tyranny cloaked in the garb of «freedom and democracy.»

Instead of laughing our way through Obama’s ridiculous speech to what apparently was a dumbed-down West Point graduating class, lets pay attention to Obama’s bottom line: «America must always lead on the world stage. . . . The military is, and always will be, the backbone of that leadership.»

In other words, Washington doesn’t use diplomacy.  Washington uses coercion. The favorite threat is: «Do as you are told or we will bomb you into the Stone Age.» Obama’s speech is a justification of Washington’s criminal actions on the grounds that Washington acts for the exceptional Americans whose exceptionalism places them and, thereby, their government above law and international norms. In this way of thinking, only the failure to prevail constitutes failure.

Americans are the new ubermensch, the new master race. Inferior humans can be bombed, invaded, and sanctioned. Obama’s West Point speech asserts American superiority over all others and Washington’s determination to continue this superiority by preventing the rise of other powers.  This arrogant hubris was not enough for the Washington Post editorial board. The newspaper’s editorial damned Obama for binding US power and limiting its use to «a narrow set of core interest,» such as direct threats to America.

The American «liberal media» object that Obama’s claim of exceptionalism is not broad enough for Washington’s purposes.  Obama’s address, the Washington Post wrote, bound «US power» and «offered scant comfort» to those militarists who want to overthrow Syria, Iran, Russia, and China. 

The world should take note that the most militarily aggressive American president in history is considered a wimp by the neoconized American media.  The media drives wars, and the American media, firmly allied with the military/security complex, is driving the world to the final war.

Memory Holes in the American Right

Memory Holes in the American Right

By Gary North

GaryNorth.com

Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com

We all know about the memory hole. That was the unofficial name of a department of government in George Orwell’s novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four. It was devoted to re-writing history. It destroyed historical documents to make this re-writing easier. This was its motto: “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

Orwell used the Soviet Union as his model. The USSR was famous for using photo editing techniques to remove past leaders from old photos. These people became non-persons. Photoshop is simply a low-cost tool for modern media organizations to do similar sorts of things. They do it to sell more products. The USSR did it to maintain power.

These techniques are still being used inside what Mrs. Clinton calls the vast Right-wing conspiracy. Today’s leaders want to erase all traces of the earlier leaders.

Why? Because the time-servers who collect their salaries are nonentities. They do not want to be compared to the founders. They do not want the evidence of decline available for all to see. Max Weber had a phrase for this almost a century ago: the routinization of charisma. The bureaucrats inherit the earth.

PRESERVING THE PAST

One of the saddest aspects in the history of the post-World War II conservative movement is the fact that it is almost impossible to trace its history at the grass roots level.

Part of this problem is this: the little organizations used mimeograph machines to publish their message. This was a shoestring movement until at least the mid-1950′s. These materials were tossed out by survivors after the blue-haired ladies died. These women collected newspaper clippings, scoured the Congressional Record, published their newsletters, and had meetings. They left few traces.

The newsletters have disappeared. Think of the Dan Smoot Report. Think of the early years of Human Events. Think of Hilaire DuBarrier’s HduB Report. Think of Don Bell Report. They are gone with the wind.

I have a complete set of the HduB Report on a CD-ROM. I do not think it is possible to trace the history of the European Union without reading these reports. But they are not online. I do not know who owns the copyrights. Neither does the man who created the CD-ROM.

To construct the history of the conservative movement, the various organizations that published newsletters, magazines, and books should go into their files, send them to a specialist in producing searchable PDF’s, and then post all of that information online free of charge. This is the minimal commitment necessary to keep old ideas alive.

If an organization has spent decades asking for donations from its supporters in order to get out the message, and then it suppresses or ignores that message through the 80% of the history of the organization, then something is fundamentally wrong with the thinking of the present directors. Any organization that raises money for years to publish the true word, and then decides to deep-six the true word, has abandoned the true word.

All of that money was raised, all of that enthusiasm was generated, all of that information was published, yet the organization’s present salaried directors decide that it’s not worth preserving online free of charge.

Something is deeply wrong with any idea-based organization that does not post its entire body of published materials online.

I cannot imagine any ideological organization’s senior staff this shortsighted, yet I know it’s the case. I have seen it over and over. There is simply no strong commitment to preserving the legacy of the organization. The present directors implicitly dismiss all of the work of the previous directors, as if all that money, all those ideas, all that effort in publishing the material was not really worth it. It is as if all of this material is worthless today. The senior directors of the organization have self-consciously made a decision not to preserve this information for the present members of the organization.

I’m thinking of a particular organization. Let’s see if you can figure this out. It has been around for over 50 years. It published a great deal of material. It published a magazine every month. It published newsletters from the organization’s senior director. It raised money for years to try to get this information out to the public. It was one of the fundamental organizations in the history of the conservative movement. But its present directors have refused for over 15 years to put this information online.

I know a man who has put all of the material into PDF’s, and he even put it up on a website. But he doesn’t have the copyright to the publications, so he is not allowed by the organization to post this material publicly. I have seen it. I have used it. But you can’t find by searching for it online, because the individual has not posted it where the general public can get at it. The reason for this is simple: he does not own the copyright.

Could this be an organization that you have committed money to? Have you even asked this about the organizations that you do commit money to. Have you made sure that you are not donating a dime to any organization that has a body of material like this, but which has not put all of this material online, free of charge?

If the organization is self-consciously suppressing this, then you should not donate to it. If the organization is run by men who are so shortsighted that they want to ignore 50 years of publication, then why should you continue to send money to it? The publication can be scanned in and converted to PDFs for about 35 cents a page. “We just can’t afford this!” Some minimum-wage intern could run copies through a standard copy machine, which will convert pages to searchable PDF’s if it has Adobe Acrobat installed. But the senior decision-makers in the organization have no vision of the future, because they have no vision of the past. If they think the past is irrelevant, then they think the future is irrelevant. All they care about is this month’s “scare ‘em and skin ‘em” fundraising effort.

One organization that does things right is the Mises Institute. All of the old materials in the Austrian school movement are available free of charge here: https://mises.org/Literature

Years ago, I put up the money for the Mises Institute to post all of the issues of American Affairs online. It had been edited by Garet Garrett. It was long forgotten. No organization owned them. This was not a matter of dropping materials down the organization’s memory hole. There was no succession. The Mises Institute believes in preserving legacies like this. The Mises Institute understands the importance of the past in building the future.

My recommendation: do not donate a dime to any ideological outfit that has not posted all of its past publications online for free. Simple. “No searchable PDF’s online for free — no donation.” This should be an unbreakable rule.

I did this over 15 years ago with the publications of my Institute for Christian Economics. I shut it down in December 2001, because I realized that I no longer needed to raise money to publish books. I can publish a book in 90 seconds in PDF form. I keep these materials, 1975-2001, online for free here:http://www.garynorth.com/public/department78.cfm.

DOES ANYONE CARE?

I understand the problem. Most people are not interested in history. Most people are not interested in the stories of how the movement or an organization got started. Most people care about the present mainly, and they barely care about the future. They surely do not care about the past.

The conservative movement is grounded philosophically on a vision of history that asserts the legitimacy of historical process. Conservatives believe that the past is important. They believe that preserving the memory of the past is important. They understand that the world today is the product of the past, and that he who does not understand the past is not going to have a coherent plan for shaping the future. But the leaders of the conservative movement have tended not to believe this. They have not been committed to preserving the past. They had been political activists, and the political activist has a vision not much longer than the next congressional election. This has been a deep-seated problem within the conservative movement ever since it began after World War II. It began mainly as anti-Communism, and interest in the past was limited to studies of how the communist infiltrated this or that organization. It was not in any way committed to pass conservative ideas, which had lost their power to persuade people by 1946.

So, the modern conservative movement began as an “anti-” movement. Such movements are inherently reactionary. They react to present crazies and present crises. They react to whatever the Establishment is doing, or plans to do, or might possibly do, in the near future. The conservative movement has always been 80% committed to putting out fires. You cannot build a movement, let alone a society, based on continual fire drills. But this is what the conservative movement has attempted to do.

Frankly, I don’t think it’s much different today. Conservatives may be worried about whether Hillary Clinton is going to run, or whether she can win, but they are not at all concerned about what the world will be like after one term of whoever is elected president in 2016. I call this a lack of 2020 vision.

People whose time perspective does not extend beyond the next presidential election are not concerned with building up a body of materials that can serve as a foundation for restoring liberty. They are unfamiliar with how the American Republic became the American Empire, and they are basically committed to extending the American Empire through military means. Then they want to make things better by a few reforms, none of which stands a political chance. They want clean up the mess in government. They want to sweep the bad guys out.

We know where this leads.

When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation (Matthew 12:43-45).

CONCLUSION

If your favorite conservative organization does not have all of its previous magazines, newsletters, special reports, and so forth online, do not send it any more money.

Drop a note to the head of the organization. Explain your desire to get the organization’s old materials posted where Google can find them. Say that you are willing to make a donation to fund such a publication project.

If you get an explanation that “at the present time, we do not have the funds,” send your money elsewhere.

The Mises Institute is a good choice.

The Best of Gary North

Western Cracks appear on Ukraine and Russian Sanctions

Author: Jim

Western Cracks appear on Ukraine and Russian Sanctions

Ex: http://journal-neo.org

“Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today’s war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world.”-

Professor William Odom, formerly President Reagan’s NSA Director

We had hoped as time went by that the huffing and puffing of Western arm chair political generals would be seen for what it was by a growing number of their constituents… an attempt to distract attention from domestic problems by using Russia and Putin as a Mexican piñata.

Here in the US our war-loving NeoCons drooled over the opportunity to do some Russia bashing. But to everyone’s surprise, they had support across the aisle, as Democrats felt they needed to make a show of supporting “their” president. Such displays are considered an expected courtesy on Capitol Hill.

We all know they could not care less what the people felt, despite having polled in strong numbers they did not want American involvement. But we know that meant no American troops. So the war strategy has morphed into a primarily financial one, with the US the number one sanctions gunslinger on the planet.

And for fighting troops, after Syria, the US is quite experienced in using proxy troops now, including the terrorist kind. Unfortunately there has been no public political blow back, no accepting of responsibility by politicians or their parties for the continued slaughter in Syria. That has set the stage for encouraging them to use the same scenario on Ukraine.

The unsaid threat is, “Either do what we want or watch your country be destroyed in endless civil war, with the help of all the outside mercenaries and hired killers we can find on the cheap.” The wild-card game of chicken for the West would be their taking the risk of having their loans default, while the Russians would suffer big loses in their business holdings in East Ukraine, not to mention the uncertainties of continued gas flow through the Westward pipelines.

The people will have their first major political input with the European Parliamentary elections just around the corner. I had been willing to place a bet that the business community in Europe would not be too excited about sanctions wars with Russia. They have been struggling during these years of recession and austerity, especially with regard to declining exports.

The main sanctions counterattack came on two fronts, in Germany of all places. Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said, “We must avoid falling into an automatic [sanctions] mode, which leads only to a dead end and leaves no more policy options.”

Ex-chancellors Gerhard Schroeder and Helmut Schmidt denounced the silly game of playing sanctions-roulette, with the 95-year-old Schmidt accusing the EU leaders of megalomania for attempting to annex Ukraine. EU leaders have been blind to the risks of triggering the mess we have now with Ukraine on the edge of complete civil war and the breakup of the country. Merkel was publicly booed at a political event with her party this week, all of this evidence that the pendulum is swinging back.

Next, the German Chamber of Commerce lead the way for the business community in their opposition to any more sanction threats as just plain crazy because Russia is a major export market for many German companies. The number of jobs directly involving Russian exports came in at 300,000. But left out was the important aspect that those export earnings play a key roll in helping keep Germany’s balance of payments in line. These exports to Russia pay for the energy imports.

I had been watching this happen like a slow-motion train wreck. While the Western buffoons were playing Puff the Magic Dragon with their Russo-phobia, Putin and Lavrov, as always, were not over reacting. But they were sending out signals that they were doing what anyone else would have to do when being threatened with escalating sanctions. They began a crash sourcing program to see where they could replace the imports they needed. But that got no traction for the US State Department dummies, or Mr. Hague in Britain. The West was still in denial.

A week went by and more hints came with the announcement that the Russian defense community must plan on domestically producing all the critical things they need to avoid being held up like a stagecoach by the sanctions bandits. The bell went ding, ding, ding. Those Russian export markets for Western companies were now going to be a PERMANENT loss even if the Ukrainian crisis cools off. So the business community felt they were being ill-used by their politicians, which they were.

Now we come to another dangerous area on the Western regime-change follies. When they have miscalculated and created a big mess, what to do they do? They blame the other guy, because taking the blame for screw ups is considered an idiot’s move. Their thinking is, “No one else ever takes the blame, so why should I?” And in that regard, they do have a point.

But that makes them very dangerous, and here is some proof. The insurgents have been losing in Syria, totally rejected by the Syrian people who hate them for the carnage they have brought upon the country. Enter stage-left last week the Friends of Syria making a big show in giving the Syrian National Council more support to keep fighting, when if they had any sense, they should be pressuring them to negotiate the best deal they can. You can’t really call this poor leadership, because it’s no leadership at all.

I am sharing this in detail as I foresee the West could be stupid enough to do a Syria number on Ukraine. You already have the Right Sector head, Dimitry Yarosh, stating during a presidential campaign debate that guerrilla warfare would be coming soon to the East Ukraine break-away regions.

Kiev’s Interior Minister has already acknowledged that foreign mercenaries are in the country and have been deployed. With all the stories we have heard of Kiev having to beg for soap and underwear for their troops, we must assume that some foreign country has militarily intervened by paying for the mercenaries.

The only grownup actions we saw from the West this week came from the IMF. It warned Kiev coup-meisters that if they could not come to some arrangement to prevent the East from breaking away, the debt rollover commitment would have to be “reviewed”, since any hope for economic improvement would go up in smoke. The threat did not seem to bother Dimitry Yarosh very much, as he was also threatening to blow up the gas pipelines. This guy could become the poster boy against future coups.

We see no visible pressure from the US or EU to reign in Kiev’s military operations which is a signal that they have Western approval. We had general artillery shelling of Kramatorsk today, something that would not have been done without authorization from Kiev. The new Donestk interim government says it will not talk to Kiev while its troops are attacking — a quite reasonable position.

This will just harden positions even further and make any settlement later much more difficult. I have been studying the photos closely and the Eastern self-defense people are well armed now with light weapons. You can see that army veterans are their core defense troops, and they have layered ambush positions along all the lines of approach. They have anti-armor weapons, too, although they have used them sparingly.

We got the first reports today of Ukrainian soldiers going over to the East, then being recaptured and executed. If Kiev engages in that, or their nationalist killers do, I can tell you that will put a military coup on the front burner. No professional army is going watch a bunch of cheap politicians and their thugs start executing their soldiers.

Resupply problems would be a major deterrent for that, but we don’t know if Kiev can resupply them anyway. All the army has to do is make a deal with the Russians to watch the border for them and then redeploy to confront the Kiev and Right Sector troop units, and Kiev’s “anti-terrorist” operation will be over.

If the army field grade leaders are smart, they will realize they can stop the killing. And we learned today than their rear area would be protected, as the Kharkov region has bowed out of the Kiev elections and will be holding their own referendum. You can assume they are mobilizing their army for defense at the same time. The three regions are contiguous, with their backs to the Russian border and interior lines of communication between them.

If they reached that point the next trip-wire would be if Kiev would use its attack helicopters and fighter bombers against ground forces in defensive positions. If that happened, then all bets are off, as the Russians might send in air defense units. I can’t see them sitting back and watching Russians being bombed while in defense positions.

Lavrov drew that red line, of protecting Russian citizens if attacked as they were in Georgia, and large numbers of people in East Ukraine are. We hope that it does not get worse, before it gets better.

Jim W. Dean, managing editor for Veteran Today, producer/host of Heritage TV Atlanta, specially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Author: Tony Cartalucci

Thai Coup Stings Western Meddlers

Ex: http://journal-neo.org

 ”America’s Pacific Century,” Foreign Policy magazine declared in an op-ed published by then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The by-line would continue by saying, “the future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action.”  

And indeed, it has been in the middle of the action. With an army of deeply entrenched US-funded NGOs masquerading as human rights, press freedom, and pro-democracy advocates, the US has been busy subverting and attempting to overthrow indigenous institutions across Southeast Asia either in support of US proxy regimes already in power, or to pave way for disruptive “color revolutions” seeking to install them.  

The idea is to align Southeast Asia, along with India and Pakistan, as well as Korea and Japan, into three united fronts to encircle and contain China. Detailed first in the Vietnam-era “Pentagon Papers” and continuously updated over the following decades, confrontation with China is now the admitted purpose of the US “pivot.”   

For Thailand, the only Southeast Asian country to avoid European colonization, it has suffered over a decade of rule by a US-proxy regime installed for just this purpose – the regime of convicted criminal, fugitive, billionaire Thaksin Shinawatra – supported fully by an army of faux-rights advocates, with the full weight of the Western media behind it, and with the support of the US State Department itself.  

Beginning in the 1990′s Shinawatra was a Carlyle Group adviser. Upon taking office he would privatize Thailand’s petrochemical conglomerate, raise limits on foreign shares, and sell it off to Chevron and Hess. He would send Thai troops to Iraq in support of the US invasion and occupation, as well as allow the CIA to conduct their horrid “rendition” program on Thai soil. He would try, but fail to ramrod through a US-Thai free trade agreement, and has been supported either directly or indirectly by an army of Washington-based lobbying firms for years. 

A recent, peaceful military coup, the second aimed at uprooting Shinawatra’s regime, has been successfully carried out this week. Unlike the previous coup of 2006, this coup is proving to be far more effective and thorough with nearly every aspect of the ousted regime being exposed, detained, warrants arranged, and trials to follow. Assets are being traced and face possible judicial review for their subsequent freezing and/or seizure. In other words, the regime is being utterly uprooted, financially and politically.  

Thai Coup Stings US Meddlers the Most 

In the immediate aftermath of the coup, the US State Department, through a strongly worded condemnation penned by US Secretary of State John Kerry, claimed: 

I am disappointed by the decision of the Thai military to suspend the constitution and take control of the government after a long period of political turmoil, and there is no justification for this military coup. I am concerned by reports that senior political leaders of Thailand’s major parties have been detained and call for their release. I am also concerned that media outlets have been shut down. I urge the restoration of civilian government immediately, a return to democracy, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as press freedoms. The path forward for Thailand must include early elections that reflect the will of the people.

While we value our long friendship with the Thai people, this act will have negative implications for the U.S.–Thai relationship, especially for our relationship with the Thai military. We are reviewing our military and other assistance and engagements, consistent with U.S. law.

The US would move to suspend ongoing military cooperation with the Thai military, canceling future training exercises, and suspend millions of dollars in aid. The Thai military would in turn, allegedly suspend broadcast of Western news channels, including US-based CNN and UK-based BBC.

The US has since made several demands, in a press statement on May 24, which read as follows: 

We are increasingly concerned about actions the military has taken, just a few days after it staged a coup. It has dissolved the Senate, detained a number of people, called in some academics and journalists, and continued to restrict the press. We again call on the military to release those detained for political reasons, end restrictions on the media, and move to restore civilian rule and democracy through elections.

In essences, the US is demanding the release of its proxy regime, the so-called “academics” and “journalists” it has groomed for years to support the regime, and restrictions placed on their propaganda bullhorns to be lifted so as to continue coordinating strife within Thailand.  

Joining the US State Department’s calls, are the various faux-NGOs inside of Thailand funded directly by the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED), including the Human Rights Lawyers Association, Cross Cultural Foundation, Union of Civil Liberties and the Enlawthai Foundation, and Prachatai. The Bangkok Post in an article titled, ”Anti-coup rally on streets, social media,” would report that the faux-NGOs demanded “the return to civilian rule” and for soldiers to “return to their barracks,” a verbatim repeat of both US demands and those of the ousted regime of Thaksin Shinawatra. 

The coup could not have come at a worse time for US global ambitions. With the recent signing of a historical 30 year, $400 billion natural gas contract between Russia and China with direct pipelines circumventing entirely the Pacific region the US has invested much in terms of stifling China’s growth, the loss of America’s client regime in Thailand weakens an already tenuous geopolitical agenda.

West Prepares to Strike Back 

The ousted regime of Thaksin Shinawatra, represented by Washington lobbyist Robert Amsterdam of Amsterdam & Partners, is organizing a “government in exile.” It is currently shopping for a host nation to base itself in – with Thaksin Shinawatra already admittedly running his ruling party mainly from Dubai for the past several years.

In a statement released from Amsterdam’s official website titled, “Statement: Consideration Given to Formation of Thai Government in Exile,” it claims:

“…a number of foreign governments have already expressed their willingness to host such a government in exile under internationally established rules and practice. He emphasised that the Army of Thailand has no legal authority to govern and has acted in violation of both local and international law.” 

Just like US-EU-organized opposition “governments” formed in Europe used to undermine besieged nations like Libya and Syria, the West will most likely coordinate a campaign of systematic destabilization within Thailand while attempting to boost the credibility of the exiled Shinawatra regime beyond its borders.

With the coup having remained so far peaceful, attempts to shed blood to undermine stability and the image of the military-led government appear to be underway. Amsterdam in another statement warned of a “strategy of tension,” in an attempt to shift blame for impending violence of the West’s own design onto the new military-led government.

The statement titled, “Open letter to Red Shirts, UDD Supporters and Those Committed to a Democratic Thailand,” released from his lobbying firm’s official website stated:

In the meanwhile we would ask that all pro-democracy activists, Red Shirts and those committed to returning Thailand to civilian and legally mandated rule remain peaceful. The Army may attempt to unleash a “strategy of tension” in the days to come – something which could include terrorist actions – and Red Shirts must do their utmost to stay disciplined, calm and focused.

In reality, this is setting the stage for rallies to be targeted by the West’s infamous “mystery gunmen” – snipers deployed to conflict zones to kill both security forces and demonstrators to then leverage the violence to expand the conflict and undermine the targeted government. Such tactics have already been used once in Thailand during violence in 2010, as well as throughout the opening phases of the so-called “Arab Spring,” and most recently in Ukraine where “Euromaidan” leaders brought in snipers to kill both Ukrainian security forces and their own supporters. 

Amsterdam’s “premonitions” of impending violence have previously manifested themselves in openly armed terrorism confirmed to be the work of his client, Thaksin Shinawatra and his political machine inside of Thailand. Just weeks before the coup, Shinawatra’s militants were caught with AK47s, M79 grenade launchers, and hand grenades with the same lot numbers of those used in previous attacks.  

While waiting for Western-orchestrated bloodshed – Thailand can expect a torrent of slanted media reports condemning the coup and the protests that led up to it, covering up the 6 months of terrorism carried out by the Shinawatra regime against his political opponents that precipitated the coup in the first place, and media reports inflating the numbers and significance of protesters organized by Shinawatra to portray the population as being “anti-coup.” 

It appears that the US “pivot” is turning instead into an ever more precarious “stumble.” 

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

Raus aus der Ukraine!

Raus aus der Ukraine!

von Johannes Schüller

Ex: http://www.blauenarzisse.de

Patrick „Pat“ J. Buchanan ist der einflussreichste rechte Publizist der USA. In Sendern wie „Fox News” verteidigt er Putin.

Ein Gespräch über die ukrainische Krise.

Blaue​Narzisse​.de: Die deutsche Bild–Zeitung behauptet, 400 Söldner von einer US-​amerikanischen Sicherheitsfirma wären bereits in der Ukraine. Was halten Sie davon?

Pat Buchanan: Ich habe diese Nachrichten gelesen, weiß aber nicht, ob sie wahr oder falsch sind. Ich habe keine Kenntnisse von US-​Soldaten in den ostukrainischen Städten Luhansk oder Donezk.

Der Konflikt in der Ukraine erscheint wie ein großes geopolitisches Schlachtfeld. Aber es gibt auch eine Frontlinie zwischen einem konservativen Russland und einer liberalistischen USA. Was sind die eigentlichen Motive hinter dem Konflikt?

Der tiefe Graben zwischen den USA und Russland hat viele Gründe. In erster Linie nehmen die Russen wahr, dass die USA Vorteile ausnutzen. Diese haben sich besonders aus dem Rückzug der russischen Armee aus Mittel– und Osteuropa sowie dem Zusammenbruch der Sowjetunion ergeben. Die Vereinigten Staaten, so die russische Perspektive, brachten dadurch ein halbes Dutzend ehemaliger Staaten des Warschauer Pakts und drei Sowjetrepubliken in die Nato. Wir haben unser Bündnis aus dem Kalten Krieg in den russischen Raum und vor Russlands Zentrum ausgedehnt. Viele US-​Amerikaner lehnten diese Expansion der Nato nach Osteuropa und ins Baltikum ab. Sie erschien ihnen damals als provokative Torheit.

In kultureller und sozialer Hinsicht sehen viele Russen Amerika weniger als Führungsnation christlicher Werte, die sie einst war. Sie erscheint ihnen vielmehr als weltweite Inkarnation dessen, was man „Hollywood-​Werte” nennen könnte. Die Traditionalisten in den USA befinden sich in einem erbitterten Kampf gegen diese, an Antonio Gramsci orientierte Kulturrevolution. Ebenso scheint eine wachsende Zahl von Russen ihnen ebenso zu widerstreben.

Was wäre eine angemessene Außenpolitik für die USA und für die EU in der Ukraine?

Das Ziel beider Mächte sollte eine unabhängige, freie und neutrale Ukraine außerhalb jedes Militärbündnisses sein. Darüber hinaus müsste sie ein dezentral geordnetes Land werden. Die USA und die EU sollten sich als Ziel setzen, dass die ukrainischen Regionen, ebenso wie die US-​Bundesstaaten, ein maximales Maß an Selbstbestimmung zugesichert bekommen. Diese Regionen könnten zugleich in Einklang mit der nationalstaatlichen Union stehen. Denn wir wollen weder einen Bürgerkrieg in der Ukraine noch einen zweiten Kalten Krieg mit Russland.

Die Ukraine erscheint in diesem Konflikt aber nur als Spielball fremder Mächte. Ist denn so etwas wie eine eigene und unabhängige Politik für diese Nation überhaupt denkbar?

Das ukrainische Volk hat schreckliches in seiner Geschichte ertragen müssen. Das fängt bei der von Stalin initiierten Hungersnot, dem Holodomor, an, setzt sich über Hitlers Eroberungsfeldzug fort und reicht bis zur Teilung im Zweiten Weltkrieg sowie im Kalten Krieg. Deshalb mag, auch wegen der ethnischen Unterschiede zwischen den Ukrainern, nationale Einheit ein utopisches Ideal bleiben. In meiner letzten Analyse dazu habe ich deshalb betont, dass eine Teilung dem Bürgerkrieg vorzuziehen wäre. Aber das müssen die Ukrainer selbst entscheiden.

Wie ist das gesellschaftliche Klima dazu in den USA? Existiert so etwas wie eine neue Friedensbewegung, die sich gegen Interventionen in der Ukraine und Syrien wendet?

Eine Friedensbewegung? Nein, niemand denkt hierzulande noch, dass die USA einen Krieg beginnen werden. Die meisten US-​Amerikaner wollen, dass sich die Vereinigten Staaten aus einem ethnischen Konflikt in einem Land, das sie nicht mal auf der Karte finden, heraushalten.

Als es im August 2013 möglich schien, dass Präsident Barack Obama Luftangriffe gegen Syrien beginnen könnte, stand die Nation auf, um „Nein!” zu sagen. Nach dem Irak und Afghanistan wollen die Amerikaner, dass ihr Land auf Kriege verzichtet, die keine unserer lebensnotwendigen Interessen berühren.

Trotzdem: Diese Situation kann sich ändern. Die Dämonisierung von Präsident Putin steigert sich schnell und die Neigung der politischen und medialen Eliten zur Intervention, etwa mittels dem Entsenden von Verteidigungswaffen, wächst. Wenn die Ukraine in einem langen Bürgerkrieg versinkt, wird sich die Aufmerksamkeit der USA noch stärker auf sie richten. Dann wird das gewichtige Argument folgen, die Vereinigten Staaten müssten unbedingt etwas unternehmen.

Aber momentan wiederholen selbst die erbittertsten neokonservativen „Falken” bzw. Interventionisten eher diesen Refrain: „Keine amerikanischen Stiefel auf diesen Boden!” Sie kennen eben die Stimmung in den USA. Ein Land, das einen Kampf sucht, sieht anders aus.

Welche Position sollten Konservative auf dem großen Schlachtfeld Ukraine wählen?

Die Ukraine ist nicht unser Schlachtfeld! Es ist ein Konflikt zwischen Ukrainern sowie zwischen Russland und der Ukraine. Wir haben dabei keine andere Rolle als Zar Alexander II. während des US-​amerikanischen Bürgerkrieges. Und wir sollten weder Truppen noch Waffen in die Ukraine senden, noch Kiew irreführen und davon überzeugen, dass wir es wollen.

Konservative sollten sich gegen eine militärische Invention und gegen die Spaltung der Ukraine wenden. Ebenso müssen sie aber erkennen, dass das Schicksal der Ukraine nicht unseres ist. Wir können darüber weder bestimmen noch entscheiden.

Mr. Buchanan, thank you very much!

Hier geht es zum ersten und zum zweiten Teil des Buchanan-​Porträts aus der Feder seines Weggefährten Paul Gottfried.

LE TRAITÉ TRANSATLANTIQUE : UN DIKTAT

LE TRAITÉ TRANSATLANTIQUE : UN DIKTAT

La nuit du 4 août des gagistes ?

Auran Derien
Ex: http://metamag.fr

 

Les membres de la Commission Européenne n’apprennent rien, ne savent rien, ne veulent rien comprendre. Pourtant, de même que la première guerre mondiale a été « terminée » par un diktat qui préparait la guerre suivante, les diktats transatlantiques, tant pour les biens que pour les services, préparent la guerre contre ce qui reste de civilisation en Europe. Car les méthodes ne changent pas. Les traités qu’ils imposent sont des diktats. Le conflit ainsi préparé suit les lignes de la servitude européenne. Trois causes de conflits sont prévisibles.

1 - Première cause : l’insupportable. En particulier : Les « Al capone » des multinationales de la chimie et de l’agriculture assassinent la population avec des produits qu’eux-mêmes ne consomment évidemment pas. Le monde de la finance ruine les peuples, sans créer aucune richesse. Du parasitisme généralisé. 

2 - Les services, en marge de l’OMC, sont vendus aux enchères. L’Union Européenne, les USA et 21 autres pays bavardent sur TISA (Trade In Services Agreement) (Participent à ce jour aux négociations de Trades In Services Agreement : Australie, Canada, Chili, Colombie, Corée, Costa Rica, Etats-Unis, Hong Kong, Islande, Israël, Japon, Liechtenstein, Mexique, Norvège, Nouvelle-Zélande, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Pérou, Suisse, Taïwan, Turquie et UE). Si la science et la technique ont pu détruire des monopoles au cours du XIXème siècle, voire du XXème, le monopole privé sur les services permettra d’éliminer cette possibilité. Le pouvoir mondialiste ne pourra pas être contourné par l’innovation s’il contrôle, outre le système monétaire, tous les services sans lesquels aucune communauté organisée ne peut fonctionner. Il en résultera la nécessité d’entrer dans des conflits violents et sans fins pour lutter contre un quasi génocide programmé. 

3 - Le mépris pour la démocratie. Les marionnettes de divers pays européens ne demandent jamais plus l’avis des représentants légitimes d’associations représentatives, puisque les « Al Capone » aux commandes de la mondialisation les paient pour bâillonner les peuples dans le meilleur des cas, mais surtout les détruire par l’importation massive de populations du vaste monde. Un jour, de nouvelles élites se lèveront et l’épée Excalibur jaillira de l’eau profonde, claire et pure au fond de laquelle elle attend.

 

La nuit du 4 août ou la nuit des morts-vivants ?

Ceux qui ont décrit la nuit du 4 août, nous aident aujourd’hui à comprendre la veulerie des pseudos élites européennes. Etienne Dumont, dans ses souvenirs sur Mirabeau la raconte : « On eût dit que l’assemblée était comme un mourant qui fait son testament à la hâte, ou pour mieux dire, chacun donnait libéralement ce qui ne lui appartenait pas, et se faisait honneur de se montrer généreux aux dépens d’autrui…..Tel qui se sentait miné par une proposition qui venait d’être adoptée unanimement en faisait une autre par vengeance pour ne pas souffrir seul » ( Etienne Dumont : Souvenirs sur Mirabeau et les premières assemblées législatives. PUF, 1950, pp.99-101 ). De la même manière, les liquidateurs de  l’Europe donnent ce qui ne leur appartient pas et se montrent généreux au détriment du peuple et de son futur. Car il n’y a pas de futur dans le traité, sinon la promesse d’inhumanité jusqu’à ce que renaisse le cri de ralliement: mort aux tyrans.

 

Des siècles d’efforts, de civilisation, de grandeur, s’écroulent ainsi en une génération. Deux guerres ont été nécessaires pour éradiquer cette fleur de lotus, l’Europe, qui s’était lentement développée face à l’obscurantisme intellectuel, la sauvagerie des mœurs, la vulgarité artistique. Les responsables de la finance et du monde politique, aujourd’hui en fonction,  ne jouiront certainement pas de leurs ignominies. Les collabos ne sont-ils pas effacés quand ils ont cessé de servir? 

 

A Left-Right Convergence?

A Left-Right Convergence?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com

Last summer, in this capital of gridlock, a miracle occurred.

The American people rose as one and told the government of the United States not to drag us into another Middle East war in Syria.

Barack Obama was ready to launch air and missile strikes when a national uproar forced him to go to Congress for authorization. Congress seemed receptive until some Hill offices were swarmed by phone calls and emails coming in at a rate of 100-1 against war.

Middle America stopped the government from taking us into what even the president now concedes is “somebody else’s civil war.”

This triumphal coming together of left and right was a rarity in national politics. But Ralph Nader, in “Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State,” believes that ad hoc alliances of left and right to achieve common goals can, should, and, indeed, shall be our political future.

To call this an optimistic book is serious understatement.

Certainly, left and right have come together before.

In “Those Angry Days,” Lynne Olson writes of how future presidents from opposing parties, Gerald Ford and John F. Kennedy, backed the America First Committee to keep us out of war in 1941, and how they were supported by the far-left Nation magazine as well as Colonel Robert McCormick’s right-wing Chicago Tribune.

Two decades ago, Ross Perot and this writer joined Ralph and the head of the AFL-CIO to stop NAFTA, a trade deal backed by America’s corporate elite and its army of mercenaries on Capitol Hill.

Congress voted with corporate America — against the country.

Result: 20 years of the largest trade deficits in U.S. history. Transnational corporations have prospered beyond the dreams of avarice, as Middle America has seen its wages frozen for a generation.

In 2002, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry joined John McCain and George W. Bush in backing war on Iraq. Teddy Kennedy and Bernie Sanders stood with Ron Paul and the populist and libertarian right in opposing the war.

The Mises Institute and The American Conservative were as one with The Nation in opposing this unprovoked and unnecessary war.

The left-right coalition failed to stop the war, and we are living with the consequences in the Middle East, and in our veterans hospitals.

As America’s most indefatigable political activist since he wrote “Unsafe at Any Speed” in 1965, Ralph is calling for “convergences” of populist and libertarian conservatives and the left — for 25 goals.

Among these are many with an appeal to the traditionalist and libertarian right:

—Break up “Too Big to Fail” banks. Further direct democracy through use of the initiative, referendum and recall.

—End unconstitutional wars by enforcing Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives Congress alone the power to declare war.

—Revise trade agreements to protect U.S. sovereignty. End “fast track,” those congressional surrenders of constitutional authority to amend trade treaties negotiated by the executive.

From the subtitle, as well as text, of his most recent book, one may instantly identify whom it is Ralph sees as the main enemy. It is megabanks and transnational corporations without consciences whose highest loyalty is the bottom line, the kind of men Jefferson had in mind when he wrote: “Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.”

Where such men see a $17 trillion economy, we see a country.

Undeniably, there has been a growing gap and a deepening alienation between traditional conservatives and those Ralph calls the “corporate conservatives.” And it is not only inside the conservative movement and the GOP that the rift is growing, but also Middle America.

For America never voted for NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, mass immigration, amnesty, or more H-1Bs to come take the jobs of our workers. These votes have been forced upon members of Congress by leaders carrying out their assignments from corporate America and its PACs, which reward the compliant with campaign checks.

Both parties now feed at the same K Street and Wall Street troughs. Both have oligarchs contributing tens of millions to parties and politicians who do their bidding.

In 1964, a grassroots conservative movement captured the Republican Party and nominated Barry Goldwater. In 1972, a grassroots movement of leftist Democrats nominated George McGovern.

Neither movement would today survive the carpet-bombing of big money that would be called in if either came close to capturing a national party, let alone winning a national election.

Because they have principles and visions in conflict, left-right alliances inevitably fall out and fall apart. Because they are almost always on opposite sides of disputed barricades, it is difficult for both to set aside old wounds and grievances and come together.

A social, moral, and cultural divide that did not exist half a century ago makes it all the more difficult. But if the issue is keeping America out of unnecessary wars and restoring American sovereignty, surely common ground is not impossible to find.

The Best of Patrick J. Buchanan

Una base militar de EEUU en el corazón de Europa desafía la geopolítica

Una base militar de EEUU en el corazón de Europa desafía la geopolítica

por Piotr Iskendérov*

Ex: http://paginatransversal.wordpress.com

Construida en 1999, según varias fuentes se trata de la base más grande de EE UU en Europa. Su creación fue la consagración de los programas de reubicación de las bases militares norteamericanas en el Viejo Continente y desde hace años se cree que sirve de base para operaciones encubiertas.

La base estadounidense de Camp Bondsteel (conocida simplemente como Bondsteel) en Kosovo es quizás la instalación militar de EE UU en Europa más tristemente famosa. Se encuentra ubicada en la ciudad de Urosevac en la parte oriental de Kosovo. El nombre de la base se debe al sargento mayor de las Fuerzas Armadas de EE UU, James Bondsteel, que luchó en Vietnam y recibió la más alta condecoración militar de su país, la Medalla del Honor. Formalmente, Bondsteel sirve como cuartel general de la Brigada Multinacional Este, bajo el mando de EE UU.

Sin embargo, su verdadero significado militar sobrepasa en mucho los límites de las tareas de las fuerzas de mantenimiento de paz de las KFOR.

Situada cerca de Urosevac, la base de Bondsteel, es la base estadounidense más grande construida tras el final de la guerra de Vietnam. Cuenta con un despliegue de 5000 militares (en caso de necesidad operativa hasta 7000), y sirve también de base de helicópteros.

Historia de una base militar casi secreta

La construcción de la planta comenzó en 1999 – inmediatamente después de los bombardeos de la OTAN en Yugoslavia y la entrada en el territorio de Kósovo de las tropas estadounidenses.

Los trabajos de construcción se llevaron a cabo en secreto por ingenieros militares de EE UU, así como por empleados de la compañía privada Kellogg, Brown and Root Corporation (KBR), que se encargó del posterior mantenimiento de la base. En la zona de los trabajos hubo que demoler dos colinas y rellenar el valle entre ellas. La planta entró en servicio en el verano del 2000.

Aunque la construcción llevó menos tiempo, de julio a octubre de 1999. El área de la base se compone de 3,86 kilómetros cuadrados, cuya longitud del perímetro exterior es de forma irregular, cerca de 11,3 kilómetros.

Entre las cerca de 300 instalaciones ubicadas en la base, cuentan con infraestructura para garantizar unidades de tanques, helicópteros, artillería y un sistema autónomo de electricidad y agua, sistema de televisión, cine, un centro comercial, un gran complejo deportivo, una biblioteca, una piscina cubierta, un sistema de última generación de refugios antiaéreos y un ultramoderno complejo hospitalario.

La longitud de la red de carreteras en el territorio de la base es de 25 kilómetros. La instalación está rodeada por 14 kilómetros de barreras de tierra y hormigón, con alambre de púas y 11 torres de vigilancia.

Según varias fuentes, Bondsteel es la base más grande de EE UU en Europa. Otras fuentes dicen que es la base aérea militar de Ramstein en Alemania, cuya área es tres veces mayor. Sin embargo, es justo decir que Rammstein es una base típica de la Fuerza Aérea, mientras que Bondsteel puede resolver una gama mucho más amplia de tareas.

Según el investigador británico Tim Judah, la creación de la base de Kósovo fue la consagración de los programas de reubicación de las bases militares de Estados Unidos en el territorio de la Alemania unificada realizados a finales de 1980.

Las tropas británicas, francesas y estadounidenses estuvieron en Alemania más de medio siglo después de la guerra y, dada la amenaza soviética tenían ahí su campo de operaciones. Ahora no tienen nada que hacer en Alemania, pero sin embargo, tienen la tarea de mantener la paz en los Balcanes. Los militares estadounidenses entendieron esto a primera vista.

La importancia de la base de Bondsteel en el marco de la estrategia político-militar de Estados Unidos en el sudeste de Europa se hace más comprensible si tenemos en cuenta la geografía de las instalaciones similares en la región.

En lo que respecta a Kosovo, además de Bondsteel, los estadounidenses pueden confiar en la capacidad de la base de Film-City de las KFOR en Pristina. Sin embargo, las posibilidades se las ceden por orden a Bondsteel.

Además, desde un punto de vista jurídico, estas instalaciones son utilizadas no solo por los estadounidenses, sino también por otras subdivisiones de los países miembros de la OTAN, lo que objetivamente le quita al Pentágono espacio de maniobra. Pero un factor aún más importante es el hecho de que los objetivos de Estados Unidos en Kosovo están en el centro del eje militar-territorial de Italia a Turquía.

Las bases militares estadounidenses en territorio italiano son las principales instalaciones del Pentágono en el sur de Europa.Principalmente la base de la Fuerza Aérea de Aviano tuvo una activa participación en los bombardeos de Yugoslavia en 1999. Sin embargo, en un contexto regional más amplio, la posibilidad de estas instalaciones es limitada. En cuanto a la base aérea estadounidense de Incirlik en Turquía, está en primer lugar, destinada a operaciones de la Fuerza Aérea de Estados Unidos en la región de Oriente Medio.

Una privilegiada posición de control geoestratégico

Precisamente la base de Bondsteel permite a Estados Unidos controlar las aguas del Mediterráneo y del mar Negro, y las rutas que conducen a Oriente Medio, Norte de África y el Cáucaso – incluyendo las rutas de los oleoductos existentes y futuros del mar Caspio y Asia Central. Se trata, en particular, del proyectado oleoducto Burgas-Skopje-Vlore, sobre el cual el secretario de Energía de EE UU, Bill Richardson, declaró en 1999: “Estamos hablando de la seguridad energética de Estados Unidos”: “Hemos hecho una inversión significativa en el Caspio, y ahora es muy importante para nosotros que los oleoductos y la política vayan en la dirección deseada”.

Por lo tanto, suponiendo una aparición en el flanco suroriental de la OTAN de un gran conflicto armado regional, precisamente Bondsteel se convertirá en la base principal de la organización y en lugar de las operaciones del Ejército estadounidense. Además, el apoyo ubicado en las instalaciones de las unidades del Ejército de EE UU lo proporcionarán aeródromos en ciudades como Tirana, Durres, Pristina, Bolonia, Skopje y Tuzla.

Los datos disponibles sugieren la posibilidad de conectar la base de Bondsteel para la realización de los planes de Estados Unidos en defensa de misiles – además de las instalaciones de defensa de misiles en Rumanía, Turquía y el mar Mediterráneo.

Según la estimación de uno de los principales expertos militares rusos, el presidente de la Academia de Asuntos Geopolíticos, el general Leonid Ivashov, “el enclave proestadounidense en Kosovo proporciona una concentración en la región de fuerzas armadas de los EE UU, y el desarrollo de la base militar de Bondsteel; en colaboración con el contingente militar de EE UU en Bosnia y Herzegovina y Bulgaria, esto dará la posibilidad de controlar el tránsito de los recursos energéticos, llevar a cabo operaciones en el sur y sureste, y si es necesario, colocar cualquier tipo de armas, incluyendo misiles de defensa, controlados por el territorio de Kosovo”.

Un marco de operaciones encubiertas

Una de las tareas asignadas a la base de Bondsteel desde su apertura ha sido llevar a cabo operaciones encubiertas fuera del control de la ONU, de la Unión Europea y de las instituciones euroatlánticas, incluida la OTAN. Esto se debe al hecho de que Bondsteel se somete directamente al Pentágono y posee extraterritorialidad.

Este hecho fue la clave en el escándalo que se levantó alrededor de la base en noviembre del 2005. Entonces, el comisario de Derechos Humanos del Consejo de Europa, Álvaro Gil-Robles sugirió la existencia de una prisión secreta en la base militar. En una entrevista con el diario francés Le Monde, recordó cómo durante una visita a la región en septiembre del 2002, desde una torre de observación, pudo ver una “versión más pequeña de Guantánamo”.

Barracas de madera rodeadas por una cerca de alambre de púas, varias decenas de presos vestidos con monos naranjas (algunos llevaban barba y leían el Corán) – todo ello recuerda a la prisión estadounidense en Cuba, donde son detenidos en condiciones inhumanas talibanes y otras personas capturadas durante operaciones antiterroristas.

Datos similares se guardaban en el informe elaborado por el Instituto de Berlín de Política Europea por encargo de la Defensa Federal. En el documento se destacaba que precisamente “la existencia de un centro secreto de reclusión de la CIA en la base de Bondsteel en Kosovo”, fue la más sorprendente manifestación del verdadero papel de EE UU y su renuencia a impulsar las investigaciones llevadas a cabo en Europa.

En la oficina de Pristina, el Comisionado para los Derechos Humanos en Kosovo, al mismo tiempo informó de que para ellos, la declaración de Gil-Robles no era ninguna nueva noticia. Según palabras del adjunto del Defensor del Pueblo de Kosovo, Liubinka Todorovic, la situación en Bondsteel todos los años causa serias sospechas.

Ya en el año 2002, el Departamento de Estado de EE UU dijo que en la base se encontraban detenidos 179 prisioneros. Sin embargo, “ni el comisionado para los Derechos Humanos en Kosovo, Marek Nowicki, ni el Consejo de Europa han tenido acceso al centro de detención, que está bajo el control del Ejército estadounidense”. Una misión de la ONU en la región, dijo que no tenían ningún control sobre las bases militares de los países miembros de la OTAN.

Según las autoridades estadounidenses, los prisioneros abandonaron la base de Bondsteel, en el 2003. Pero Gil-Robles estaba convencido de que la propia prisión no se desmontó y todavía está en condiciones de funcionar.

Las operaciones explícitas y encubiertas de la base de Bondsteel sirven como prueba viviente de la afirmación justa de uno de los arquitectos de la geopolítica moderna, exasesor de seguridad nacional del presidente de los EE UU, Zbigniew Brzezinski (que ocupó el cargo desde 1977 a 1981) sobre que las “legiones militares estadounidenses firmemente arraigaron en las zonas occidental y oriental de Eurasia”. Por otra parte, en su testimonio, “vasallos norteamericanos y Estados dependientes, algunos de los cuales están tratando de establecer lazos más fuertes y formales con Washington se han extendido por todo el continente euroasiático”.

Según un profesor de Relaciones Internacionales e Historia de la Universidad de Boston, Andrew Bacevic, el objetivo de la operación militar de la OTAN contra Yugoslavia en 1999 fue precisamente “mantener la superioridad de EE UU” en Europa y “la prevención de restos de viejas reglas en Europa”. Bajo estas reglas, como acertadamente pone de relieve uno de los principales expertos de Estados Unidos en el campo de la geopolítica, el profesor del MIT, Noam Chomsky, “la normas de dominación para EE UU siempre quedan aparte”.

Finalmente, otra consideración importante. El comandante supremo de las Fuerzas Aliadas de la OTAN en Europa en la época de los bombardeos en Yugoslavia, el general estadounidense Wesley Clark reconoció que “la causa clave verdadera” de la intervención de la OTAN en Kosovo fue un esfuerzo de la OTAN para “imponer su voluntad sobre el país dirigente cuyo abierto desafío al principio, en Bosnia y luego en Kósovo socavó la credibilidad de la diplomacia de EE UU y Europa, y minimizó la influencia de la propia OTAN”.

Desde esta perspectiva, la presencia militar de EE UU a largo plazo en el corazón de los Balcanes representa una oportunidad ideal para mantener bajo las armas a toda la región y asegurar los intereses estadounidenses de posibles desastres en el país. No es casual que en los medios de comunicación estadounidenses se lleve a cabo bastante activamente la oposición a la base de Bondsteel y la creación de una participación rusa del Ministerio de Situaciones de Emergencia en la ciudad serbia de Nis.

Actualmente, Washington y Bruselas están ejerciendo una creciente presión sobre Belgrado con el fin de conseguir que rechacen el acuerdo correspondiente serbio-ruso y así evitar incluso la apariencia de la presencia militar y política en Rusia cerca de Kosovo.

*Investigador principal del Instituto de Estudios Eslavos de la Academia de Ciencias de Rusia, y doctor en Historia.

Fuente: El Espía Digital

Ukraine : provocations américaines à la guerre?

Ukraine : provocations américaines à la guerre?

 

par Guillaume Faye

Ex: http://www.gfaye.com

 

Dans l’affaire ukrainienne, la ”politique d’escalade” n’est pas tant celle de Moscou que celle de la junte au pouvoir à Kiev, qui multiplie les provocations et les maladresses parce qu’elle y est encouragée par les Etats-Unis, le ”protecteur” qui joue une carte belliciste. Bien sûr, les Russes ne sont pas des petits saints. Il faudrait être naïf pour croire qu’ils ne sont pas présents derrière les sécessionnistes russophones de Crimée et de l’est de l’Ukraine. Mais enfin, les premiers à chercher l’affrontement, à attiser une guerre civile en Ukraine, ce sont, très habilement, certains groupes de pression américains. Pourquoi ?  

 La racine de la crise ukrainienne réside dans un ensemble de provocations occidentales (Bruxelles, Otan et USA) déjà à l’œuvre depuis plusieurs années. Le but est de contrecarrer le retour de puissance de la Russie depuis qu’elle est dirigée par Vladimir Poutine, de recréer une situation de guerre froide et d’empêcher à tout prix la Russie – devenue premier exportateur pétrogazier – de s’imposer comme un grand acteur économique. (Voir autres articles précédents de ce blog sur cette question)

Les USA sont un pays complexe, au pouvoir éclaté.  En ce moment, ce n’est pas la Maison Blanche qui est à la manœuvre, avec à sa tête le faible et indécis Barack Obama qui n’a jamais été russophobe, c’est un lobby  qui regroupe le Pentagone, la CIA et une partie du complexe militaro-industriel. Ce lobby est piloté par deux personnages clé : le vice-président Joe Biden et le sénateur McCain. Ils cherchent à la fois à attiser une guerre civile en Ukraine, et à forcer la Russie à intervenir militairement. Afin de créer l’affrontement avec cette dernière, la pousser à l’erreur, pour l’isoler et la diaboliser sur le plan international.

Les séparatistes ukrainiens du bassin du Don ont réalisé leurs référendums sans l’aval de Vladimir Poutine. Les apprentis sorciers excités du gouvernement de Kiev d’Arseni Iatseniouk n’ont rien trouvé de mieux comme gaffe monumentale que d’envoyer des unités militaires régulières : échec total, les soldats ont fraternisé avec la population.  Voyant cela, le ”président” autoproclamé O. Tourtchinov a fait dissoudre les régiments impliqués et envoyé la ”garde nationale”, c’est-à-dire des milices composés d’activistes des mouvements Svoboda et Secteur Droit. Le but était évidemment de provoquer une guerre civile. À Marioupol, les milices ont tiré dans la foule des prorusses ; à Odessa, elles ont incendié un bâtiment. Au total, plus de soixante morts.

 Bien entendu, les groupes indépendantistes de l’est, prorusses, ne sont pas des anges vertueux, loin de là, mais ils sont moins encouragés par Moscou que le gouvernement de Kiev ne l’est par Washington. Car derrière la stratégie d’affrontement, il y a le soutien aveugle apporté par le vice-président américain Joe Biden, qui attise les braises. Il y a aussi les mercenaires de la société de sécurité Academi (ex-Blackwater), dépendant de la CIA, envoyés spécialement à Kiev. Cela fait bonne mesure avec les militaires russes camouflés qui seraient derrière les indépendantistes de l’est. Sans oublier le sénateur McCain,  indécrottable belliciste, qui excite les irresponsables de Kiev. 

D’autre part, l’insistance de Washington pour durcir les sanctions économiques contre la Russie ne gêne nullement l’économie américaine, bien au contraire ; cela ne pénalise que l’Europe et la Russie, ce qui est une aubaine pour l’ ”allié” d’outre-Atlantique (1). Mentionnons aussi l’incroyable ingérence américaine dans les relations franco-russes pour faire annuler le contrat de vente de 1,2 milliards d’euros des bâtiments Vladivostok et Sébastopol destinés à la marine russe. Il s’agit de briser dans l’œuf  toute coopération militaire entre l’Europe – en premier lieu la France – et la Russie, cauchemar pour le Pentagone et le complexe militaro-industriel US.

En effet, Washington prend prétexte de cette crise pour cibler l’industrie militaire russe, un des rares secteurs très performants du pays, qui gêne beaucoup les Américains. « Nous allons accroître la pression sur les proches de Vladimir Poutine, les sociétés qu’ils dirigent et l’industrie de la défense », a avoué un des conseillers à la sécurité de la Maison Blanche. L’objectif logique des Américains, à la fois économique et stratégique global,  est de casser toute coopération militaro-industrielle entre la France et la Russie, d’étrangler l’industrie de défense russe et de conserver leur monopole d’exportation des armements vers les pays de l’Otan.  De leur point de vue, ils ont raison. D’autant plus que le Pentagone s’inquiète de la relance du budget de défense russe par l’administration Poutine : cela contrecarre les espoirs  des années 90 (sous la présidence de M. Eltsine, après l’implosion molle de l’URSS) de voir la Russie devenir un nain militaire.

 

Dans le courrier des lecteurs de Valeurs actuelles (8–14 mai 2014), Xavier Lacroix  écrit : « Les Américains ont, stratégiquement parlant, tout intérêt à plonger l’Ukraine dans un conflit civil de moyenne intensité pour en imputer la responsabilité à la Russie tout en l’empêchant d’y intervenir. Il est certain que la Russie voit d’un œil favorable ces villes qui se rebellent contre l’autorité de Kiev, mais il est faux d’affirmer que la Russie soutient une stratégie d’escalade. Je ne suis pas là dans un antiaméricanisme primaire ou dans une idolâtrie poutinienne candide. » Bonne analyse. 

Comme toujours, les USA jouent avec le feu. Mauvais joueurs de poker, comme ils l’ont montré en Afghanistan, en Irak, en Lybie, en Somalie, en Syrie ou ailleurs, leur interventionnisme ne débouche que sur des échecs. Leur politique étrangère, belliciste, impérialiste, naïve provoque guerres et déstabilisations. Mais, avec cynisme, elle est au moins fondamentalement nationaliste. (2) L’intérêt de la France et de l’Europe est, sur le dossier ukrainien, de se découpler des USA et de résoudre le problème entre nous, avec les Russes. Cette question ne regarde pas les Américains.   

La russophobie américaine est complètement contraire aux intérêts européens. Comme je l’ai dit à plusieurs reprises dans d’autres écrits, l’idéal serait que la France, conjointement avec l’Allemagne, renoue avec une politique gaullienne : dégagement de l’Otan et axe Paris-Berlin-Moscou. On en est loin, très loin, dans cette Europe d’où toute grande politique est absente, où les petits politiciens règnent en maîtres, où la politique étrangère se résume aux Droit-de-l’hommisme et à l’obéissance à l’Otan, filiale du Pentagone, où les frontières ouvertes ne laissent pas seulement passer les productions du monde entier mais un déversement migratoire invasif, où le simulacre de démocratie – c’est-à-dire l’oligarchie – a étouffé la voix des peuples.

Si l’Amérique est un mauvais joueur de poker, au moins c’est un joueur acharné qui veut gagner. L’Europe donne l’impression non seulement de ne pas connaître les règles du jeu et de s’en remettre aux autres, mais, pis encore, de vouloir perdre.

 

1) Les échanges russo-américains ne représentent que 1% du commerce extérieur des USA, 40 milliards de dollars, contre 460 milliards pour l’UE. 18 pays européens dépendent à plus de 50% du gaz russe. Les Américains (cf. autre article de ce blog) pensent aussi à l’exportation de leur gaz de schiste en Europe…

2) Peu d’analystes (sauf américains) l’ont compris : les politiques étrangère, mais aussi économique des USA sont beaucoup plus nationalistes et impérialistes que celles de la Russie. On ne peut pas le reprocher à Washington, simplement il faut en tirer les conséquences.

Rusland dumpt 20% staatsobligaties VS

Rusland dumpt 20% staatsobligaties VS

 

België koopt juist $ 200 miljard

 

Ex: http://xandernieuws.punt.nl

 

Iedereen begrijpt dat het diep in de schulden gestoken België nooit zelf voor zo'n enorm bedrag aan Amerikaanse staatsobligaties kan hebben opgekocht. De ware identiteit van de koper is echter onbekend.

Vanmiddag werd definitief bevestigd dat Rusland al vóór maart 2014 voor het recordbedrag van $ 26 miljard aan Amerikaanse staatsobligaties heeft gedumpt, ongeveer 20% van het totaal. Rusland houdt nu voor net iets meer aan $ 100 miljard aan Amerikaanse schuldpapieren over, het laagste niveau sinds de Lehman-crisis in 2008. Schokkender is het feit dat het kleine België sinds december vorig jaar voor maar liefst $ 181 miljard Amerikaanse schatkistpapieren heeft gekocht, waarvan $ 40 miljard in maart.

Onze zuiderburen hebben nu bijna net zoveel Amerikaanse schulden gekocht als hun totale jaarlijkse BNP, en zijn daarmee na China en Japan wereldwijd de grootste houder van Amerikaanse staatsobligaties.

Omdat het onmogelijk is dat het diep in de schulden gestoken België dit op eigen houtje heeft kunnen doen, moet er dus een onbekende koper zijn die België gebruikt als ‘proxy’ aankoopkanaal. Vanzelfsprekend kan dat alleen met volledige medewerking van de Belgische regering gebeuren.

In augustus 2013 bezat België nog voor ‘slechts’ $ 167 miljard Amerikaanse staatsschuldpapieren. In november schoot dit bedrag ineens omhoog naar $ 257 miljard, en de teller stond in maart van dit jaar op $ 381 miljard. Ter vergelijk: het Belgische BBP schommelt zo rond de $ 400 miljard.

Japan, de nummer 2 op de lijst, heeft juist voor $ 10 miljard verkocht, terwijl China als grootste houder zijn aandeel min of meer stabiel houdt.

De massa aankopen via België tonen eens te meer aan dat het hele Westerse valuta- en staatsschuldensysteem met kunstmatige ingrepen overeind wordt gehouden, en de staatsobligatiemarkt zwaar gemanipuleerd wordt. Onafhankelijke analisten zien hierin een duidelijk signaal dat de gevreesde totale crash steeds dichterbij komt.

Xander

(1) Zero Hedge
(2) Zero Hedge

 

 

Vladimir Odintsov

 

Shale Gas: Another White House Lie

Ex: http://journal-neo.org

 

The world has long accepted that in the name of world domination, Washington often resorts to a policy of lies and is ready to sacrifice the fundamental interests of residents in other nations. In aiming for world hegemony, it does not hesitate to launch propaganda campaigns which include not only puppet media, but even U.S. State Secretaries. One need only remember Colin Powell who has “entered history” after he waved around some kind of vial before the UN Council to justify America’s armed aggression against Iraq. This relay of lies was gladly taken up by current State Secretary John Kerry who gave false testimony about Al Qaeda’s influence on Syrian insurgents and who has more recently “accused” Russia of inciting the unrest in Ukraine. In reality, the people in Ukraine, Libya, Iraq and Syria were nothing but hostages in the interventions organised by Washington to obtain a strategic advantage in various corners of the earth and numerous sectors, including the energy industry, through establishing control over the energy resources market. Washington has no equals in its intolerance for any competition either in the economic or the political arena as it is not even above stepping on anyone, even an ally. Let us remember the global financial crisis in 2008 in particular. Instigated by America’s oligarchic elite, it resulted in various White House schemes to drag the European currency system into this crisis, robbing it of any possibility to reinforce itself amidst a falling dollar while preventing international transactions from moving from the dollar to the euro, which was an option seriously considered by many countries.

The White House is presently acting in similar fashion by imposing “sanctions” against Russia, who is now edging Washington out of the core at the centre of international politics and thus influencing the drop in ratings for the present Washington administration not only within the U.S. but abroad as well. At the same time, Washington is clearly ignoring the fact that Europe is the one most affected and suffering from these “sanctions”. The White House’s “American helping hand” comes in the form of actively pushing its own variety of “energy independence” from Russia and other nations exporting traditional energy resources. This “saviour” takes the shape of so-called shale gas and shale oil as the States are ready to meet Europe’s energy needs by supplying them with American-made shale fuel while also helping them process the raw material directly in Europe.

However, we must stop and examine this closer: is this new raw material truly a panacea from being energy dependent on Russia or is it another deceitful trick by the White House?

Although shale gas was first extracted in America in 1821, “shale gas fever” truly gripped the U.S. only in the 21st century. The technology that was collecting dust for half a century in the archives due to its catastrophic side effects and which was accurately dubbed by environmentalists as “environmental terrorism” was reanimated after two notorious key White House figures got their hands on it – former CIA director John Mark Deutch and U.S. Vice President (earlier the Executive Director and the Chairman of the Board at Halliburton) Dick Cheney. It was under their pressure that in 2005, Congress suddenly legalised the use of fracking and chemicals right next to sources of drinking water without any sort of control during the extraction of shale gas. The law has even received the name of the “Halliburton Loophole” thanks to its greatest lobbyist Dick Cheney. In 2010, the report on “The Benefits of Shale Gas for Investors” blew up in the stock markets thanks in no small part to former CIA Director John Mark Deutch, who was one of the main co-authors of the document and who is currently a member of the Supervisory Boards at Cheniere Energy and Schlumberger, which stand at the fountainhead of the shale revolution.

According to official American statistics, over the last year, the country saw the extraction of oil and gas rise to its 20-year maximum thanks to developing technologies like hydraulic fracturing (fracking), which allowed companies to extract shale hydrocarbons even from cliff deposits. The technological process whereby a mixture of water and chemicals is pumped into shales to extract the shale gas and oil also generates a large volume of waste water. As the number of fields where hydrocarbons are extracted through fracking increases, so do the number of reports coming in from Texas to Ohio and even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stating that after using this extraction method, the groundwater was contaminated with methane and glycol, there was a widespread poisoning of the soil and, as a result, a worsening of the living conditions for both the residents and their animals in these areas. Poisonous methane seeps from the wells into the plumbing of American homes thus turning this “goldmine” into a powder keg, which results in the spontaneous combustion of numerous dwellings. The water burns in Texas and in Louisiana, while the shale revolution has touched a total of 48 states.

The Wall Street Journal examined the registry and the data on wells drilling for natural gas in over 700 counties in 11 key production states. The journal found that the homes of at least 15.3 million Americans are located within a single mile from natural gas wells which have been operating since 2000. This is greater than the population of states like New York or Michigan.

However, recently American residents have been even more alarmed at the sharp increase in seismic activity around the areas where shale deposits are being extracted. The injection of fracking chemicals between 2000 and 2013 has led to a six-fold increase in earthquakes in the central part of the country, notes the U.S. Geological Survey. Leading geophysicist at the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park (California) Art McGarr stated that “Earthquakes began after we switched from regular drilling to hydraulic fracturing”. Seismologist at Oklahoma’s Geological Agency Austin Holland added this expert conclusion: “Since 2009, the number of earthquake reports in Oklahoma has increased by 40 times as compared with the previous three decades. They are occurring with increasing frequency near the Arbuckle formation, where fracturing fluids have been injected to a depth of 1.8-3km.”

The topic of shale earthquakes was discussed at the annual conference of the Seismological Society of America which took place between April 30 and May 2, 2014 in the city of Anchorage, Alaska. In his speech at the conference, geophysicist Art McGarr from the U.S. Geological Survey directly stated that the “sheer volume of injected water is a factor that affects the magnitude of earthquakes, while the frequency of injections affects the frequency of their occurrence”.

Fearing that this reckless behaviour on the part of energy companies that are only in it for corporate profits will lead to their roofs collapsing right on top of everyday Americans, they are uniting throughout the United States in a protest movement, demanding strict regulations and even prohibiting the extraction of shale deposits. However, American companies, even recognising the disastrous nature of their actions, feign ignorance, turning a blind eye to the protests by their citizens and instead put all of their efforts into trying to export this technology into Europe and other regions in the world, actively manipulating the catchy slogan created by the White House of “freedom from Russian energy dependence”.

These shale politics dictated by Washington to Poland are already being put into practice with a “helping hand” from American companies like Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Conoco Phillips as well as Canadian Talisman and Nexen. However, even this country has already met with the reverse side of American support and a conflict is now brewing. Polish farmers have been fighting Chevron for almost a year, blocking the entrances to areas designated for drilling with their tractors due to the growing fears that groundwater will be contaminated and seismic activity will increase. Despite efforts by American companies to smooth over the growing conflict by spreading information that the technology used in the extraction of shale gas is perfectly safe, the lies used in these tactics are confirmed by the recent $19 million fine against Chevron for contaminating the environment in Ecuador.

This resulted in a number of companies turning away from surveying for any new shale gas deposits in Poland: French Total, American Marathon Oil and Exxon and Canadian Talisman Energy, who were joined by the Italian Eni in January of this year.

Apart from Poland, protests also overwhelmed the Dutch town of Groningen and the nearby regions causing the Dutch government to decrease its production of shale gas, which has triggered a number of earthquakes in the region and caused serious damage to local structures.

In recent months, the “American helping hand” was extended by the White House to Ukraine, where Shell was able to ride the wave of political uncertainty to a contract for the extraction of shale gas in the heavily populated region of western Ukraine. However, neither U.S. State Secretary aid Victoria Nuland nor Senator John McCain said anything to Ukrainian residents about the dangers of fracking technology during their visits to the country.

Is it even worth telling them? After all, the White House isn’t worried about the problems of Ukraine and other countries since it decides on its own who gets to know how much truth!

Vladimir Odintsov, political commentator, exclusively for the internet magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Schaliegas hype in VS draait op dure mislukking uit

Schaliegas hype in VS draait op dure mislukking uit

 

Ex: http://xandernieuws.punt.nl

80% tot 90% van schaliegas in velden reeds gewonnen - Investeringsexpert: Dit is handel in smeltende ijsblokjes

Als sommige berichten moeten worden geloofd, kan de VS dankzij schaliegas één van de grootste olie- en gasexporteurs ter wereld worden. President Obama beweerde onlangs dat schaliegas voor spectaculaire economische groei zal zorgen, en zowel Europa als Oekraïne onafhankelijk van Russisch aardgas kan maken. Mooie woorden, maar de feiten tonen aan dat hier helemaal niets van klopt. Over hooguit enkele jaren zal blijken dat schaliegas één grote mislukte, en vooral heel erg dure hype is.

Op papier ziet het er indrukwekkend uit: tussen 2005 en 2010 steeg het aandeel schaliegas in de gaswinning van de VS van onder de 2% naar ruim 20%. 2011 werd een recordjaar. Voorstanders stellen dat schaliegas nog voor tientallen jaren energie zal gaan leveren.

80% - 90% van velden uitgeput

Het wereldwijd gerenommeerde Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) nam de cijfers eens onder de loep, en kwamen tot ontnuchterende conclusies. Zo blijkt een gemiddelde schaliegasbron al één jaar na aanboring 60% of meer van zijn opbrengst te verliezen. Na slechts vier jaar ‘fracking’ blijft er nog maar 20% van het oorspronkelijke gasvolume over.

De Amerikaanse schaliegas’boom’ bereikte in 2009 zijn hoogtepunt. Dat betekent dat de schaliegasvelden inmiddels 80% tot 90% zijn uitgeput. De olie- en gasmaatschappijen hebben de winning op papier enkel op pijl kunnen houden door steeds meer nieuwe bronnen aan te boren.

Nieuwe zeepbel

‘Fracking’ is een zeer dure technologie, die deze maatschappijen tot nu toe meer kost dan het opbrengt. Met de uitgifte van aandelen wordt de winning bekostigt. Investeerders wordt voorgehouden dat schaliegas zeer winstgevend zal worden, maar die verwachting is enkel gebaseerd op de hoop dat de gasprijs fors zal gaan stijgen.

In realiteit is er een nieuwe ‘zeepbel’ vol waardeloze aandelen gecreëerd, die op zeker moment –als de Federal Reserve de rente zal moeten verhogen- uit elkaar zal spatten. Om dat te voorkomen overspoelen de topmanagers van de energiebedrijven de politiek en media met uiterst positieve berichten. Zo beweerde de CEO van Conoco/Philips, Ryan Lance, dat de schaliegas’revolutie’ nog maar net is begonnen, en de VS tientallen jaren lang van energie zal voorzien.

Al in 2020 omslagpunt

Volgens Arthur Berman, een aardoliegeoloog met meer dan 34 jaar ervaring, zullen de schaliegasvelden echter al in 2020 een cruciaal omslagpunt bereiken, waarna de exploitatie geen zin meer heeft. Als bedacht wordt dat de bouw van nieuwe overslagterminals, die nodig zijn voor de beoogde export naar onder andere Europa, eveneens nog zo’n 7 jaar in beslag neemt, wordt de enorme omvang van de hype duidelijk.

Giftige stoffen in grondwater

Bovendien is ‘fracking’ zeer omstreden, aangezien met deze techniek zeer giftige stoffen diep in de bodem worden gepompt, waardoor de druk in bepaalde aardlagen toeneemt en het schaliegas er als het ware uit wordt geperst. Groot probleem is dat vaak tot wel 70% van deze giftige vloeistof weglekt en in het grondwater –en uiteindelijk in het drinkwater- terecht komt. Dat is in onder andere de staat Pennsylvania, maar ook op andere locaties gebeurd.

Wall Street financiert boom

De Amerikaanse schaliegasboom blijft overeind dankzij het nul-rente en ‘quantitative easing’ beleid (het creëren van grote hoeveelheden nieuw geld) van de Federal Reserve. Hedge- en beleggingsfondsen hebben in schaliegas op kunstmatige wijze een nieuwe investering met hoog rendement gecreëerd. De aardgasmaatschappijen kunnen hun ‘fracking’ dan ook enkel financieren met de miljarden van Wall Street.

Junk-status

Aangezien de VS almaar dieper in een economische depressie terecht komt, zal de rente voorlopig niet worden verhoogd. Ondertussen draaien de frackingmaatschappijen verlies en worden hun schulden almaar hoger, waardoor hun aandelen door de kredietbeoordelaars zoals S&P inmiddels als ‘zeer risicovol’ of zelfs als ‘junk’ (waardeloos) worden beoordeeld. Dit geldt al voor 75 van de 97 betrokken ondernemingen.

‘Handel in smeltende ijsblokjes’

‘Dit is handel in smeltende ijsblokjes,’ zei Mike Kelly van de investeringsfirma Global Hunter Securities in Houston. ‘Als ze de productie niet verhogen, zijn ze er geweest.’ De zogenaamde schaliegas’revolutie’ is in werkelijkheid een luchtballon, een sneeuwbalsysteem dat al over enkele jaren een uiterst kostbare mislukking zal blijken te zijn.

Xander

(1) KOPP

La “dé-dollarisation”: Moscou means business

La “dé-dollarisation”: Moscou means business

Ex: http://www.dedefensa.org

Nous suivons avec attention ZeroHedge.com, un site sérieux et très attentif à cette sorte de problèmes, dans son suivi minutieux de l’évolution russe dans le développement d’une politique qu’on peut commencer à qualifier du label un peu lourd mais significatif de “dé-dollarisation”. Il s’agit certes de la politique visant à abandonner le dollar comme monnaie d’échange, au profit de monnaies nationales ou d’autres moyens divers ; il s’agit d’une des diverses “options nucléaires” à la disposition de Moscou dans la crise ukrainienne. (“Option nucléaire”, c’est-à-dire la désignation de choix politiques fondamentaux pour riposter au bloc BAO/USA dans divers domaines stratégiques, avec des effets, des “retombées” considérables susceptibles de secouer très fortement le Système lui-même jusqu’à des possibilités d’effondrement. Par exemple, une action russe de restriction des livraisons d’énergie au bloc BAO/UE constitue également une “option nucléaire”, du domaine commercial et énergétique. Bien entendu, l’“option nucléaire” de la dé-dollarisation affecte le domaine financier et commercial mondial, et le domaine général de l’hégémonie US par divers capacités et moyens techniques.)

Nous avons déjà rendu compte de ces perspectives d’attaque contre la suprématie du dollar, respectivement le 22 mars 2014 et le 3 avril 2014. Déjà l’intérêt de suivre ZeroHedge.com apparaissait dans sa capacité à observer et commenter le cheminement russe, alors que la plupart des commentateurs financiers du bloc BAO, dans leur écrasante majorité anglo-saxons, dédaignent en général ces sources russes, s’en remettant à leur propre expertise impérative, par attitude habituelle de mépris et d’arrogance. Effectivement, le mépris arrogant sous-jacent et même affleurant la surface pour la Russie, qui constitue le principal problème psychologique et de communication pesant sur la crise actuelle avec la Russie comme sur le comportement du bloc BAO vis-à-vis de la Russie depuis vingt ans pour la séquence actuelle, et depuis des décennies et plus en général, relève absolument de ce que nous avons désigné comme le suprématisme anglo-saxon, sorte la plus perverse du racisme, rejoignant le comportement du nazisme lors de son existence et de son activité. (Pour une appréciation fondamentale de ce suprématisme anglo-saxon, de son “opérationnalisation” à partir de 1945 pour établir l’empire d’une conception du monde correspondant, non seulement à l’hybris anglo-saxon mais surtout à la dynamique déstructuration-dissolution-entropisation [voir le 7 novembre 2013] du Système, voir le 15 octobre 2013 et les références à Arnold Toynbee.)

... Tout cela, pour en venir au texte de ZeroHedge.com (Tyler Durden) du 13 mai 2014, qui s’appuie sur ces diverses sources russes évoquées pour observer, en ouverture de son texte que, lorsqu’ils parlent de se passer du dollar, la Russie, selon l’expression favorite des hommes politiques US qui ne peuvent cacher l’origine de leurs conceptions, la Russie means business (approximativement : “la Russie est sérieuse”) : «That Russia has been pushing for trade arrangements that minimize the participation (and influence) of the US dollar ever since the onset of the Ukraine crisis (and before) is no secret... [ ...] But until now much of this was in the realm of hearsay and general wishful thinking. [...] However, as much as it may trouble the statists to read, Russia is actively pushing on with plans to put the US dollar in the rearview mirror and replace it with a dollar-free system. Or, as it is called in Russia, a “de-dollarized” world.» (Le souligné gras des citations est du texte original.)

Divers événements et déclarations sont citées, venues de The Voice of Russia, d’une interview du vice-ministre des finances Alexei Moiseev sur Rossia 24, etc. Il y est question d’une réunion du 24 avril pour définir les modalités de la dé-dollarisation avec divers dirigeants économiques et financiers. Durden remarque avec justesse l’importance des procédures développées par le gouvernement russe, et notamment l’apparition d’un instrument décisionnel qui le surprend, tant il le croyait réservé au président des États-Unis  : «Further, if you thought that only Obama can reign supreme by executive order alone, you were wrong – the Russians can do it just as effectively. Enter the “currency switch executive order": It is interesting that in his interview, Moiseev mentioned a legal mechanism that can be described as “currency switch executive order”, telling that the government has the legal power to force Russian companies to trade a percentage of certain goods in rubles.»

Bien évidemment, Durden termine ce long texte par l’évocation précise des premières mesures fondamentales de cette entreprise de dé-dollarisation de la part de la Russie qu’il semble juger, qu’il juge irréversible. Il s’agit essentiellement de la rencontre Poutine-Xi à Pékin, lors de la visite du président russe en Chine les 20-21 mai. Pas de surprise, lorsque Durden ajoute l’Iran, et même l’Inde, comme les autres premiers grands pays concernés par la campagne russe contre le dollar, sinon simplement le sentiment que ces événements annoncés prennent dans le contexte évoqué une dimension soudainement impressionnante... (Dans ce cas, on notera en passant combien serait renforcée l’option de la coopération avec la Russie de l’Iran, telle qu’évoquée ce même 14 mai 2014.)

«Of course, the success of Moscow's campaign to switch its trading to rubles or other regional currencies will depend on the willingness of its trading partners to get rid of the dollar. Sources cited by Politonline.ru mentioned two countries who would be willing to support Russia: Iran and China. Given that Vladimir Putin will visit Beijing on May 20, it can be speculated that the gas and oil contracts that are going to be signed between Russia and China will be denominated in rubles and yuan, not dollars. In other words, in one week's time look for not only the announcement of the Russia-China “holy grail” gas agreement [...] but its financial terms, which now appears virtually certain will be settled exclusively in RUB and CNY. Not USD.

»And as we have explained repeatedly in the past, the further the west antagonizes Russia, and the more economic sanctions it lobs at it, the more Russia will be forced away from a USD-denominated trading system and into one which faces China and India. Which is why next week's announcement, as groundbreaking as it most certainly will be, is just the beginning.»

Ce rapport de ZeroHedge.com est moins important par les nouvelles qu’il apporte, qui sont en fait une recollection d’interventions publiques et de décisions qui n’ont rien de secret ni d’inattendu, – mais tout de même, pour en rester au côté événementiel pur, qui se situent à une semaine de cette rencontre qui prend une importance capitale, qui est celle des deux présidents, Poutine et Xi. L’importance primordiale que nous lui accordons, effectivement, se situe à un autre niveau, au niveau le plus haut de cette “crise haute sublime” et peut-être de cette “crise haute ultime” (voir le 24 mars 2014). Il s’agit de la confirmation du caractère formidable de cette crise ukrainienne où l’on voit, à côté des événements d’Ukraine qui poursuivent irrésistiblement leur rythme de dissolution de l’entité-fantoche ficelée par le bloc BAO comme absurde et grotesque prétention de la légitimité d’un État ; à côté de la tension de type “néo-Guerre froide” qui se met en place dans sa composante technique au travers de diverses mesures prises d’un côté comme de l’autre et qui ressuscitent les postures de la Guerre froide mais dans un rapport bien différent, sinon inversé, des légitimités affirmées ; à côté des tensions sous-jacentes ou déjà exprimées qu’on relève entre les divers composants du bloc BAO ; à côté de la mobilisation patriotique (bien plus que “nationaliste”) à tendance antimoderne et se référant à la Tradition qu’on constate en Russie, autour de la direction politique... A côté de tout cela se poursuit cette marche qui paraît bien irrésistible vers ce phénomène de dé-dollarisation qui conduit nécessairement à la mise en question d'une structure hégémonique mondiale.

Y a-t-il une démonstration plus convaincante de la multiplicité extrême de cette crise ukrainienne, de la façon dont elle suscite et annexe tous les problèmes fondamentaux, non seulement de l’antagonisme bloc BAO-Russie, mais bien au-delà, tous les problèmes fondamentaux du Système lui-même ? ... Ainsi, dans de tels moments où l’on peut dresser un constat de situation sans qu’un événement exceptionnel force à se concentrer sur un seul aspect de la crise, apparaît l’universalité de cette crise, ce qui fait penser que “la crise ukrainienne, c’est bien plus que la crise ukrainienne” (voir le 7 mai 2014), que c’est la crise d’effondrement du Système elle-même. Nous ne cessons de répéter ce qui nous paraît être un constat simplement parce qu’il ne nous paraît pas qu’il y ait quoi que ce soit qui soit plus important, et que, par conséquent, on ne cessera pas de l’observer, de l’évaluer, de le mesurer, ce constat, tant qu’il continuera à s’imposer à nous. Jusqu’ici et depuis la fin février, rien, absolument rien n’est venu contrecarrer sérieusement l’idée que la crise ukrainienne est en train de se transmuter en crise d’effondrement du Système, mieux encore, qu’elle est purement et simplement cette crise. La quête de la dé-dollarisation, qui n’a pas l’air d’inquiéter outre-mesure le bloc BAO qui a bien assez à faire à préparer le 70ème anniversaire du D-Day où il importera de montrer à monsieur Poutine qu’il ne fait pas partie de la bande, cette quête ne démentira pas notre impression générale. On s'en serait douté.

Rusland en China nemen actieve stappen om dollar te laten vallen

Rusland en China nemen actieve stappen om dollar te laten vallen

Ex: http://xandernieuws.punt.nl

De val van de dollar zal dramatische gevolgen hebben voor de Amerikaanse economie en samenleving, en ook voor alle Europese landen en bedrijven die voor een groot deel afhankelijk zijn van de handel met de VS (zoals Nederland).

De lang voorspelde en gevreesde val van de Amerikaanse dollar lijkt weer een stap dichterbij te komen nu het Russische ministerie van Financiën het groene licht heeft gegeven aan een plan om het aantal in dollar afgehandelde transacties radicaal te verminderen. Ook China en Iran zouden er wel oren naar hebben om de dollar bij hun onderlinge handel te laten vallen. Aangezien de Russische president Putin op 20 mei naar Beijing reist om gas- en oliecontracten af te sluiten, is de kans groot dat deze leveringen niet langer in dollars, maar in roebels en yuans zullen worden afgerekend.

Volgens Voice of Russia kwam de regering op 24 april speciaal bijeen om te overleggen hoe Rusland van de dollar af kan komen. De grootste experts uit de energiesector, banken en overheidssector overlegden wat de beste reactie kan zijn op de Amerikaanse sancties, die werden ingesteld vanwege de crisis in Oekraïne.

Igor Shuvalow, vicepremier van de Russische Federatie, was de voorzitter tijdens deze ‘de-dollarisering vergadering’, wat aangeeft dat het Kremlin meer dan alleen maar bluft. Vice minister van Financiën Alexey Moiseev gaf leiding aan een tweede vergadering. Na afloop verklaarde hij dat geen van de experts en afgevaardigden problemen voorziet als Rusland het aantal internationale betalingen in roebels gaat opvoeren.

Tevens maakte Moiseev melding van een ‘valuta-switch uitvoerend bevel’, waarmee de regering Russische bedrijven kan dwingen om een bepaald percentage van hun handel in roebels af te rekenen. Gevraagd of dit percentage 100% zou kunnen worden, antwoordde hij: ‘Dat is een extreme optie, en het is lastig voor me om nu te zeggen of de regering deze macht zal gebruiken.’

Als alleen Rusland zo’n drastische stap zou nemen, zou er voor de VS nog niet veel aan de hand zijn. Het zal echter niemand verbazen dat China en Iran serieus overwegen om de Russen te volgen. De omvangrijke olie- en gascontracten die president Putin op 20 mei in Beijing zal afsluiten, zullen mogelijk al volledig in roebels en yuans worden afgerekend.

Zo begint steeds dichterbij te komen waar critici al maanden voor waarschuwen, namelijk dat het anti-Russische beleid van het Westen als een boemerang tegen onze eigen hoofden zal terugkeren. De gascontracten die Rusland met China gaat afsluiten zijn slechts het begin. Als steeds meer landen gaan volgen, dan is het een kwestie van tijd voordat de dollar valt, waardoor de complete Amerikaanse economie crasht. Ook voor de Europese economie zal dit verstrekkende gevolgen hebben.

 

Xander

(1) Zero Hedge (/ Voice of Russia) 

The Obama Doctrine

The Obama Doctrine: Replacing Democratically-Elected Governments by Undemocratic Contrivances

Wayne MADSEN

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

Born out of U.S. think tanks, most with covert links to U.S. intelligence agencies, the Obama Doctrine on foreign policy will have at its hallmark the replacement of democratically-elected governments with leaders chosen by undemocratic means. The Obama Doctrine first reared its ugly head in June 2009 when the Obama administration sanctioned a «constitutional coup» against the left-leaning democratically-elected president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya. The «cover» for the coup was a contrived Honduran Supreme Court decision that authorized Zelaya’s ouster. The Honduran coup had the support of the U.S.-trained Honduran military, as well as U.S. military personnel in the country detailed from the U.S. Southern Command in Miami.

The Honduran coup was followed in March 2013 by the Paraguayan «show trial» impeachment of leftward-leaning and democratically-elected president Fernando Lugo. The Paraguayan Congress, dominated by right-wing oligarchs, removed Lugo and replaced him with a right-wing savant who took his orders from the U.S. embassy and CIA station in Asuncion, the Paraguayan capital.

Proving to itself that «constitutional coups» could be successful in its own hemisphere, the Obama administration and its CIA operatives, some operating under the non-profit cover of George Soros’s Open Society Institute, set about to organize similar undemocratic changes of government in countries further away. This past February’s ouster of democratically-elected Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych by a clique of World Bank stooges, Zionists, and neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian parliament led to Europe’s worst crisis since the end of the Cold War.

After deposing Yanukovych, the Obama administration saw another opportunity to depose a democratically-elected populist leader, Thailand’s Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. The Thai Constitutional Court, dominated by judges beholden to royalists and wealthy oligarchs, deposed Yingluck because of purely political charges by the Thai right-wing that she abused her office. Yingluck, in an undemocratic manner, was replaced by her Deputy Prime Minister and Commerce Minister Niwatthamrong Boonsongphaisan. Nine other government ministers were also ordered to resign. The caretaker government was authorized by the court to remain in power until a July 20 election.

Yingluck and her brother, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, himself deposed in a 2006 military coup, have advocated for Thailand’s poor rural class. The rural movement, known as the «Red Shirts», engaged in street battles with the pro-royalist «Yellow Shirts». The Yellow Shirts never recognized the outcome of the 2011 election, which saw the pro-Red Short Yingluck cruise to victory. The Yellow Shirts conspired with the large CIA station in Bangkok, as well as local Soros-funded operatives, to deploy «rent-a-mobs» to launch protests against the Yingluck administration. 

Red Shirt leaders accused the Thai court of using its powers to unseat a democratically-elected leader. There is little doubt that the clearing out of the Yingluck government in Bangkok was tied directly to the recent visit of Obama to Asia where he set about to recreate the old Cold War Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) to confront the expanding growing power of China in the region. After having secured military base rights in the Philippines, a founding member of the long-defunct SEATO, Obama traveled to Malaysia to discuss an expanding U.S. military role in the country that extends from the Malayan peninsula to Sarawak and Sabah states on the island of Borneo. One holdout for Obama was Thailand, whose pro-Red Shirt government was more interested in expanding economic opportunities for Thailand’s poor agrarian sector of the population than in playing host to Cold War-era military bases and trans-Pacific «free trade» opportunists. For that reason, Obama and his CIA masters conspired with Thailand’s royal family, corporate tycoons, and elements of the Thai military to engineer Yingluck out of power. 

In a three-month period of time, the Obama Doctrine saw the undemocratic expulsion from power of the «2 Ys» – Yanukovych and Yingluck. Based on this success, the Obama administration, with the twin harpy advocates of Obama’s so-called «Responsibility to Protect» policy, UN ambassador Samantha Power and National Security Adviser Susan Rice, at the helm, was more dangerous than ever. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro faced a dual CIA and Soros operation to destabilize Venezuela through street mob action, financial pressure, media propaganda, and attempts to convince Venezuelan military officers to stage a coup.

Media propaganda, channeling contrived news stories about financial collapse in Venezuela, are being facilitated by working relationships between such outlets as Bloomberg News and the Wall Street Journal and well-funded «think tanks», such as the Inter-American Dialogue rife with Council of Foreign Relations, Ford Foundation, neocon American Enterprise Institute, and Open Society Institute veterans on their board of directors and staff. Master currency manipulator and Wall Street bankers have conspired to devalue the Venezuelan bolivar, resulting in de facto boycotts of Venezuela by multinational corporations like Ford Motors and Toyota and resultant lay-offs in the auto industry and other private sector industries. Bringing international bank pressure on a targeted nation is a hallmark of the Obama Doctrine, as witnessed by the World Bank and European Union financial pressure on Ukraine prior to the coup against Yanukovych.

The same combination of political and economic pressure was brought against Thailand by the United States and its Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) allies of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. It is clear that the United States is bent on restoring a new version of the old SEATO to counteract China, Russia, and their Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). The old SEATO consisted of the United States, Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, the Philippines, and Pakistan. What the Obama administration appears intent on creating is a new Asian defense alliance to complement the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union. The TPP is planned as an «Asian EU», which the United States seeks to dominate. The TPP consists of the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam (South Vietnam was an observer member of the old SEATO), Mexico, Peru, and Chile. In addition, Laos, South Korea, and Taiwan were also observer members of SEATO. 

With the Philippines’ agreement on U.S. military bases, it appears likely that it will be the next country to join the TPP. But one holdout was Thailand. As a basis for any agreement to participate in the TPP, Yingluck demanded special guarantees for Thai farmers, a base of support for the Red Shirts. Washington and its trade allies refused and a decision was made in the ivory towers of Washington and Wall Street to depose the troublesome Yingluck and replace her with a government more to the liking of the Wall Street bankers and the Pentagon generals eager to restore SEATO as a centurion force for the «free traders» of the TPP.

Rather than seek to have Pakistan rejoin a Western-led Asian defense pact, the architects of a new anti-Chinese and anti-Russian SEATO hope to lure India into the fold. The Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party leader Narendra Modi is seen as more attuned to the wishes of the Western defense planners than is the Congress Party leader Rahul Gandhi, the grandson of Indira Gandhi. It was Indira Gandhi who viewed SEATO as an imperialist threat to Asia, thus prompting her to establish close relations with the Soviet Union. The Wall Street bankers and Pentagon war planners are not about to cast their lots with Rahul’s Congress Party.

After the ouster of the «2Ys» of Yanukovych and Yingluck, the Western war mongers and global bankers are in search of new prey. Venezuela and Cuba are now feeling the heat… South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia, and other nations showing degrees of independence from the «New World Order» are clearly in the gun sights of the Obama Doctrine practitioners.

Accords de libre-échange Transatlantique : Quid de la perte de souveraineté des Etats européens ?

Accords de libre-échange Transatlantique : Quid de la perte de souveraineté des Etats européens ?

Ex: http://www.infoguerre.fr

​Dans la continuité de l’ALENA et de feu l’AMI (accord multilatéral sur l’investissement), le plus grand accord commercial bilatéral au monde (TTIP) se négocie  actuellement dans une grande discrétion entre l’Europe et les Etats-Unis sur fond de discordes, notamment sur des sujets comme la Culture, l’Agro-alimentaire ou l’audiovisuel. Cependant, les américains  ont  une lecture sous-jacente du dit traité, caractérisée par leur approche sur la protection de leurs investisseurs face aux conflits commerciaux.

 

Le piège du tribunal arbitral
En effet, dans la gestion des conflits commerciaux, les Tribunaux nationaux et internationaux d'arbitrages (CIRDI OU CNUDCI, entre autres) donnent aux entreprises la possibilité d’attaquer des Etats. En notant, que les sentences rendues par ces tribunaux sont exutoires devant les tribunaux nationaux. Ce qui confère aux Entreprises autant de pouvoir que les Etats, Etats qui n’ont plus la liberté de modifier les législations ou les lois au détriment des intérêts de ces mêmes Entreprises, sans se voir condamner devant une cour internationale. Et pour cause, les multinationales américaines ont une puissance de lobbying et un pouvoir d'influence tentaculaire. Elles exercent leur puissance sur les organisations internationales, notamment sur le terrain du Droit (Common Law- DPI). Cette influence s'étendant jusqu'à leur implication dans l'élaboration des textes législatifs votés par des élus, ces derniers défendant les intérêts des bailleurs de fonds de leur campagne électorale. On retrouve également  cette influence jusqu' au niveau des Agences  de Réglementations, ayant normalement un rôle de défense de la sécurité publique, mais où le conflit d'intérêt est flagrant au vu des travaux rémunérés qu'elles réalisent au profit de ces mêmes multinationales. Et enfin, une influence financière, puisque les états Unis finance en grande partie la Banque mondiale et désigne son Président.

L’encerclement par la connaissance
Ce pouvoir d’influence a été rendu possible grâce au développement depuis le début des années 70, d’une expertise, d’une expérience et d’une grande maitrise dans des négociations comme celle du TTIP.
Pour cela, les américains ont développé dans le monde un réseau très important et influent de Cabinets d’Avocats Anglo-saxons. Pour qu'aujourd'hui, ils représentent plus de 70% du marché  avec au TOP20 exclusivement ces mêmes Cabinets, qui toutes ont au moins une adresse en France ! C’est la conclusion qui ressort du classement réalisé par la firme de sondage Acritas (Sharplegal 2013 Global Elite Brand Index) sur la base de critères comme la force de leur Réputation et de leur Marque. Ces cabinets adoptant une posture protectionniste au profit des États Unis, au grand Dam de la France qui elle ne dispose que d’une masse critique très faible. En notant que quand dans l'Europe des 28, la France se bat individuellement sur des sujets précis et techniques, les Etats-Uniens eux se battent en meute sur des sujets beaucoup plus stratégiques et d'avenir (en exemple le monde immatériel de l’internet et du numérique).

Le précédent de l’ALENA
Pour illustrer cela, il suffit de se pencher sur l'accord de libre échange ALENA entre les USA et le Mexique-Canada, pour constater toute la puissance Américaine dans la défense des intérêts de ses multinationales. Comme le souligne l’étude réalisé par le Centre de Recherche sur l’Amérique Latine (CNRS):”le Droit des investissements dans l’ALENA”, nous sommes passés de la “protection” à la “sécurité” des investissements, puisque le traité a permis une interprétation laxiste de la protection.  En allant sur le site NAFTA du secrétariat de l’ALENA on y trouve “les dispositions relatives au règlement des différents”, parfaitement transposable à l’accord transatlantique actuel. Avec deux principes forts, l'un sur " le traitement national",  et l'autre "celui de "la nation la plus favorisée". Ce qui interdit toute aide (financière ou règlementaire) ciblée de l'Etat vis à vis d’entreprises nationales, tout en l'amenant à ouvrir son marché. Conséquence pratique : la condamnation du gouvernement canadien à verser 250 millions de dollars au profit de la multinationale pétrolière américaine Lone Pine, suite à un moratoire sur la fracturation hydraulique du gaz de schiste au Québec!

Une levée de bouclier contre cet accord, notamment ”Europe Ecologie- Les verts” ou l’AITEC (Association international de Techniciens, Experts et chercheurs), semblent laissé perplexe le commissaire européen en charge du commerce Krel De Gucht qui semble vouloir se dédouaner et partager la responsabilité dans la signature d’un tel traité, en lançant en ligne sur le site de la commission  européenne une consultation publique,  sur la protection des investisseurs dans le cadre du TTIP.

Quelques Sources:
Le Droit des investissements dans l ALENA alena -  colloque A Bello http://www.sciencespo.fr/opalc/sites/sciencespo.fr.opalc/files/Guy%20Mazet%20Le%20droit%20des%20investissements%20dans%20l'ALENA_0.pdf
Aperçu des dispositions relatives au règlement des différents dans le cadre de l ALENA
https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Default.aspx?tabid=137&language=fr-CA

Le rôle des juridictions étatiques devant l arbitrage commercial
http://eprints.ucm.es/6963/1/LE_R%C3%94LE_DES_JURISDICTIONS_%C3%89TATIQUES_DEVANT_L'ARBITRAGE.pdf

EUROPA – COMMUNIQUES DE PRESSE – Communiqué de presse – La Commission européenne lance une consultation publique en ligne sur la protection des investisseurs dans le cadre du TTIP
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-292_fr.htm

Le développement des grands cabinets anglo-saxons d'audit en France
http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/58/27/58/PDF/COM021.PDF

Rapport de la firme de sondage ACRITAS-
http://www.droit-inc.fr/dl601

Le RDIE : la bombe à retardement démocratique du traité transatlantique

Ex: http://www.agoravox.fr

Dans son livre consacré à l’accord transatlantique, Danièle Favari donne toutes les raisons pour s’y opposer. Et par-delà les risques sanitaires et le fait de servir les multinationales, il y a un mécanisme peu connu mais révoltant, survivance du défunt AMI, les RDIE, ces tribunaux qui asservissent les démocraties.

Le RDIE, qu-est-ce que c’est ?

 

Le RDIE (Règlement des Différends entre Investisseurs et Etats), ou ISDS en anglais (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) est « un mécanisme d’arbitrage privé entre les investisseurs et les Etats qui se substituerait aux juridictions existantes, permettant ainsi aux investisseurs privés de s’affranchir de toutes les lois et, de contourner les décisions qui leur seraient gênantes et de sanctifier la privatisation du pouvoir législatif ». Les Etats et les Parlements ne peuvent rien contre ces jugements. 6514 cas ont été soumis en 2012. Danièle Favari note que « 15 arbitres ont décidé de 55% de tous les litiges connus  » et que « les revendications des Investisseurs ont été acceptées dans 70% des décisions arbitrales connues en 2012 », avec 1,77 milliards de dollars d’indemnité à Occidental contre l’Equateur.

 

Selon le mandat de la Commission « l’accord devrait viser à inclure un mécanisme de règlement des différends investisseur / Etat efficace et à la pointe, assurant la transparence, l’indépendance des arbitres et la prévisibilité de l’accord, y compris à travers la possibilité d’interprétation contraignante de l’accord par les Parties. Le règlement des différends d’Etat à Etat devrait être inclus, mais ne devrait pas interférer avec ledroit des investisseurs d’avoir recours à des mécanismes de règlement des différends investisseur-Etat  ». Il doit protèger les investisseurs contre « la discrimination (par rapport à des locaux, l’expropriation, un traitement injuste et inéquitable et la possibilité de transfert de capitaux  ».

 

La démocratie dans une cage

Cela a permis à Philip Morris de poursuivre l’Uruguay et l’Australie pour leurs législations antitabac. L’AECG, traité de libre-échange entre l’UE et le Canada, pourrait permettre «  aux grandes compagnies gazières et pétrolières de contester l’interdiction de la fracturation hydraulique en Europe  ». Pour Danièle Favari, « l’arbitrage investisseur-Etat est un concept qui est contesté par certains gouvernements comme une atteinte injustifiée à leur souveraineté  », en mettant Etats et entreprises sur le même plan. Pire, ce sont « des décisions sans appel qui pourraient faire jurisprudence  ». Pour elle, au final, cela revient à « subordonner les droits fondamentaux des peuples au commerce, à l’économie et à la finance ; l’ultime étape que représente le TAFTA dans la destruction finale de notre modèle, de nos choix de société et du droit des peuples à disposer d’eux-mêmes, est sur le point d’être franchie ».

Je suis à 100% d’accord avec Danièle Favari. Le RDIE peut paraître anodin, voir même juste au premier abord. Mais il représente une remise en cause fondamentale de la démocratie. Un tel mécanisme passe au-dessus des lois et des constitutions : ce faisant les peuples perdent progressivement leur capacité à décider de leur destin, comme on le voit bien avec les traités européens dans l’UE. Mettre fin à la libre-circulation des capitaux ? Vous n’y pensez pas ! Les multinationales qui l’utilisent pour exporter leurs profits vers des parasites fiscaux pourraient s’y référer pour poursuivre la France. Tout ceci montre que ces traités mettent hors du champ démocratique des décisions qui devraient pourtant pouvoir être discutées et tanchées lors des élections. Ce faisant, ils mettent la démocratie en cage.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Des précédents inquiétants

 

Ce n’est malheureusement pas une nouvelle idée. Citant « L’AMI, non merci  » de la Coordination contre l’AMI, Danièle Favari rappelle que ce projet d’accord négocié à la fin des années 1990 remettait en cause « toute législation nationale par un investisseur dès lors qu’il considérait qu’il s’agissait d’un obstacle à l’entrave de son activité et à sa recherche de profit  ». Alors étudiant, j’avais écrit un papier pour dénoncer « L’AMI contre la démocratie  » en pronostiquant « à notre démocratie (le gouvernement des peuples par eux-mêmes) se substituerait une dictature du marché et d’un organisme indépendant qui ne manquerait pas d’être contrôlé par une poignée de multinationales et de fonds de placement  ».

 

Elle cite Martin Hart-Landsberg qui dénonce « la domination des multinationales (…) qui ont généré en 2010 une valeur ajoutée d’environ 16 000 milliards de dollars, correspondant à plus d’un quart du PIB mondial », Salvador Allende, à l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU en 1972 : « Nous faisons face à un conflit frontal entre les entreprises transnationales et les Etats. Ceux-ci sont court-circuités dans leurs décisions fondamentales – politiques, économiques et militaires – par des organisations globales qui ne dépendent d’aucun Etat et dont les activités ne sont contrôlées par aucun parlement, ni aucune institution représentatif de l’intérêt collectif  » et David Rockefeller, dans Newsweek en février 1999 : « Quelque chose doit remplacer les gouvernements, et le pouvoir privé me semble l’entité adéquate pour le faire  ». On pourrait y ajouter la série de Jacques Sapir sur la dépossession de la démocratie.

 

Ces organismes indépendants et ces traités représentent une remise en cause profonde de nos démocraties car ils ne permettent plus aux peuples de choisir leur destin en toute liberté. Pour cela, il faut absolument les combattre quand on réalise l’importance de ce qui est en jeu ici. Merci Danièle Favari de nous y aider.

 

Source : « Europe / Etats-Unis : les enjeux de l’accord de libre-échange  », Danièle Favari, éd. Yves Michel 

 

---

Sur le même thème

Gagner la guerre des mots contre le traité transatlantique
Mobilisation générale contre le traité transatlantique !
Le diable s'habille en TAFTA
UE, TAFTA, RDIE… etc : avec les traités, c’est la démocratie qu’on assassine
Comment les multinationales poursuivent les États en justice

Les enjeux du Traité transatlantique

Les enjeux du Traité transatlantique

par ERTV

Author: Salman Rafi Sheikh

Ex: http://journal-neo.org

The US Tactics of Withdrawal and its Regional Implications

Keeping in mind the critical objectives the US wanted to achieve through politico-military domination of Afghanistan—-which crucially included control over flow of energy from Central Asia and Caspian Sea region to the outer world as well as gravitating its influence in the region —-one does have every reason to apprehend the spillover effects of the consequences of the situation evolving in Afghanistan with the manifold increased possibility of civil war following the withdrawal of the US/NATO forces from Afghanistan. Since the US has not been able to achieve its objectives, by any means, therefore, she is least expected to leave (or leave at all?) this region in a politically stable condition. The form of the withdrawal that the US has been trying to accomplish through signing the (hitherto unsigned) Bi-lateral Security Agreement, and the consequent refusal by the Karzai government to accept some of the crucial elements of this agreement, has created such conditions whereby a situation of ‘controlled instability’ in Afghanistan—to be used as an excuse for maintaining military presence as well as gravitating its influence and creating further disruption in the region surrounding Afghanistan—-emerges as a viable tactical option for the US for the post-2014 period.

A politically bifurcated and disrupted Afghanistan can thus be more advantageous for the US than the one dominated by Taliban or any political system not sensitive to protecting the US’ interests. It is therefore naïve to think of the US as ‘struggling’ to establish ‘peace’ through political means, as is often officially projected by the US and its allies. Her, by any definition of real politick, is a struggle for sustaining geo-political edge in the region. As such, the current set back to the US in Ukraine has further made it necessary for her to stay in the region to counter Russian resurgence. Therefore, it is of utmost significance for the regional states, especially of the CAS and Pakistan, to revisit their policies in the light of these emerging scenarios in Afghanistan, because the ethnic linkages of these states make them very much vulnerable to threats emanating from possible civil war in Afghanistan.

Interestingly, and probably due to the failure on ground, the emphasis of occupying forces has continuously been shifted from one set of objectives to another. Sometimes it is focusing on stemming down the resistance and some other times on the rehabilitation and strengthening of the political structure and democratic institutions in Afghanistan and more recently on the development and training of armed and security forces. This situation raises another important and even more serious question: whether the US invaded Afghanistan for achieving the stated objectives only. Many experts believe it was an attempt to assert American dominance in the regions surrounded by energy-rich areas and that the American ruling elite is determined to consolidate Afghanistan as a neo-colonial US protectorate and a staging post for further intrigues in Central and South Asia and the Middle East.

As such, in order to achieve these objectives, the US has been changing its strategy from time to time as well. Now that the time for withdrawal has arrived, it does not, by any means, imply the end of war in Afghanistan. The war will continue; however, the primary actors would change. The US/NATO combat forces, after their withdrawal, are most likely to be replaced by the private militias that the US has erected and been funding through, along with other means, the CIA and US army sponsored poppy cultivation. As a matter of fact, the US has been paying tens of millions of dollars to these private militias annually for escorting their convoys. Theses private militias extort money from common people and levy agricultural tax on farmers. They have been found involved in burglary, kidnapping and other unscrupulous activities; and, all these are overlooked by the foreign forces as the militias support them in their fight against the so-called ‘terrorism.’

The private militias are led by local warlords, many of whom are also planning to contest up-coming Presidential elections, and are least expected not to use force or stop poppy cultivation; rather, they tend to use political platform to implement their agendas and those of their political mentors’ as well in the hope of keeping Taliban ousted from power. For example, Abdul Rasoul Sayyaf, a candidate for Presidential election, is a veteran warlord and is known to have massacred tens of thousands of Hazaras, a community who are mostly Shias. Warlords like Sayyaf with a violent past have been playing a significant role in influencing Afghan politics since the US-led coalition helped oust the Taliban in 2001. But they are now emerging to play an overt political role in next month`s presidential elections as President Hamid Karzai leaves the scene. Some, like Sayyaf, are running for elections, while others are being courted by the candidates because many of the warlords command strong followings, particularly along ethnic lines. With warlords and notorious powerbrokers now gearing up to exert direct and indirect influence on Afghanistan’s politics, ethnic and sectarian rivalry is most likely to get sharpened, leading to a fully fledged civil war in Afghanistan.

However, it has to be kept in mind that the only major stakeholder that can get maximum benefit out of this scenario is the US; for, infighting would keep Taliban out of power and will provide the US with an ‘excuse’ to keep the number of residual forces high in Afghanistan. In this behalf, the often repeated Western assertion that civil war will follow the US’ withdrawal is just another way of actually predicting what is factually going to happen, once the US backed new government gets established; for, the US is now planning to finalize the BSP with this new government and pave the way for a long-term stay of its military in Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, all of the 11 candidates for president elections in Afghanistan have already signaled that they would sign the security agreement, and allow the western troops to stay in Afghanistan past 2014. It also factually means that the US will also fully drag the Afghan National Force, as a substitute to its own war machine, into the war with Taliban and keep its own military in Afghanistan in the name of training the ANF for counter-terrorism operations. Needless to say, it is for this very purpose the ANF was created in the first place. This would also help the US in giving this war technically a “civil” colour, whereas in actual terms it would remain the US’ own war—hence, minimum public pressure on the US government. The US, as such, is all set for a longer stay and is now looking well beyond Hamid Karzai.

In this scenario coming up, there is hardly any room to doubt that war in Afghanistan would come to an end in the near future, or political stability would follow elections. However, there is another related fact that has to be kept in mind. If civil war breaks out in Afghanistan, it is not the people of Afghanistan alone who are likely to be affected; regional states will also become extremely vulnerable to such fallout. Let’s have a look at regional implications of civil war in Afghanistan.

In the first scenario, prolonged infighting in Afghanistan would push more refugees into Pakistan. Already around 1.7 million Afghans are still living in Pakistan, who are currently registered with United Nations’ High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and it is estimated that a large number is also unregistered, and the total figure is around three to four million. This influx of population in Pakistan has already been causing conflicts between local Pashtun people as well as between the refuges and other ethnic groups such as Baluchistan where people of Baluch origin are gradually being reduced to minority because of this demographic shift, with grave consequences in the shape of terrorism and insurgency in Pakistan. Apart from this refugee influx, it is almost self evident that an unstable Afghanistan necessarily implies a highly unstable North-Western region of Pakistan, since porous border allows fighting groups to infiltrate in Pakistan and assist local groups in fighting against the state of Pakistan and vice versa. As a matter of fact, the current leader of Pakistani Taliban was based in Afghanistan before he infiltrated into Pakistan in 2013.

In addition to this problem, Pakistan and almost all the regional states are going to be affected by the highly increased production and outflow of poppy from Afghanistan. Considering the link between warlords, poppy cultivators and the US, it is not difficult to understand why the production of poppy has markedly increased since 2001. It has swelled from 1,570 tons in 1990 to 6,000 tons in 2006 and 8,200 tons in 2007. Since 2001, the land used for poppy cultivation has increased from 8,000 hectares to 193,000 hectares. Where this increase is deeply linked with the US intelligence services, which increasingly constitutes a powerful actor in the spheres of finance and banking and which tacitly allows this production in Afghanistan to enable the warlords to indirectly finance the “civil war”, there it also affects population of near and remote areas of the region alike. According to a 2012 report of UNO, the illicit trade of opiates runs along the Northern route from northern Afghanistan to Central Asia up to the borders of the Russian Federation. Similarly, opium is also smuggled into Pakistan and Iran where a large number of people have already become addicted. It is not a coincidence that 11 percent of the total population of Pakistan’s North-Western province, which also borders Afghanistan, is drug addicted, and 6.7 million of Pakistan’s total population is drug addicted. Although it cannot be said that opium produced in Afghanistan in the only reason for this high rate of drug addiction, however, it is a very significant factor which can be further strengthened by looking at the increase of drug addiction in Pakistan in the 1980s when Afghan refugees in Pakistan indulged in its trade.

Another implication of eruption of civil war in Afghanistan is the threat of its spillover to the Central Asian States as well as Pakistan. Needless to say, the deep ethnic linkages among some major ethnic communities of Afghanistan, Pakistan and the CA States make the latter two regions vulnerable to the physical and ideological infiltration of the fighting groups into these states, which in turn can cause huge disruption in these states as well.

The analysis shows that the hope of “peace” being established following withdrawal of the US/NATO forces will vanish soon after elections, which are most likely to be followed by an intense wave of infighting. As a matter of fact, in a recent statement issued, Taliban have already warned of attacks on election polls, agents and Afghan National Army. In this scenario, with the above mentioned regional implications of a new era of warfare in Afghanistan, it is of utmost importance that the regional states draw up policies to insulate themselves against these direct threats emanating from Afghanistan. It is very significant since the US does want to stay in the region for as long as possible, and it is obvious that peace would remain only a dream as long as she is here; for, establishment of peace is diametrically opposite to the attainment of the above mentioned geo-political objectives that the US wants to achieve.

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

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

Seyyedeh Motahhareh Hosseini

Asghar Shokri Moqaddam

 

Ex: http://www.geopolitica.ru

 

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

Introduction

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

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

US Presence in the Region: Reasons and Tools

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

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

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

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

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

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

Military and Security Issues in Eurasia

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

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

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

Global Defense Expenses

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

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

North America 42%

Europe 17.6%

Russia and Eurasia 4.4%

Asia & Australia 19.9%

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

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

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

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

New Military and Security Arrangements in Eurasia

A.     Underlying Advantages of Big Regional Armies

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

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

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

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

B.     Reliance on the Navy

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

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

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

C.     Regional Powers and Role of Regionalism

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[11] The Military Balance, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Salman Rafi Sheikh

US is Losing its Geo-Political Edge in Asia!

Ex: http://journal-neo.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

La crise ukrainienne à travers le prisme stratégique américain

par Gabriel Galice, Président du GIPRI,* Genève

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

La vérité occidentale martelée veut que le président russe Vladimir Poutine entende reconstituer à la fois l’empire russe et l’Union soviétique.

Commis voyageur zélé, le président américain Barack Obama vint à Bruxelles proposer aux Européens de remplacer du gaz russe par du gaz états-unien, à l’heure où se prépare la grande affaire du Partenariat transatlantique sur le commerce et l’investissement entre l’Union européenne et les Etats-Unis d’Amérique (TTIP).

Tout cela n’est ni soudain, ni inattendu pour qui prend la peine de relire les meilleurs stratèges des Etats-Unis. Dès 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski explique dans son maître livre, «Le grand échiquier – l’Amérique et le reste du monde» (actualisé dans «Le vrai choix» en 2004), pourquoi et comment contrôler l’Eurasie. «L’Eurasie reste l’échiquier sur lequel se déroule la lutte pour la primauté mondiale.» Né Polonais, successivement conseiller des présidents Carter et Obama, Brzezinski annonce que «le but de ce livre est de formuler une politique géostratégique cohérente pour l’Amérique sur le continent eurasien». Hypothèses et raisonnements sont d’une grande rigueur intellectuelle. L’Eurasie est centrale, l’Amérique doit y être présente pour dominer la planète, l’Europe est la tête de pont de la démocratie en Eurasie, l’OTAN et l’Union européenne doivent, de concert, étendre leur influence en Eurasie, les Etats-Unis doivent jouer simultanément l’Allemagne et la France (carte des zones d’influences respectives de ces deux pays à l’appui), alliées fidèles mais, de façon différente, remuantes et capricieuses. Cela sera laborieux: «Quoi que l’avenir nous réserve, on peut raisonnablement conclure que la primauté américaine sur le continent eurasien sera soumise à de fortes turbulences et même confrontée à des épisodes de violence.»

L’auteur repère cinq «acteurs géostratégiques»: la France, l’Allemagne, la Russie, la Chine et l’Inde, et cinq «pivots géopolitiques»: l’Ukraine, l’Azerbaïdjan, la Corée, la Turquie et l’Iran. Russie et Chine sont les deux limites à l’expansion projetée. «Exclure la Russie (de l’UE ou de l’OTAN) pourrait être lourd de conséquences – cela validerait les plus sombres prédictions russes –, mais la dilution de l’Union européenne ou de l’OTAN aurait des effets fortement déstabilisateurs.» «Le dilemme se résume à un choix entre équilibre tactique et dessein stratégique», estime l’Américain. Le «pivot géopolitique» ukrainien fait l’objet de longs développements: «Au cours de la période 2005–2010, l’Ukraine pourrait à son tour être en situation d’entamer des négociations en vue de rejoindre l’UE et l’OTAN.» Brzezinski suggère d’étendre à l’Ukraine le «triangle de Weimar», constitué en 1991 par la France, l’Allemagne et la Pologne pour en faire «la colonne vertébrale de la sécurité européenne». «Une question essentielle se pose, poursuit Brzezinski: ce scénario se déroulera-t-il dans un environnement apaisé ou dans un contexte de tension avec la Russie?»

Nous avons la réponse. Mais le défi lancé aux Russes s’encombre peu de subtilités: «Pour que le choix de l’Europe – et, en conséquence, de l’Amérique – se révèle fructueux, la Russie doit satisfaire à deux exigences: tout d’abord, rompre sans ambiguïté avec son passé impérial; ensuite, cesser ses tergiversations à propos de l’élargissement des liens politiques et militaires entre l’Europe et l’Amérique.» Bref, un désarmement unilatéral.

Benjamin Barber, ancien conseiller du président Clinton, complète utilement la vision états-unienne, dans une version plus modérée. Adversaire résolu du président George W. Bush et des néo-conservateurs, il oppose, dans son ouvrage «L’Empire de la peur» (2003), les «aigles», schématiques et brutaux, aux «chouettes», subtiles dans leur chasse entre chien et loup. Reste que les chouettes sont aussi des prédateurs. A la «guerre préventive», Barber préfère la «démocratie préventive», sans s’illusionner sur la «démocratie de marché» chère à certains démocrates: «Le désir de favoriser l’expansion de la démocratie forme une composante déterminante de la démocratie préventive comprise comme politique nationale de sécurité, mais on confond souvent ce soutien avec le désir tout aussi intense d’exporter le capitalisme et de cultiver les marchés mondiaux. [...] Dans le secteur international, l’âge des «robber barons» (barons voleurs) – appelons-les les banques prédatrices ou les spéculateurs hors-la-loi – est de retour.»

La teneur de l’accord d’association entre l’Ukraine et l’UE illustre largement la volonté prédatrice de s’emparer des richesses de l’Ukraine, moyennant quelques corruptions des nouvelles élites, au nom de «la concurrence libre et non faussée», de la «mobilité des travailleurs», de la «récupération ou du rapatriement des capitaux investis, de même qu’aux profits qui en découlent.» Le volet militaire n’est pas oublié: «Promouvoir une convergence graduelle en matière de politique étrangère et de défense.»
Serait-ce l’empire euro-américain?    •

*    GIPRI: L’«Institut international de recherches pour la paix à Genève» (en anglais «Geneva International Peace Research Institute», GIPRI) est une organisation non gouvernementale basée à Genève.