dimanche, 20 avril 2014

Une alliance pour l’endiguement du pouvoir mondialiste

CHINE, RUSSIE, EUROPE

Une alliance pour l’endiguement du pouvoir mondialiste

Auran Derien
Ex: http://metamag.fr
 
Trois situations apparaissent qui pourraient ouvrir un chemin aux  Européens. Il y a toujours des alternatives. Si l’on veut mettre en fonctionnement des systèmes de paiement sans dollar pour le commerce international, il n’y a rien d’impossible. Une civilisation cherche à naître, malgré le pouvoir actuel en place.
 
L’exemple chinois 

La Chine a déposé une plainte à l’OMC (Organisation Mondiale du Commerce) contre les pratiques mensongères étatsuniennes, l’humeur de ses dirigeants les incitant à modifier les tarifs douaniers sans aucune justification. La tournée européenne du président chinois a été l’occasion de formuler une proposition de partenariat bilatéral UE - Chine en quatre volets : paix, croissance, réformes et civilisation. Herman Van Rompuy, président du Conseil européen, n’a évidemment pas été à la hauteur dans sa réponse. Il a menti une fois de plus en affirmant que l’Europe allait sortir de la récession. Chacun sait que la Commission de Bruxelles fait régresser l’Europe par des destructions massives de son économie appelées réformes. destinées à abaisser les peuples au niveau des Tchandalas de l’Inde.
 
La Chine, elle, s’active. Elle achète moins de devises. Au mois de mars  le yuan avait baissé par rapport au dollar signifiant ainsi que le pays ne se laisserait pas faire dans le cadre de la guerre des monnaies. Il a été publié à la même époque que la croissance économique chinoise avait ralentie, mais que la Banque Centrale intervenait lorsque cela lui paraissait nécessaire sans s’adonner aux productions massives de monnaie à l’inverse des anglo-saxons. Elle fournit juste ce qu’il faut de liquidités pour continuer à investir (notamment dans les chemins de fer) et développer le commerce.

La Bundesbank, après la visite du Président Chinois fin mars, a annoncé la signature d’un mémoire qui prévoit la création à Francfort d’un centre de compensation pour les paiements en Yuan. L’Allemagne est le pays d’Europe dont le commerce avec la Chine est le plus important. Il est prévisible que cela sera un point de départ pour réduire l’usage de la monnaie américaine dans le commerce Europe-Chine. Cependant, il ne suffit pas d’oublier le dollar, il conviendrait aussi de larguer les banques qui en promeuvent l’usage. 

Du côté Russe

La Russie est partante pour diminuer le poids des anglo-saxons en cessant d’utiliser le dollar, en particulier dans le commerce des matières premières. Les deux personnages à l’origine de la nouvelle orientation russe sont Sergey Glaziev, conseiller économique de la Présidence et Igor Sechin, PDG de Rosneft, la principale entreprise pétrolière russe. Le Président de la banque publique VTB a affirmé que les entreprises à capitaux publics spécialisées dans la vente d’armes pouvaient démarrer la signature de contrats en roubles ou en monnaies de leurs acheteurs, sans passer par le dollar. La direction du Centre d’échanges de Saint-Pétersbourg a été confiée à Igor Sechin qui avait déclaré courageusement, en Octobre 2013 au Forum Mondial de l’Energie tenu en Corée, que le temps était venu de mettre en place des mécanisme d’échange pour le gaz naturel entre tous les pays concernés et que les transactions soient enregistrées en monnaies de chacun . Il est question par exemple de signer des accords de swap biens - pétrole entre l’Iran et la Russie. 

Il est fondamental maintenant que d’autres puissances suivent la Russie et la Chine dans cette politique d'émancipation. La Chine incite aussi les autres pays du BRICS (Brésil, Russie, Inde, Chine et Afrique du Sud) à éliminer le dollar de leurs transactions et donne l’exemple, en ouvrant deux centres de traitement du commerce en yuan, à Londres et maintenant Francfort.

Des Européens soumis aux Européens éveillés ?

Les Européens doivent secouer leur torpeur. L’Asie, mise en selle pour que les multinationales y produisent à bas prix des produits vendus en Europe aux prix européens, ne ruine pas directement l’Europe. Les responsables sont les hommes politiques mondialistes qui ont liquidé toute protection pour s’enrichir de ces trafics. Mais désormais la Chine, la Russie, l’Iran, le Vénézuela, le Brésil, l’Inde…et d’autres certainement ouvrent les yeux. L’Occident est entre les mains d’une finance mondialiste et il est fondamental de s’émanciper pour faire prospérer une autre civilisation.
 
Dès 2017, a affirmé le Boston Consulting Group à la fin du mois de février 2013, l’Asie (hors Japon) sera la région la plus riche du monde. Il sera essentiel que les banques spécialisées dans la gestion de fortune soient laissés de côté, même si la volonté de ces fanatiques consiste justement à convaincre les nouveaux riches de les laisser administrer leurs actifs. Rien de grand n’est jamais sorti de la finance anglo-saxonne, sinon de grandes guerres. Depuis le XVIIIème siècle, toutes les guerres ont eu des banquiers comme responsables en chef. Il faut enfin que cela cesse.

samedi, 19 avril 2014

Sommaire TP Mag n°59

Sommaire: "Terre & Peuple Magazine", n°59

59couv

 

59sommaire

mardi, 01 avril 2014

The U.S. Empire Is Trying Desperately To Contain the Eurasian Alliance

belarusrepublicflag.png

The U.S. Empire Is Trying Desperately To Contain the Eurasian Alliance of Russia, China, Central Asian Nations, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan

By

Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com

The U.S. and its puppets, especially the E.U. and Nato, have been trying to weaken the rebuilding Russian empire as much as possible to contain it, while maintaining the  U.S. Global Empire.

This has become a vital, crucial goal because of the rapid growth of Chinese power and the ever closer Alliance of Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Central Asia, Pakistan, etc.

The U.S. and E.U. are desperate to stop Russia from rebuilding its vast Central Asian states within the Russian Federation and this new Alliance, especially because of the vast Caspian Sea oil and gas. The E.U. is highly dependent on Russia for gas and on Russia, Iraq, Iran and the pro-Russian Caspian Sea powers, especially Kazakhstan. The Russian move into the Black Sea is another major step in that direction. Kazakhstan publicly supported the Russian move to reunite with the Crimea. Kazakhstan is the great prize, with 30% of its population  Russian and a vast border with Mother Russia. Russia is probably not at this time trying to reunite Kazakhstan with Russia, since that would involve many more problems, but simply to keep it as a close ally, as the Ukraine was until the violent overthrow of the Kiev government by the U.S. supported coup.

Russia, Iran, Iraq, and their Central Asian allies are close to a vast oligopoly on the oil and gas exports of the world, especially to the E.U., U.K., China, India, etc.

Saudi Arabia is desperate to break the growing Iran-Iraq-Syria-Hizbollahp-Russian-Central Asian power block. Right now it is trying desperately to build its own military forces to offset the U.S. withdrawal from the region, but that is absurd. In the long term, Saudi Arabia will align with Russia-China-Iran-Central Asia or be overthrown from within by those who will become reasonable.

China, now firmly in the Russian-Central Asia-Iran-Iraq block with gas lines from Russia, etc., is moving forcefully into all of the South China Sea to control oil and gas there. The U.S. is desperate to stop that, but China keeps moving out.

All of that puts the dying U.S. Empire on a collision course with the vast Russian-Chinese-Iranian-Central Asian Alliance. Pakistan has become very anti-U.S. because of the U.S. attacks in Pakistan and is allying more and more with China. Even India is working more and more closely with Iran and its allies to get the gas they need. Just yesterday the president of Iran spoke in Afghanistan calling for a great regional entente, working together more and more closely. That is the likely route for Iranian oil and gas to India.

Ultimately, the U.S. Empire must withdraw from its vast over-stretch to save itself financially and economically, politically and militarily.

The E.U. knows that, so Germany’s Prime Minister talks privately with Putin in German and Russian about the American Global Crisis. [She knows Russian and he knows German, so it's easy.] Germany, the E.U. and Russia are moving toward a long run understanding once the crippled U.S. implodes financially or withdraws to save itself. The CEO of Siemens, the giant and vital German technology corporation, has just visited with Putin in Russia and made public statements of strong plans to continue working with Russia very closely. Other German CEO’s have done the same, acting as informal reassurances from the Prime Minister that her public words going along with the U.S. more or less do not mean any kind of break with the close relations with Russia.

President Xi calls on China, Germany to build Silk Road economic belt

President Xi calls on China, Germany to build Silk Road economic belt

(Xinhua) - Ex: http://www.chinadaily.com

 

President Xi calls on China, Germany to build Silk Road economic belt
 
Chinese President Xi Jinping (center) visits Port of Duisburg of Germany March 29, 2014. [Photo/Xinhua]

 

DUSSELDORF, Germany - Chinese President Xi Jinping Saturday called on China and Germany to work together to build the Silk Road economic belt.

Xi made the remarks during a visit to Port of Duisburg, the world's biggest inland harbor and a transport and logistics hub of Europe.

 

 

 

 

The Chinese leader expressed the hope that Port of Duisburg will play a bigger role in the China-Germany and China-Europe cooperation.

Xi witnessed the arrival of a cargo train at the railway station in Duisburg from the southwestern Chinese city of Chongqing. The train had travelled all the distance along the Chongqing-Xinjiang-Europe international railway.

The Chinese president, accompanied by Vice German Chancellor and Minister of Economics and Energy Sigmar Gabriel, was warmly welcomed by Hannelore Kraft, premier of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, and Soren Link, mayor of the city of Duisburg.

Kraft and Link, in their speeches at the welcome ceremony, said the state and the city will grasp the opportunities that the initiative on the Silk Road economic belt brings to them, and step up the cooperation with China.

samedi, 29 mars 2014

Eurasisme, Alternative à l'hégémonie libérale

Eurasisme, Alternative à l'hégémonie libérale

 

mercredi, 19 mars 2014

Russland und die Krim

Russland und die Krim

von Gereon Breuer

Ex: http://www.blauenarzisse.de

Kriegsspiele. Was haben Merkel und Steinmeier gemeinsam? Ihnen fehlt jede Vorstellung des strategischen Werts der Geopolitik für außenpolitisches Handeln. Das Ergebnis: Außenpolitischer Dilettantismus.

Ohnehin genießt die Geopolitik in Deutschland seit dem Ende des II. Weltkriegs einen eher schlechten Ruf. Dieser ist vor allem auf der Missinterpretation politischer Intellektueller gegründet, dass die Wahrnehmung eigener Interessen per se als „böse“ gelte. Das zeigt nun auch wieder die „Krim-​Krise“. Schon allein von einer Krise zu sprechen offenbart die schlichte Natur dessen, der sich bemüßigt fühlt, die Wahrnehmung von Interessen mit einer Krise zu assoziieren. Denn Russland unternimmt auf der Krim, bei der es sich noch dazu um eine autonome Republik handelt, nichts anderes, als in Zeiten unsicherer politischer Verhältnisse in der Ukraine die eigene Einflusssphäre zu wahren. Das heißt konkret: Den Stützpunkt der Schwarzmeerflotte und damit die maritime Herrschaft über das Schwarze Meer zu sichern.

In geostrategischer Hinsicht ist das ein sehr kluges und umsichtiges Verhalten. Dass die EU – und vor allem Deutschland – Russland deshalb nun mit Sanktionen drohen, zeigt, dass die bürokratischen Führer in Berlin und Brüssel nicht verstanden haben: „Staaten haben keine Freunde, nur Interessen.“ Dieses unter anderen dem britischen Premierminister Ewald Gladstone zugeschriebene Diktum lässt ahnen, dass Außenpolitik vor allem egoistisch funktioniert oder eben nicht. Wladimir Putin scheint das verstanden zu haben und in seinem Handeln äußert sich, was Halford Mackinder (18611947) in seiner „Heartland-​Theory“ beziehungsweise „Herzland-​Theorie“ niederlegte: „Wer Osteuropa beherrscht, kommandiert das Herzland, wer das Herzland beherrscht, kommandiert die Weltinsel, wer die Weltinsel beherrscht, kontrolliert die Welt.“

Bedeutung der „Herzland-​Theorie“

Der britische Geograph und Geopolitiker verstand unter der Weltinsel Eurasien und den afrikanischen Kontinent. Das Herzland sah er in Sibirien und im europäischen Russland konstituiert.Heartland Er ging davon aus, dass unter anderem die Rohstoffreserven der Weltinsel es ermöglichen würden, von dort aus alle anderen Länder zu beherrschen, also solcher in kontinentaler Randlage und langfristig auch den amerikanischen Kontinent, Japan und Australien. Für Mackinder ist damit die Beherrschung des Kernlandes Eurasien der Schlüssel zur Weltmacht. In Deutschland fand seine Theorie so gut wie keine Rezeption und sein 1904 erschienenes Werk Democratic Ideals and Reality, in dem auch der für die Herzland-​Theorie grundlegende Aufsatz The Geographical Pivot of History erschien, hat bis heute keine deutsche Übersetzung erfahren.

In den USA beispielsweise war die Rezeption eine völlig andere. Dort werden Mackinders Ausführungen bis auf den heutigen Tag sehr ernst genommen. Mackinder selbst ging sogar so weit zu behaupten, dass nur durch den I. Weltkrieg verhindert werden konnte, dass Deutschland sich die Herrschaft über Herzland und Weltinsel sicherte. Dass die USA das um jeden Preis verhindern wollten, ist hinlänglich bekannt. Unter anderen stehen heute Zbigniew Brzezinski oder Henry Kissinger als prominente Vertreter der politischen Kreise, die das außenpolitische Handeln der USA im Wesentlichen an Mackinders Herzland-​Theorie ausrichten – theoretisch und auch in praktischer Hinsicht. Ein Blick auf die Weltkarte zeigt auch ohne umfassende geographische Kenntnisse, dass Russland heute immer noch einen wesentlichen Teil des Herzlandes abdeckt. Am Rande des Herzlandes befindet sich auch die Krim. Ihr geostrategischer Wert für Russland ist daher offensichtlich.

Böse geopolitische Realität

Während nun in Moskau und Washington bezüglich den aktuellen politischen Entwicklungen in der Ukraine Geopolitik betrieben wird, beschränken sich die EU-​Bürokraten auf die Ankündigung von Sanktionen. Unter anderem soll ein Drei-​Stufen-​Plan im Gespräch sein, den die EU durchführen möchte, sofern Russland seine Truppen nicht von der Krim abzieht. Auf eine solche Idee würden Staatsmänner nie kommen. Das ist Sache von Bürokraten, denen die Realität nur aus Erzählungen bekannt ist. Vielleicht sollten die Schreibtischtäter in Brüssel stattdessen mal über einen Drei-​Stufen-​Plan der EU nachdenken, sofern die USA ihre Truppen nicht aus Deutschland zurückziehen. Aber nein, das wäre dann doch wieder zu viel Geopolitik. Und die ist ja böse.

Bild 2: Mackinders Herzland (Pivot Area), Abbildung in seinem 1904 erschienenen Text The Geographical Pivot of History

lundi, 10 mars 2014

Pourquoi les Allemands n’ont guère envie de se fâcher avec Poutine

gazrusse.jpg

Pourquoi les Allemands n’ont guère envie de se fâcher avec Poutine

Ex: http://aucoeurdunationalisme.blogspot.com

 
La Russie fournit un tiers du gaz naturel et du pétrole [consommé par] l’Allemagne. Et leurs économies sont si imbriquées que l’idée même de sanctions effraient les champions de l’exportation.
 
Sanktionen nein danke ! S’il est un patronat qui veut éviter toute sanction économique contre Moscou, c’est bien l’allemand. Les deux économies sont tellement imbriquées que Berlin aurait énormément à perdre. Les échanges entre l’Allemagne et la Russie s’élèvent à près de 80 milliards d’euros (4 fois plus que la France).
 
L’hebdomadaire Wirtschaftswoche résumait cette semaine : “Plus de 6.000 entreprises, de la multinationale aux PME, sont présentes en Russie, où elles ont investi directement plus de 20 milliards. 300.000 emplois dépendent en Allemagne de ces échanges“. Berlin est le deuxième fournisseur de Moscou, après Pékin (la France, 8ème).
 
D’ailleurs jeudi 6 mars, alors que la crise ukrainienne battait son plein et que le Kremlin ne semblait pas disposé à faire baisser la tension, Sigmar Gabriel, ministre de l’économie et Vice chancelier est allé à Moscou, en voyage officiel et a rencontré Poutine. Cette visite “prévue de longue date“, a-t-on précisé à Berlin, portait sur la “politique énergétique et de développement économique“. Elle va tout à fait dans le sens de la diplomatie allemande : pas de coup de menton, un pragmatisme qui respecte les intérêts bien compris de chacun.
 
Des sanctions qui pourraient coûter cher
 
Car la Russie pourvoit aux besoins énergétiques de notre voisin : elle lui fournit 31% de son gaz naturel (contre moins de 10% en France) et 35 % du pétrole qu’elle consomme. En échange, l’Allemagne lui vend des biens pour une valeur d’une quarantaine de milliards d’euros, essentiellement des machines-outils, de la chimie et des automobiles. Metro, Volkswagen, BMW ou Daimler sont des acteurs de poids.
 
Tout au long de la semaine, la presse Outre Rhin y est allée de ses avertissements contre les sanctions, comparées par exemple à “un poison coulant dans le sang“, par le quotidien Süddeutsche Zeitung. “Chaque sanction a son prix“, mettait en garde le quotidien des affaires Handelsblatt, en écho à l’hebdomadaire Focus qui parlait de “spirale des sanctions“.
 
L’économiste star, Wener Sinn, patron de l’institut de Munich IFO, estimait, quant à lui que les représailles économiques contre Moscou mettraient en danger la transition énergétique allemande, qui rend le pays “encore plus dépendant des importations russes“.
 
Schröder fait du [lobbying] pro-russe
 
Le 3 mars, l’ex chancelier Gerhard Schröder était à l’ambassade d’Allemagne à Paris devant un parterre de politiques et d’hommes d’affaires français. Soucieux de pacifier le débat, il a émis des doutes sur l’utilité des armes économiques. “A quoi servirait d’appeler au boycott de la Russie, alors que l’on ignore qui va en pâtir le plus ?“, avait notamment déclaré ce proche de Poutine, qui appelle le patron du Kremlin son “ami” et qui l’a invité à la fête de ses 60 ans.
 
Il n’est pas le seul Allemand proche de Moscou. Plusieurs politiques et hommes d’affaires de premier plan se sont reconvertis dans le lobbying pour la puissance orientale. Dernier en date, Peter Löscher, ancien président de Siemens qui vient tout juste d’être embauché par un oligarque.
 
 

L’Inde soutient la Russie dans la crise ukrainienne

197039831.jpg

L’Inde soutient la Russie dans la crise ukrainienne

Ex: http://www.dedefensa.org

Notre estimé MK Bhadrakumar attire notre attention sur une intervention du conseiller de sécurité nationale du gouvernement indien Shivshankar Menon (notamment rapportées par le Times of India de ce 7 mars 2014). Menon estime que la Russie a des “intérêts légitimes” en Crimée, ce qui revient, pour le moins, à “comprendre” avec une nuance presque approbatrice la position russe en Crimée et vis-à-vis de la crise ukrainienne.

Cette position indienne est doublement surprenante, d’une part parce qu’elle marque un engagement inhabituel de ce pays dans une crise majeure, contre le bloc BAO et les USA, d’autre part parce qu’elle surpasse largement le “soutien” ambiguë de la Chine à la Russie. La Chine favorise en général les coups d’arrêt à l’hégémonie du bloc BAO, ce qui implique un certain soutien à la Russie, mais se montre intraitable sur la question du principe de la souveraineté, ce qui porte une ombre sur ce soutien dans la circonstance présente, – et bien qu’il reste à savoir qui est investi et protecteur de ce principe lorsqu’on mesure les circonstances ayant mené à la chute de Ianoukovitch ... (Selon MK Bhadrakumar, «China is indulging in doublespeak. Its propaganda apparatus queers the pitch for the West’s confrontation with Russia and, in fact, blatantly admits that Moscow is also fighting China’s cause by resisting western hegemony, while at the same time, Beijing’s diplomacy marks a careful distance from the Russian stance and takes to the high ground of ‘principles’.»)

La position indienne est une marque de plus des bouleversements en cours dans la situation internationale, avec surprises et désordre à mesure... Voici comment Bhadrakumar salue cette prise de position de son pays, lui qui est rarement tendre pour l’équipe au pouvoir, le 7 mars 2014 sur son Indian PunchLine) :

«The National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon’s remark to the effect that Russia has “legitimate interests” in the Ukraine developments, as much as other interests are involved, is a statement of fact at its most obvious level.

»Russia’s interests in a stable, friendly Ukraine are no less than what India would have with regard to, say, Nepal or Bhutan. Delhi simply cannot afford to have an unfriendly government in Kathmandu or Thimpu, and it is hard to overlook the gravity of Russian concerns that ultra-nationalists staged a violent coup in Kiev. But Menon’s statement inevitably becomes a big statement, not only because he is a profoundly experienced and thoughtful scholar-diplomat but also given the high position he holds and his key role as an architect of India’s foreign policy in the recent years. Simply put, he is India’s voice on the world stage.

»To be sure, what Menon said will reverberate far and wide and would have been the content of many coded cables relayed by the antennae atop the chancelleries in Chanakyapuri to the world capitals yesterday. The point is, what Menon said is one of the most significant statements made by Delhi in a long while regarding the contemporary international situation. No doubt, the Ukraine is a defining moment in the post-cold era world politics and by reflecting on its templates, Menon voiced India’s concern over the dangerous drift in world politics...»

dimanche, 09 mars 2014

L'Allemagne, future puissance européenne tournée vers l'Est?

albrics.jpg

L'Allemagne, future puissance européenne tournée vers l'Est?
 
Conséquence de l’affaire Ukraine-Crimée

Michel Lhomme
Ex: http://metamag.fr
 
Que se passe-t-il ? L'Otan ne forme même plus des officiers loyaux dans ses cours ! Les nouvelles autorités euro compatibles de Kiev voient, en effet, leur armée se réduire de jour en jour. Hier, c’était le chef de la marine ukrainienne, l’amiral Denis Berezosvki, qui prêtait allégeance aux autorités pro-russes de Crimée. Puis, le gouvernement de Crimée a annoncé le ralliement de la 204ème brigade d’aviation de chasse des forces aériennes d’Ukraine dotée d’avions de chasse MiG-29 et d’avions d’entraînement L-39. Selon les autorités de Crimée, 800 militaires déployés sur la base aérienne de Belbek sont passés dans le camps du « peuple de Crimée ». Au total 45 avions de chasse et 4 avions d’entraînement se trouvent sur l’aérodrome. Précédemment dans la journée, les autorités de Crimée avaient annoncé que plus de 5 000 militaires des troupes de l’Intérieur, du service de garde-frontière et des forces armées d’Ukraine étaient passés aussi sous leur commandement. On parle donc de 22.000 militaires ukrainiens et plusieurs dizaines de systèmes de missiles sol-air S-300, passés sous l'autorité du gouvernement de la république autonome de Crimée. C'est pour Poutine, sans faire même couler le sang, un exploit et pour l'Otan, un sérieux revers et surtout un beau manque de loyauté après tous les cocktails servis !
 
Ainsi, toute la journée du 4 mars, on a suivi de part et d'autre la frégate Hetman  Sahaydachny, vaisseau amiral des forces navales d'Ukraine, entrer dans le détroit des Dardanelles. Quel pavillon battait-elle ? Pavillon ukrainien ? Pavillon russe ? A un moment, la presse russe avait indiqué que la frégate  refusait de suivre les ordres de Kiev et arborait le pavillon de Moscou. De son côté, le ministère de la Défense ukrainien démentait les allégations selon lesquelles le Hetman Sahaydachny aurait pris le parti de la Russie. On en est donc là à une guerre de pavillons en Mer Noire ! 

nord-stream-gazoduc-europe-russie.jpg

Craignant un coup d'Etat comme à Kiev, les habitants de Crimée ont créé des comités d'autodéfense et pris le commandement des unités militaires locales. Le Conseil suprême de Crimée avait déjà décidé, fin février, de tenir un référendum sur l'élargissement des pouvoirs de la république autonome ukrainienne de Crimée. Initialement fixée au 25 mai, la date du référendum a depuis été avancée au 30 mars. Par ailleurs, le premier ministre de Crimée, Sergueï Aksenov a renouvelé sa demande d'aide légitime et légale au président russe Vladimir Poutine. L’Otan quant à elle ne devrait pas intervenir en Crimée, mais selon le politologue russe, Alexandre Douguine, une filiale d’Academi (les ex-Blackwater d'Irak), Greystone Limited, aurait déjà débuté son déploiement en Ukraine. Les mercenaires arriveraient par groupe, en civil, avec de lourds paquetages, à l’aéroport de Kiev, d’où ils seraient envoyés vers Odessa. C'est eux que l'on évoquait hier.
 
L'Allemagne nouvelle puissance européenne d'équilibre 

Que se passera-t-il ? Les médias surenchérissent et dramatisent mais cela s'éclaircit et rappelle ironiquement l'épopée syrienne terminée par une victoire diplomatique russe et une humiliation des Etats-Unis et de la France. La France menace la Russie de sanctions, mais Laurent Fabius est  coincé: la Russie lui a fait immédiatement savoir, par ambassadeurs interposés, que cela entraînerait de facto la suspension immédiate de ses contrats militaires avec Paris, soit la suspension immédiate de la commande faite à la France en 2011 de deux bâtiments BPC (bâtiment de projection et de commandement) de type Mistral, plus une option pour deux autres. La France à genoux économiquement n'a plus les moyens de ses menaces.
 

merkepout.jpg

Petit à petit, l'unanimité européenne face à la Russie se lézarde. Londres est de plus en plus eurosceptique et pense aussi à son économie : qui paiera la partition de l'Ukraine ? Londres tient un double langage. Alors que David Cameron menaçait Vladimir Poutine il y a quelques jours de «conséquences économiques, politiques, diplomatiques et autres» (sic), une note confidentielle du Ten Downing Street a fuitée permettant réellement de douter de sa sincérité. On y lit que le Royaume-Uni «ne doit pas, pour l'instant, soutenir de sanctions commerciales contre la Russie ou lui bloquer la City». Le texte recommande également de «décourager» toute discussion de représailles militaires notamment à l'Otan !
 
Au sein de l'Union Européenne, ce sont donc les Allemands devenus pro-russes qui mènent la danse ! Pourquoi ? L'Allemagne est d'abord le premier exportateur vers la Russie. 35% du gaz et 35% du pétrole consommés en Allemagne viennent de Russie. L'Allemagne sait que la Crimée est, pour la Russie, non négociable. Comment ne pourrait-elle pas le savoir ? Enfin, et ce n'est pas négligeable dans les relations internationales, l'Allemagne n'a pas apprécié les propos de Nuland mais surtout l'espionnage par Prism des conversation téléphoniques d'Angela Merkel. N'oublions pas qu'Angela Merkel parle russe (Poutine parle aussi couramment allemand) et qu'elle a été élevée en RDA. Elle connaît presque intimement le caractère et la valeur de chef d'état de Poutine.
 
La crise ukrainienne risque d'avoir par ricochets un drôle d'effet collatéral, un effet choc pour l'Union Européenne. Elle accélère le rapprochement à l'est de l'Allemagne, une Allemagne qui se tournera donc de plus en plus vers l'Est et non vers la France. Or, sans le couple franco-allemand, l'UE n'est plus rien. Il est inutile de rappeler les liens historiques entre l'Allemagne et la Russie et d'évoquer ici la reconnaissance allemande toujours forte envers l'Union Soviétique de Gorbatchev qui a rendu possible la réunification. Les liens entre l'Allemagne et la Russie sont naturels et stratégiques: la Russie est maintenant incontournable pour l'Allemagne puissance. Enfin, le potentiel des relations économiques avec la Russie est pour l'Allemagne sans commune mesure  avec ce qu'elle peut attendre maintenant de son partenaire français en voie de paupérisation et de déliquescence manifeste. Tous les politiciens et les hommes d'affaires allemands en sont bien conscients. Ils misent maintenant tous sur l'essor d'un marché à l'Est qu'ils connaissent en plus très bien. La partition de l'Ukraine pourrait même être carrément négociée secrètement avec la Russie, la partie non russophone offrant ainsi à Berlin sur un plateau d'argent une main d'œuvre très bon marché et plus proche de la main d'œuvre chinoise qui, par ailleurs, se renchérit !

Alors, la France dans tout ça ?... 

Le porte-parole du Quai d’Orsay sait-il au moins que la pointe extrême de la Crimée abrite Sébastopol, le grand port militaire russe fondé par Catherine II en 1783 ?  Sans doute mais il feint l'ignorance pour tomber dans la caricature grossière et  outrancière de Poutine. Dans toute la crise, la France a été  indécrottable dans l'idéologie et Bernard-Henri Lévy, l'émissaire à peine voilé de Fabius. 

La France n'a en fait plus aucune vision des relations internationales sauf des obsessions idéologiques, des idées fixes. C'est là l'effondrement des compétences diplomatiques pour paraphraser le texte de notre collaborateur Raoul Fougax. Il en va de même aux Affaires étrangères comme à l'Intérieur ou à l'Education. La France voit des Hitler partout, même sous les sofas des Ambassadrices ! Elle ne peut du coup rien récolter sauf quelques lauriers jaunis pour les Droits de l'Homme. La France s'est ainsi coupé de l'Allemagne pragmatique. C'est donc l'Allemagne et non la France qui conforte à l'Est sa place d’interlocuteur européen privilégié de la Russie.

vendredi, 24 janvier 2014

Quel avenir pour le nationalisme français?

Quel avenir pour le nationalisme français?

Ex: http://cerclenonconforme.hautetfort.com

Quel avenir pour le nationalisme français?

Dans un précédent développement, je questionnais l’idée du nationalisme en replaçant l’histoire même du nationalisme, de façon un peu rapide certes, mais telle est la loi du genre lorsqu’on publie sur internet.

Il est important de poursuivre notre réflexion sur un nationalisme français du XXIe siècle, partant du constat que les différents évènements géopolitiques, les crises économiques et financières et les crispations identitaires conduisent de nombreux mouvements à travers l’Europe à s’enraciner dans le fait national. Nous pouvons penser immédiatement au Front National en France, à Casapound en Italie, à l’Aube Dorée en Grèce, au Jobbik en Hongrie. On peut tout à fait avoir une opinion négative de certains de ces mouvements et ils n’ont pas forcément de rapports les uns avec les autres, mais ils traduisent tous à leur façon le simple fait que face à l’UE, face à l’offensive du Capital et face à l’immigration de peuplement, la nation, produit d’une longue histoire apparaît presque « spontanément » comme l’échelon de résistance, de défense mais aussi, et surtout, de reconquête.

Cependant le nationalisme français est aujourd’hui sujet à une profonde crise interne qu’il convient d’analyser. Nous avons déjà donné notre opinion sur le FN, nous n’y reviendrons pas. De même nous avons donné de façon synthétique quelques éléments sur la pensée identitaire et la pensée dissidente. Ce texte est donc un complément de toutes nos réflexions récentes. Il vise à comprendre dans quels univers s’ébroue le camp « national », est-il d’ailleurs vraiment « national » ?

L’influence « allemande » : l’ethno-régionalisme identitaire

Le nationalisme français a été depuis de nombreuses décennies mis en concurrence avec la pensée ethno-régionaliste identitaire, de fait que si les deux familles aspirent souvent à préserver une identité héritée, le cadre de réflexion, d’expression et d’action n’est pas vraiment le même. La Seconde Guerre mondiale aura marquée une véritable rupture à ce niveau, de même que les années 60 en auront marquées une seconde.

Jusqu’au second conflit mondial, la résistance et la reconquête se faisait dans un cadre national, sans véritable volonté hégémonique, à l’exception de l’Allemagne qui souhaitait en finir avec le traité de Versailles. Les combats sur le front de l’est contre l’URSS auront fait naître dans l’esprit des nationalistes l’idée que l’unité européenne pouvait permettre d’être plus fort contre un ennemi commun, qui était ici le bolchevisme. Cela a pu conduire à l’idée qu’il fallait bâtir d’un nouvel ordre européen sous l’influence d’une nouvelle chevalerie, les SS, qui serait basée sur des régions historiques comme vous pouvez le voir ici :

http://www.laiq2012.net/waffen2.png

Carte de l'Europe des SS

Cela nous fait « étrangement » penser aux théories de l’anarchiste autrichien Leopold Kohr, qui faisait l’éloge des micro-états (non ethniques), pour favoriser la concorde continentale, théories inspirées par une vision médiévale de l’Europe comme vous pouvez le voir ici :

https://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/7europe.jpg

Carte de l'Europe de Leopold Kohr

Après guerre des personnalités comme Saint Loup ou Robert Dun, à l'origine issus de l’ultra-gauche mais engagés dans la Waffen SS contre le bolchevisme, se feront les relais de cette conception de l’Europe. D’autres personnalités, comme le breton Yann Fouéré iront dans ce sens, comme l’indique l’ouvrage L’Europe aux cents drapeaux qui reprend « curieusement » le drapeau de l’Union Européenne sur cette édition* :

http://pmcdn.priceminister.com/photo/l-europe-aux-cent-drapeaux-essai-pour-servir-a-la-construction-de-l-europe-de-yann-fouere-913148172_ML.jpg

Couverture de l'Europe aux Cents drapeaux de Yann Fouéré

Ces personnalités auront une influence sur le second tournant des années 60. Avec eux, les déçus du nationalisme historique, qui prennent conscience que le monde change. En raison de la perte des colonies, la France perd un pan de sa puissance et paraît être de moins en moins capable de faire face aux défis qui s‘annoncent, comme la résistance au communisme. Ce sera la fonction historique du GRECE, de renouveler le discours politique et de mettre en place un corpus permettant aux européens de trouver leur place face aux deux blocs. De nombreuses structures à tendance volkisch et régionalistes vont graviter autour du GRECE ou en émaner.

Mais cette idée d’une Europe divisée en petites régions à fort caractère identitaire et regroupées dans un « empire européen » ne peut pas totalement être dissociée de la tradition politique allemande. En effet, depuis le Moyen Âge, la vocation allemande et d’être un empire central regroupant des régions autonomes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Holy_Roman_Empire_1000_map_with_more_colours-fr.svg/1000px-Holy_Roman_Empire_1000_map_with_more_colours-fr.svg.png

Carte du Saint-empire romain germanique vers l'an Mil

L’unité allemande n’a pas véritablement rompu avec ce fait là, accentuant simplement le caractère ethnique dans le contexte du XIXe siècle, tout comme la Nouvelle Droite mènera de nombreuses études sur les indo-européens pour renforcer l’idée d’unité ethnique du continent. L’unité allemande s’est également faite par l’unité économique (ex : Zollverein) et c’est précisément comme cela que procède l’UE aujourd’hui. Nous pouvons sincèrement nous demander si les ethno-régionalistes identitaires n’ont pas aspirés, à un moment, à ce que l’Europe naissante (par la CEE puis par l’Euro) soit tôt ou tard conforme à leurs vœux, que de l’unité économique naisse ensuite une unité politique sur des bases ethniques. Les récents événements battent en brèche cette aspiration, sans pour autant disqualifier totalement la nécessaire concorde entre européens, ni un projet alter-européen. Mais il est aujourd’hui de plus en plus difficile de faire passer un message favorable à l’unité européenne sans passer clairement pour un suppôt du Capital.

L’influence états-unienne et anglo-saxonne : le suprématisme blanc et la « défense de la race blanche »

 Il est impossible de parler d’identité ethnique sans s’attarder sur tous les mouvements de défense de la race blanche. Ici la question est beaucoup moins épineuse car il paraît évident que :

 -         le nationalisme historique n’a jamais eu comme base de « défendre la race blanche » et a toujours perçu le fait racial, et ethnique, comme un moyen, et non comme une fin.

 -         la race n’est en aucun cas la seule dimension d‘une identité, qui est le produit d'un héritage historique, culturel et se construit dans le temps

Mais alors qui peut très concrètement en venir à faire reposer la nation et l’identité sur la race ? Les états-uniens, bien sur !

Les Etats-Unis sont le produit des migrations de nombreux européens, souvent protestants, mais pas seulement, qui ont cherché dans le « nouveau monde » une seconde chance. Ils sont aussi le produit de la rencontre de nombreux autres déracinés : chinois ou africains par exemple. Les Etats-Unis sont historiquement, et malgré la guerre d’indépendance des 13 premiers états contre la couronne britannique, un pays profondément marqué par le fait ethnique, voire racial, les migrants se regroupant bien souvent sur le territoire en fonction de leur origine. Ainsi certaines villes sont profondément liées à cette histoire comme Boston qui est dans tous les esprits la ville des irlandais, au même titre que certains quartiers comme Little Italy ou Chinatown traduisent clairement la fragmentation ethnique du pays, y compris à l’échelle locale.

Les Etats-Unis ne connaissent pas de « nationalisme » au sens européen. Nous avons clairement expliqué que le nationalisme est un processus historique qui a conduit en Europe à se sentir Français, Allemand, Italien, Grec, Espagnol, etc…. rien de tout cela aux Etats-Unis. Aux Etats-Unis on parlera plutôt de patriotisme, c'est-à-dire d’un attachement à cet Etat porte étendard de l’unité des populations et de la liberté. Mais au sein de cette fédération, certains mouvements ont eu l’idée qu’il fallait diviser le pays en fonction des races. Malgré une influence du nazisme allemand, on ne peut pas résumer le nazisme à la seule question raciale, étant donné que celui-ci est profondément rattaché au nationalisme romantique allemand, ce qui n’est pas le cas aux Etats-Unis, où toute dimension nationale est évacuée au profit de la seule dimension raciale. Certes certains objecteront que les mouvements suprématistes piochent abondamment dans le folklore germanique (runes, etc…) mais cela est plus le fruit d’une démarche racialiste que nationaliste. Aux Etats-Unis la démarche racialiste et suprématiste est souvent rattaché à quelques ouvrages comme le fameux « White Power » de Georges Lincoln Rockwell ou les non moins célèbres « Carnets de Turner » de Andrew Mac Donald. Il n’est pas question ici d’affirmer que tout ce qui est raconté par ses mouvements est à 100% du délire, mais de montrer que leur combat est propre à l’histoire des Etats-Unis et à une conception états-unienne (ou plutôt WASP), du monde… Un des grands leitmotiv de ce suprématisme est la RAHOWA (Pour Racial Holy War – Guerre Sainte Raciale) et qui place au centre de sa pensée l’idée qu’il y aurait une lutte des races (et non une lutte des classes, d’où l’anti-marxisme qui conduit à dire que le marxisme oppose les gens d’une même race comme en Europe à l’accusait d’opposer les gens d’une même nation**). Cette Guerre Sainte peut être adjointe à une forme de messianisme protestant comme c’est le cas par exemple de l’Aryan Nation de G. Butler. Les Anglo-saxons seraient la race élue de Dieu, Jésus Christ était un « aryen » et l’Amérique était la terre promise. Notez qu’on retrouve exactement la même chose en Afrique du sud pour certains Afrikaners (voir ce que j’avais écris ici).

http://cerclenonconforme.hautetfort.com/media/01/00/1167494064.jpeg

Le logo de "Aryan nations"
(Notre race est notre nation)

Ce discours s’est massivement diffusé en Europe par certains mouvements anglais et pose une vraie question. S’il est clair que l’immigration de peuplement menace biologiquement les européens et que la propagande subventionnée prône le métissage et la dévirilisation de l’homme blanc, doit-on pour autant ne combattre que sur cet aspect, en oubliant que nous avons une histoire propre et que nous devons intégrer cette donnée dans notre tradition politique et non calquer des logiciels de pensée anglo-saxons sur une vieille nation comme la France ? Il n’est pas question de Guerre Sainte raciale en France ou de Pouvoir blanc sur la Terre. Il est simplement question de reprendre les leviers de la souveraineté pour refonder une France et une Europe nouvelles, définir clairement un Français comme un européen de langue française et replacer le droit du sang au centre du débat.

L’influence russe : l’eurasisme

Après les Etats-Unis, la Russie. Si nous pouvons contester l’influence de la pensée anglo-saxonne américaine sur le nationalisme français, nous pouvons également nous questionner sur l’influence russe, cela n’est pas un exercice simple étant donné que nous avons plutôt de la sympathie pour l’histoire et la culture russe. Mais il est nécessaire d’avoir un regard critique.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTx0COc4Nc1azbvb2f5ePvq_BTUirgRQ-3qj-S_eCBpE0K29OSc

L’eurasisme est une conception géopolitique propre à la Russie qui est un pays à cheval sur deux continents (Europe et Asie). Un Russe ne peut abandonner ni sa dimension européenne, ni sa dimension asiatique. De là va naître l’eurasisme. La pensée eurasiste a beaucoup percée ces dernières années par l’intermédiaire d’Alexandre Douguine, qui a fait paraître il y a quelques mois la Quatrième Théorie Politique, celle qui doit succéder au libéralisme, au communisme et au fascisme et affronter la seule qui a survécu au XXe siècle : le libéralisme. Les théories de Douguine ne sont pas dénuées d’intérêts et reprennent un large aspect traditionnel, fortement séduisant pour tous ceux qui se sont intéressés à la Tradition (Evola, Guenon, etc…). C’est une façon pour les russes de répondre aux Etats-Unis, qui impulsent la mondialisation libérale, l’unipolarité et la sous-culture de la consommation de masse (par la musique ou le cinéma). Cependant cela ne doit pas nous faire oublier qu’il s‘agit d’une vision russe du monde.

En effet l’eurasisme est une vision impériale russe ce qui pose immédiatement la question du voisinage de la Russie. Ainsi les eurasistes considèrent que la Biélorussie, l’Ukraine et les pays baltes sont des territoires qui doivent leur être liés, alors que les nationalistes de ces pays veulent quant à eux être indépendants de ce voisin gargantuesque. D’où les tentatives d’intégration zélée, et malheureuses, au sein de l’espace euro-atlantique matérialisé par l’UE.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Eurasia_and_eurasianism.png

Les Français auraient tort d’embrasser de façon trop naïve cette vision du monde, car cela pourrait les conduire à se couper des pays de l’est, l’Allemagne a sur ce point bien plus de finesse, en appliquant, encore une fois, sa stratégie impériale à l’est via l’UE (en intégrant la Pologne, les pays Baltes et en faisant des appels au pied à l’Ukraine) tout en se ménageant de bons rapports avec la Russie (Nord Stream, grâce de Khordokovski). Ce n’est pas en embrassant béatement l’eurasisme que le nationalisme français sortira de sa crise doctrinale actuelle. Au contraire, la France est historiquement un pays d’équilibre entre les empires et porte également son propre projet impérial, et l’eurasisme ne consiste pas simplement à défendre la souveraineté de l’Etat-nation russe, il consiste à encourager la Russie à avoir une hégémonie sur d’autres Etats-nations, Alexandre Douguine ne fait aucun mystère là-dessus. Il faut donc retrouver notre voie d’équilibre des puissances, développer notre propre projet impérial et favoriser l’idée selon laquelle les peuples doivent se gouverner eux-mêmes. Un nationaliste français doit pouvoir mener des tractations diplomatiques qui permettent à des voisins de vivre en paix. En un mot la Russie devra être un partenaire, mais cela ne nous empêche pas de faire valoir notre vision du monde et nos intérêts propres. Nous n’avons pas à devenir une colonie russe après avoir été une colonie des Etats-Unis.

Conclusion:

Ainsi par ces quelques modestes considérations nous avons pu passer au crible trois tentations de sortir du nationalisme traditionnel pour apporter une réponse aux temps présents : la volonté d’une autre Europe qui serait fédérale et ethnique, la volonté de préserver la race blanche ou la volonté de s’opposer aux Etats-Unis par le biais de la Russie.

Bien que le courant ethno-régionaliste soit surement le plus capable de faire l’équilibre entre les deux autres (suprématisme et eurasisme) ce qui explique que des personnalités issues du GRECE flirtent depuis longtemps avec l’un ou l’autre courant, ces trois grands courants, ne doivent pas nous faire oublier notre tradition politique propre, il faut plutôt les voir comme des sources d’inspiration pour constituer un corpus idéologique sérieux permettant aux Français d’affronter le monde dans lequel ils sont.

Il paraît important de ne pas rejeter l’idée fédérale, ni l’idée d’Europe puissance, il faut aussi enrayer la disparition de l’Homme européen et il convient de (re)trouver notre place dans le jeu géopolitique actuel qui tend vers la multipolarité depuis plusieurs années. La question de la sortie du capitalisme est ici fondamentale.

Nous pourrions œuvrer à bâtir une France fédérale et communale (ce qui reprend l’idée maurrassienne et proudhonienne, et non simplement « allemande ») au sein d‘une Europe puissance à l’ouest constituée des nations libérées du Léviathan euro-atlantiste, de la finance et du Capital. Il faudrait redéfinir la nationalité française sous un angle plus ethnique et revitaliser les Européens. Enfin, cet ensemble mènerait une politique de désaméricanisation, de coopération avec les puissances émergentes et les pays non-alignés, tout en préservant ses intérêts et ceux, in fine de l’Europe romano-carolingienne vers laquelle nous devrons nous projeter.

Jean/CNC

Note du C.N.C.: Toute reproduction éventuelle de ce contenu doit mentionner la source.

* On trouvera quelques points communs entre la carte de l'Europe des Waffen SS et celle du projet actuel de redécoupage régional de la France:

http://static.lexpress.fr/medias_9138/w_400,h_400,c_fill,g_north/regions-fusionnees_4678904.png

 **: La Rahowa, tout comme la lutte des classes, reposent paradoxalement sur des théories plutôt darwinistes de lutte entre des groupes humains concurrents.

mercredi, 18 décembre 2013

Milestones of Eurasism

3265133011.jpg

Milestones of Eurasism

By Alexander Dugin 

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

Eurasism is an ideological and social-political current born within the environment of the first wave of Russian emigration, united by the concept of Russian culture as a non-European phenomenon, presenting–among the varied world cultures–an original combination of western and eastern features; as a consequence, the Russian culture belongs to both East and West, and at the same time cannot be reduced either to the former or to the latter.

The founders of eurasism:

  • N. S. Trubetskoy (1890–1938)–philologist and linguist.
  • P. N. Savitsky (1895–1965)–geographer, economist.
  • G. V. Florovsky (1893–1979)–historian of culture, theologian and patriot.
  • G. V. Vernadsky (1877–1973)–historian and geopolitician.
  • N. N. Alekseev – jurist and politologist.
  • V. N. Ilin – historian of culture, literary scholar and theologian.

Eurasism’s main value consisted in ideas born out of the depth of the tradition of Russian history and statehood. Eurasism looked at the Russian culture not as to a simple component of the European civilization, as to an original civilization, summarizing the experience not only of the West as also–to the same extent–of the East. The Russian people, in this perspective, must not be placed neither among the European nor among the Asian peoples; it belongs to a fully original Eurasian ethnic community. Such originality of the Russian culture and statehood (showing at the same time European and Asian features) also defines the peculiar historical path of Russia, her national-state program, not coinciding with the Western-European tradition. 

Foundations

Civilization concept

The Roman-German civilization has worked out its own system of principles and values, and promoted it to the rank of universal system. This Roman-German system has been imposed on the other peoples and cultures by force and ruse. The Western spiritual and material colonization of the rest of mankind is a negative phenomenon. Each people and culture has its own intrinsic right to evolve according to its own logic. Russia is an original civilization. She is called not only to counter the West, fully safeguarding its own road, but also to stand at the vanguard of the other peoples and countries on Earth defending their own freedom as civilizations. 

Criticism of the Roman-German civilization

The Western civilization built its own system on the basis of the secularisation of Western Christianity (Catholicism and Protestantism), bringing to the fore such values like individualism, egoism, competition, technical progress, consumption, economic exploitation. The Roman-German civilization founds its right to globality not upon spiritual greatness, as upon rough material force. Even the spirituality and strength of the other peoples are evaluated only on the basis of its own image of the supremacy of rationalism and technical progress.

The space factor

There are no universal patterns of development. The plurality of landscapes on Earth produces a plurality of cultures, each one having its own cycles, internal criteria and logics. Geographical space has a huge (sometimes decisive) influence on peoples’ culture and national history. Every people, as long as it develops within some given geographical environment, elaborates its own national, ethical, juridical, linguistic, ritual, economic and political forms. The “place” where any people or state “development” happens predetermines to a great extent the path and sense of this “development”–up to the point when the two elements became one. It is impossible to separate history from spatial conditions, and the analysis of civilizations must proceed not only along the temporal axis (“before,” “after,” “development” or “non-development,” and so on) as also along the spatial axis (“east,” “west,” “steppe,” “mountains,” and so on). No single state or region has the right to pretend to be the standard for all the rest. Every people has its own pattern of development, its own “times,” its own “rationality,” and deserves to be understood and evaluated according to its own internal criteria.

The climate of Europe, the small extension of its spaces, the influence of its landscapes generated the peculiarity of the European civilization, where the influences of the wood (northern Europe) and of the coast (Mediterraneum) prevail. Different landscapes generated different kinds of civilizations: the boundless steppes generated the nomad empires (from the Scythians to the Turks), the loess lands the Chinese one, the mountain islands the Japanese one, the union of steppe and woods the Russian-Eurasian one. The mark of landscape lives in the whole history of each one of these civilizations, and cannot be either separated form them or suppressed.

State and nation

The first Russian slavophiles in the 19th century (Khomyakov, Aksakov, Kirevsky) insisted upon the uniqueness and originality of the Russian (Slav, Orthodox) civilization. This must be defended, preserved and strengthened against the West, on the one hand, and against liberal modernism (which also proceeds from the West), on the other. The slavophiles proclaimed the value of tradition, the greatness of the ancient times, the love for the Russian past, and warned against the inevitable dangers of progress and about the extraneousness of Russia to many aspects of the Western pattern.

From this school the eurasists inherited the positions of the latest slavophiles and further developed their theses in the sense of a positive evaluation of the Eastern influences.

The Muscovite Empire represents the highest development of the Russian statehood. The national idea achieves a new status; after Moscow’s refusal to recognize the Florentine Unia (arrest and proscription of the metropolitan Isidore) and the rapid decay, the Tsargrad Rus’ inherits the flag of the Orthodox empire. 

Political platform

Wealth and prosperity, a strong state and an efficient economy, a powerful army and the development of production must be the instruments for the achievement of high ideals. The sense of the state and of the nation can be conferred only through the existence of a “leading idea.” That political regime, which supposes the establishment of a “leading idea” as a supreme value, was called by the eurasists as “ideocracy”–from the Greek “idea” and “kratos,” power. Russia is always thought of as the Sacred Rus’, as a power [derzhava] fulfilling its own peculiar historical mission. The eurasist world-view must also be the national idea of the forthcoming Russia, its “leading idea.”

The eurasist choice

Russia-Eurasia, being the expression of a steppe and woods empire of continental dimensions, requires her own pattern of leadership. This means, first of all, the ethics of collective responsibility, disinterest, reciprocal help, ascetism, will and tenaciousness. Only such qualities can allow keeping under control the wide and scarcely populated lands of the steppe-woodland Eurasian zone. The ruling class of Eurasia was formed on the basis of collectivism, asceticism, warlike virtue and rigid hierarchy.

Western democracy was formed in the particular conditions of ancient Athens and through the centuries-old history of insular England. Such democracy mirrors the peculiar features of the “local European development.” Such democracy does not represent a universal standard. Imitating the rules of the European “liberal-democracy” is senseless, impossible and dangerous for Russia-Eurasia. The participation of the Russian people to the political rule must be defined by a different term: “demotia,” from the Greek “demos,” people. Such participation does not reject hierarchy and must not be formalized into party-parliamentary structures. “Demotia” supposes a system of land council, district governments or national governments (in the case of peoples of small dimensions). It is developed on the basis of social self-government, of the “peasant” world. An example of “demotia” is the elective nature of church hierarchies on behalf of the parishioners in the Muscovite Rus’. 

The work of L. N. Gumilev as a development of the eurasist thinking

Lev Nikolaevic Gumilev (1912–1992), son of the Russian poet N. Gumilev and of the poetess A. Akhmatova, was an ethnographer, historian and philosopher. He was profoundly influenced by the book of the Kalmuck eurasist E. Khara-Vadan “Gengis-Khan as an army leader” and by the works of Savitsky. In its own works Gumilev developed the fundamental eurasist theses. Towards the end of his life he used to call himself “the last of the eurasists.” 

Basic elements of Gumilev’s theory

  • The theory of passionarity [passionarnost’] as a development of the eurasist idealism;
  • The essence of which, in his own view, lays in the fact that every ethnos, as a natural formation, is subject to the influence of some “energetic drives,” born out of the cosmos and causing the “passionarity effect,” that is an extreme activity and intensity of life. In such conditions the ethnos undergoes a “genetic mutation,” which leads to the birth of the “passionaries”–individuals of a special temper and talent. And those become the creators of new ethnoi, cultures, and states;
  • Drawing the scientific attention upon the proto-history of the “nomad empires” of the East and the discovery of the colossal ethnic and cultural heritage of the autochthone ancient Asian peoples, which was wholly passed to the great culture of the ancient epoch, but afterwards fell into oblivion (Huns, Turks, Mongols, and so on);
  • The development of a turkophile attitude in the theory of “ethnic complementarity.”

0_9b9e1_f9f45d79_L.jpgAn ethnos is in general any set of individuals, any “collective”: people, population, nation, tribe, family clan, based on a common historical destiny. “Our Great-Russian ancestors–wrote Gumilev–in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries easily and rather quickly mixed with the Volga, Don and Obi Tatars and with the Buriates, who assimilated the Russian culture. The same Great-Russian easily mixed with the Yakuts, absorbing their identity and gradually coming into friendly contact with Kazakhs and Kalmucks. Through marriage links they pacifically coexisted with the Mongols in Central Asia, as the Mongols themselves and the Turks between the 14th and 16th centuries were fused with the Russians in Central Russia.” Therefore the history of the Muscovite Rus’ cannot be understood without the framework of the ethnic contacts between Russians and Tatars and the history of the Eurasian continent.

The advent of neo-eurasism: historical and social context

The crisis of the Soviet paradigm

In the mid-1980s the Soviet society began to lose its connection and ability to adequately reflect upon the external environment and itself. The Soviet models of self-understanding were showing their cracks. The society had lost its sense of orientation. Everybody felt the need for change, yet this was but a confused feeling, as no-one could tell the way the change would come from. In that time a rather unconvincing divide began to form: “forces of progress” and “forces of reaction,” “reformers” and “conservators of the past,” “partisans of reforms” and “enemies of reforms.” 

Infatuation for the western models

In that situation the term “reform” became in itself a synonym of “liberal-democracy.” A hasty conclusion was inferred, from the objective fact of the crisis of the Soviet system, about the superiority of the western model and the necessity to copy it. At the theoretical level this was all but self-evident, since the “ideological map” offers a sharply more diversified system of choices than the primitive dualism: socialism vs. capitalism, Warsaw Pact vs. NATO. Yet it was just that primitive logic that prevailed: the “partisans of reform” became the unconditional apologists of the West, whose structure and logic they were ready to assimilate, while the “enemies of reform” proved to be the inertial preservers of the late Soviet system, whose structure and logic they grasped less and less. In such condition of lack of balance, the reformers/pro-westerners had on their side a potential of energy, novelty, expectations of change, creative drive, perspectives, while the “reactionaries” had nothing left but inertness, immobilism, the appeal to the customary and already-known. In just this psychological and aesthetic garb, liberal-democratic policy prevailed in the Russia of the 1990s, although nobody had been allowed to make a clear and conscious choice.

The collapse of the state unity

The result of “reforms” was the collapse of the Soviet state unity and the beginning of the fall of Russia as the heir of the USSR. The destruction of the Soviet system and “rationality” was not accompanied by the creation of a new system and a new rationality in conformity to national and historical conditions. There gradually prevailed a peculiar attitude toward Russia and her national history: the past, present and future of Russia began to be seen from the point of view of the West, to be evaluated as something stranger, transcending, alien (“this country” was the “reformers’” typical expression). That was not the Russian view of the West, as the Western view of Russia. No wonder that in such condition the adoption of the western schemes even in the “reformers’” theory was invoked not in order to create and strengthen the structure of the national state unity, but in order to destroy its remains. The destruction of the state was not a casual outcome of the “reforms”; as a matter of fact, it was among their strategic aims.

The birth of an anti-western (anti-liberal) opposition in the post-Soviet environment

In the course of the “reforms” and their “deepening,” the inadequacy of the simple reaction began to be clear to everyone. In that period (1989–90) began the formation of a “national-patriotic opposition,” in which there was the confluence of part of the “Soviet conservatives” (ready to a minimal level of reflection), groups of “reformers” disappointed with “reforms” or “having become conscious of their anti-state direction,” and groups of representatives of the patriotic movements, which had already formed during the perestroika and tried to shape the sentiment of “state power” [derzhava] in a non-communist (orthodox-monarchic, nationalist, etc.) context. With a severe delay, and despite the complete absence of external strategic, intellectual and material support, the conceptual model of post-Soviet patriotism began to vaguely take shape.

Neo-eurasism

Neo-eurasism arose in this framework as an ideological and political phenomenon, gradually turning into one of the main directions of the post-Soviet Russian patriotic self-consciousness. 

Stages of development of the neo-eurasist ideology

1st stage (1985–90)

  • Dugin’s seminars and lectures to various groups of the new-born conservative-patriotic movement. Criticism of the Soviet paradigm as lacking the spiritual and national qualitative element.
  • In 1989 first publications on the review Sovetskaya literatura [Soviet Literature]. Dugin’s books are issued in Italy (Continente Russia [Continent Russia], 1989) and in Spain (Rusia Misterio de Eurasia [Russia, Mystery of Eurasia], 1990).
  • In 1990 issue of René Guénon’s Crisis of the Modern World with comments by Dugin, and of Dugin’s Puti Absoljuta [The Paths of the Absolute], with the exposition of the foundations of the traditionalist philosophy.

In these years eurasism shows “right-wing conservative” features, close to historical traditionalism, with orthodox-monarchic, “ethnic-pochevennik” [i.e., linked to the ideas of soil and land] elements, sharply critical of “Left-wing” ideologies.

2nd stage (1991–93)

  • Begins the revision of anti-communism, typical of the first stage of neo-eurasism. Revaluation of the Soviet period in the spirit of “national-bolshevism” and “Left-wing eurasism.”
  • Journey to Moscow of the main representatives of the “New Right” (Alain de Benoist, Robert Steuckers, Carlo Terracciano, Marco Battarra, Claudio Mutti and others).
  • Eurasism becomes popular among the patriotic opposition and the intellectuals. On the basis of terminological affinity, A. Sakharov already speaks about Eurasia, though only in a strictly geographic–instead of political and geopolitical–sense (and without ever making use of eurasism in itself, like he was before a convinced atlantist); a group of “democrats” tries to start a project of “democratic eurasism” (G. Popov, S. Stankevic, L. Ponomarev).
  • O. Lobov, O. Soskovets, S. Baburin also speak about their own eurasism.
  • In 1992–93 is issued the first number of Elements: Eurasist Review. Lectures on geopolitics and the foundations of eurasism in high schools and universities. Many translations, articles, seminars.

3rd stage (1994–98): theoretical development of the neo-eurasist orthodoxy

  • Issue of Dugin’s main works Misterii Evrazii [Mysteries of Eurasia] (1996), Konspirologija [Conspirology] (1994), Osnovy Geopolitiki [Foundations of geopolitics] (1996), Konservativnaja revoljutsija [The conservative revolution] (1994), Tampliery proletariata [Knight Templars of the Proletariat] (1997). Works of Trubetskoy, Vernadsky, Alekseev and Savitsky are issued by “Agraf” editions (1995–98).
  • Creation of the “Arctogaia” web-site (1996) – www.arctogaia.com [2].
  • Direct and indirect references to eurasism appear in the programs of the KPFR (Communist Party], LDPR [Liberal-Democratic Party], NDR [New Democratic Russia] (that is left, right, and centre). Growing number of publications on eurasist themes. Issue of many eurasist digests.
  • Criticism of eurasism from Russian nationalists, religious fundamentalists and orthodox communists, and also from the liberals.
  • Manifestations of an academic “weak” version of eurasism (Prof. A. S. Panarin, V. Ya. Paschenko, F.Girenok and others) – with elements of the illuminist paradigm, denied by the eurasist orthodoxy – then evolving towards more radically anti-western, anti-liberal and anti-gobalist positions.
  • Inauguration of a university dedicated to L. Gumilev in Astan [Kazakhstan].

4th stage (1998–2001)

  • Gradual de-identification of neo-eurasism vis-à-vis the collateral political-cultural and party manifestations; turning to the autonomous direction (“Arctogaia,” “New University,” “Irruption” [Vtorzhenie]) outside the opposition and the extreme Left and Right-wing movements.
  • Apology of staroobrjadchestvo [Old Rite].
  • Shift to centrist political positions, supporting Primakov as the new premier. Dugin becomes the adviser to the Duma speaker G. N. Seleznev.
  • Issue of the eurasist booklet Nash put’ [Our Path] (1998).
  • Issue of Evraziikoe Vtorzhenie [Eurasist Irruption] as a supplement to Zavtra. Growing distance from the opposition and shift closer to the government’s positions.
  • Theoretical researches, elaborations, issue of “The Russian Thing” [Russkaja vesch’] (2001), publications in Nezavisimaja Gazeta, Moskovskij Novosti, radio broadcasts about “Finis Mundi” on Radio 101, radio broadcasts on geopolitical subjects and neo-eurasism on Radio “Svobodnaja Rossija” (1998–2000).

5th stage (2001–2002)

  • Foundation of the Pan-Russian Political Social Movement EURASIA on “radical centre” positions; declaration of full support to the President of the Russian Federation V. V. Putin (April 21, 2001).
  • The leader of the Centre of Spiritual Management of the Russian Muslims, sheik-ul-islam Talgat Tadjuddin, adheres to EURASIA.
  • Issue of the periodical Evraziizkoe obozrenie [Eurasist Review].
  • Appearance of Jewish neo-eurasism (A. Eskin, A. Shmulevic, V. Bukarsky).
  • Creation of the web-site of the Movement EURASIA: www.eurasia.com.ru [3]
  • Conference on “Islamic Threat or Threat to Islam?.” Intervention by H. A. Noukhaev, Chechen theorist of “Islamic eurasism” (“Vedeno or Washington?,” Moscow, 2001].
  • Issue of books by E. Khara-Davan and Ya. Bromberg (2002).
  • Process of transformation of the Movement EURASIA into a party (2002).

Basic philosophical positions of neo-eurasism

pour-une-theorie-du-monde-multipolaire.jpgAt the theoretical level neo-eurasism consists of the revival of the classic principles of the movement in a qualitatively new historical phase, and of the transformation of such principles into the foundations of an ideological and political program and a world-view. The heritage of the classic eurasists was accepted as the fundamental world-view for the ideal (political) struggle in the post-Soviet period, as the spiritual-political platform of “total patriotism.”

The neo-eurasists took over the basic positions of classical eurasism, chose them as a platform, as starting points, as the main theoretical bases and foundations for the future development and practical use. In the theoretical field, neo-eurasists consciously developed the main principles of classical eurasism taking into account the wide philosophical, cultural and political framework of the ideas of the 20th century.

Each one of the main positions of the classical eurasists (see the chapter on the “Foundations of classical eurasism”) revived its own conceptual development.

Civilization concept

Criticism of the western bourgeois society from “Left-wing” (social) positions was superimposed to the criticism of the same society from “Right-wing” (civilizational) positions. The eurasist idea about “rejecting the West” is reinforced by the rich weaponry of the “criticism of the West” by the same representatives of the West who disagree with the logic of its development (at least in the last centuries). The eurasist came only gradually, since the end of the 1980s to the mid-1990s, to this idea of the fusion of the most different (and often politically contradictory) concepts denying the “normative” character of the Western civilization.

The “criticism of the Roman-German civilization” was thoroughly stressed, being based on the prioritary analysis of the Anglo-Saxon world, of the US. According to the spirit of the German Conservative Revolution and of the European “New Right,” the “Western world” was differentiated into an Atlantic component (the US and England) and into a continental European component (properly speaking, a Roman-German component). Continental Europe is seen here as a neutral phenomenon, liable to be integrated–on some given conditions–in the eurasist project.

The spatial factor

Neo-eurasism is moved by the idea of the complete revision of the history of philosophy according to spatial positions. Here we find its trait-d’union in the most varied models of the cyclical vision of history, from Danilevsky to Spengler, from Toynbee to Gumilev.

Such a principle finds its most pregnant expression in traditionalist philosophy, which denies the ideas of evolution and progress and founds this denial upon detailed metaphysical calculations. Hence the traditional theory of “cosmic cycles,” of the “multiple states of Being,” of “sacred geography,” and so on. The basic principles of the theory of cycles are illustrated in detail by the works of Guénon (and his followers G. Georgel, T. Burckhardt, M. Eliade, H. Corbin). A full rehabilitation has been given to the concept of “traditional society,” either knowing no history at all, or realizing it according to the rites and myths of the “eternal return.” The history of Russia is seen not simply as one of the many local developments, but as the vanguard of the spatial system (East) opposed to the “temporal” one (West). 

State and nation

Dialectics of national history

It is led up to its final, “dogmatical” formulation, including the historiosophic paradigm of “national-bolshevism” (N. Ustryalov) and its interpretation (M. Agursky). The pattern is as follows:

  • The Kiev period as the announcement of the forthcoming national mission (IX-XIII centuries);
  • Mongolian-Tatar invasion as a scud against the levelling European trends, the geopolitical and administrative push of the Horde is handed over to the Russians, division of the Russians between western and eastern Russians, differentiation among cultural kinds, formation of the Great-Russians on the basis of the “eastern Russians” under the Horde’s control (13th–15th centuries);
  • The Muscovite Empire as the climax of the national-religious mission of Rus’ (Third Rome) (15th–end of the 17th century);
  • Roman-German yoke (Romanov), collapse of national unity, separation between a pro-western elite and the national mass (end of the 17th-beginning of the 20th century);
  • Soviet period, revenge of the national mass, period of the “Soviet messianism,” re-establishment of the basic parameters of the main muscovite line (20th century);
  • Phase of troubles, that must end with a new eurasist push (beginning of the 21st century).

Political platform

Neo-eurasism owns the methodology of Vilfrido Pareto’s school, moves within the logic of the rehabilitation of “organic hierarchy,” gathers some Nietzschean motives, develops the doctrine of the “ontology of power,” of the Christian Orthodox concept of power as “kat’echon.” The idea of “elite” completes the constructions of the European traditionalists, authors of researches about the system of castes in the ancient society and of their ontology and sociology (R. Guénon, J. Evola, G. Dumézil, L. Dumont). Gumilev’s theory of “passionarity” lies at the roots of the concept of “new eurasist elite.”

The thesis of “demotia” is the continuation of the political theories of the “organic democracy” from J.-J. Rousseau to C. Schmitt, J. Freund, A. de Benoist and A. Mueller van der Bruck. Definition of the eurasist concept of “democracy” (“demotia”) as the “participation of the people to its own destiny.”

The thesis of “ideocracy” gives a foundation to the call to the ideas of “conservative revolution” and “third way,” in the light of the experience of Soviet, Israeli and Islamic ideocracies, analyses the reason of their historical failure. The critical reflection upon the qualitative content of the 20th century ideocracy brings to the consequent criticism of the Soviet period (supremacy of quantitative concepts and secular theories, disproportionate weight of the classist conception).

The following elements contribute to the development of the ideas of the classical eurasists:

The philosophy of traditionalism (Guénon, Evola, Burckhardt, Corbin), the idea of the radical decay of the “modern world,” profound teaching of the Tradition. The global concept of “modern world” (negative category) as the antithesis of the “world of Tradition” (positive category) gives the criticism of the Western civilization a basic metaphysic character, defining the eschatological, critical, fatal content of the fundamental (intellectual, technological, political and economic) processes having their origin in the West. The intuitions of the Russian conservatives, from the slavophiles to the classical eurasists, are completed by a fundamental theoretical base. (see A. Dugin, Absoljutnaja Rodina [The Absolute Homeland], Moscow 1999; Konets Sveta [The End of the World], Moscow 1997; Julius Evola et le conservatisme russe, Rome 1997).

The investigation on the origins of sacredness (M. Eliade, C. G. Jung, C. Levi-Strauss), the representations of the archaic consciousness as the paradigmatic complex manifestation laying at the roots of culture. The reduction of the many-sided human thinking, of culture, to ancient psychic layers, where fragments of archaic initiatic rites, myths, originary sacral complexes are concentrated. Interpretation of the content of rational culture through the system of the ancient, pre-rational beliefs (A. Dugin, “The evolution of the paradigmatic foundations of science” [Evoljutsija paradigmal’nyh osnovanij nauki], Moscow 2002).

The search for the symbolic paradigms of the space-time matrix, which lays at the roots of rites, languages and symbols (H. Wirth, paleo-epigraphic investigations). This attempt to give a foundation to the linguistic (Svityc-Illic), epigraphic (runology), mythological, folkloric, ritual and different monuments allows to rebuild an original map of the “sacred concept of the world” common to all the ancient Eurasian peoples, the existence of common roots (see A. Dugin Giperborejskaja Teorija [Hyperborean Theory], Moscow 1993.

A reassessment of the development of geopolitical ideas in the West (Mackinder, Haushofer, Lohhausen, Spykman, Brzeszinski, Thiriart and others). Since Mackinder’s epoch, geopolitical science has sharply evolved. The role of geopolitical constants in 20th century history appeared so clear as to make geopolitics an autonomous discipline. Within the geopolitical framework, the concept itself of “eurasism” and “Eurasia” acquired a new, wider meaning.

From some time onwards, eurasism, in a geopolitical sense, began to indicate the continental configuration of a strategic (existing or potential) bloc, created around Russia or its enlarged base, and as an antagonist (either actively or passively) to the strategic initiatives of the opposed geopolitical pole–“Atlantism,” at the head of which at the mid-20th century the US came to replace England.

The philosophy and the political idea of the Russian classics of eurasism in this situation have been considered as the most consequent and powerful expression (fulfilment) of eurasism in its strategic and geopolitical meaning. Thanks to the development of geopolitical investigations (A. Dugin, Osnovye geopolitiki [Foundations of geopolitics], Moscow 1997) neo-eurasism becomes a methodologically evolved phenomenon. Especially remarkable is the meaning of the Land – Sea pair (according to Carl Schmitt), the projection of this pair upon a plurality of phenomena – from the history of religions to economics.

The search for a global alternative to globalism, as an ultra-modern phenomenon, summarizing everything that is evaluated by eurasism (and neo-eurasism) as negative. Eurasism in a wider meaning becomes the conceptual platform of anti-globalism, or of the alternative globalism. “Eurasism” gathers all contemporary trends denying globalism any objective (let alone positive) content; it offers the anti-globalist intuition a new character of doctrinal generalization.

The assimilation of the social criticism of the “New Left” into a “conservative right-wing interpretation” (reflection upon the heritage of M. Foucault, G. Deleuze, A. Artaud, G. Debord). Assimilation of the critical thinking of the opponents of the bourgeois western system from the positions of anarchism, neo-marxism and so on. This conceptual pole represents a new stage of development of the “Left-wing” (national-bolshevik) tendencies existing also among the first eurasists (Suvchinskij, Karsavin, Efron), and also a method for the mutual understanding with the “left” wing of anti-globalism.

“Third way” economics, “autarchy of the great spaces.” Application of heterodox economic models to the post-Soviet Russian reality. Application of F. List’s theory of the “custom unions.” Actualization of the theories of S. Gesell. F. Schumpeter, F. Leroux, new eurasist reading of Keynes.

Source: Ab Aeterno, no. 3, June 2010.

 


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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/12/milestones-of-eurasism/

dimanche, 08 décembre 2013

TWO STUDIES ON NEO-EURASIANISM

das-sakrale-eurasische-imperium-des-aleksandr-dugin-074326820.jpg

TWO STUDIES ON NEO-EURASIANISM

by Martin A. Schwarz

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

Marlene Laruelle: Russian Eurasianism: An Ideology of Empire. Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Press/Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008, 288 p.

Alexander Höllwerth: Das sakrale eurasische Imperium des Aleksandr Dugin. Eine Diskursanalyse zum postsowjetischen Rechtsextremismus. Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society, Vol. 59. Stuttgart: Ibidem Verlag 2007. 735 p.

Different strands of Russian Eurasianism (Laruelle, part 1)

Marlene Laruelle, a young but prolific French-American scholar, who has already published books about the classic Eurasianism and about its precursor in the 19th century, has now written “Russian Eurasianism. An ideology of Empire”, one of the first comprehensive academic studies of Neo-Eurasianism, or at least in the West. In difference to other works of this kind, the author sticks to her principles of impartiality, which does not mean that she does not present her own theories about history and function of Eurasianism as an “ideology of Empire”, but, in her own words “this book analyzes Neo-Eurasianism without judging it, for two reasons. First, I do not think one may, either methodologically or ethically, judge and analyze at the same time. Knowledge is a prerequisite of argument, but the former must precede the latter. Second, as Pierre-André Taguieff has remarked, ‘There is no need to put words into an author’s mouth or demonize him in order to critically examine theses that one believes must be opposed.’” (Laruelle, p. 13)
 
russian-eurasianism--an-ideology-of-empire.jpgAfter a brief introduction in which she points to the relevance of the subject, her different approach (as mentioned), and the specific weight of the personalities she choose for presentation, the first chapter is devoted to the original Eurasianism from 1920-1930. This is a rather brief outline, as she has already written a book on the subject (L’Idéologie eurasiste russe ou comment penser l’empire, Paris 1999) , and brings not many new or original informations about a movement, which was the “conservative revolution” á la Russe, borrowing from Fascism and Bolshevism, but denouncing their short-comings and “Western” features. Two things though seem to be central for Laruelle’s understanding of the Eurasianists: the notion of a “geographic identity” for Russians, instead of the Western self-understanding of a “historic” and therefore progressive understanding of the identity of nations (which of course was transferred as “historical materialism” to Russia, and also was promoted by liberals and – inverted – by nostalgic monarchists). Therefore the geographic orientation of Eurasianism lies at the core of the movement, but was paradoxically developed in the Western exile: “The Eurasianist doctrine must be grasped in its fundamentally provocative character. It was born of the malaise of young nationalists who were reluctant to integrate into the host culture and who refused to resign themselves to the thought that links with homeland were definitely broken. Their rejection of Europe can only be understood if we remember that it was elaborated in the West by those Russians who, culturally speaking, were the most Europeanized.” (p. 25) While it is undeniable true, that Eurasianism as self-affirmation could only become self-knowledge in the encounter and subsequently (at least partial) rejection of Western ideologies, Laruelle shows a tendency to psychologize the phenomenon: “(Eurasianism) attempts to theorize what is above all an experience and a feeling: the experience of young men in exile who feel humiliated by the defeat of the Whites and try to understand the reality of the motherland and stay in touch with it.” (p. 47)
 
Another paradox or ambiguity can be found in the Eurasianist re-evaluation of the Far Eastern part of Russian history and culture, the Mongolic and Islamic one. „(…) before Eurasianism in the 1920s, no Russian intellectual movement displayed a real openness to the Turko-Mongol world. Asia was only ever highlighted under the aspects of Aryanism; it was a mere detour to reinforced claims of Europeaness.“ (p. 4) While this heritage was now used by the Eurasianists as an argument for the distinction of Russia not only to Western Europe but also to Pan-Slavism, the religions and cultures of Buddhism and Islam as such were denigrated in favor of a militant Orthodox Christianity. As the final parts of this book are dedicated to the relation between (neo-)Eurasianism and Islam, this question has not to be answered at this point.
 
After this brief, not very differentiated presentation of the original Eurasianists, Laruelle looks more in detail in the thinking of the three most influential neo-Eurasianists. These are, in her words “the theories of ethnogenesis elaborated by the Orientalist Lev N. Gumilëv (1912-92); the fascistic geopolitics of the fashionable theorist Aleksandr Dugin (1962-); the philosopher Aleksandr Panarin’s (1940-2003) defense of a multipolar world.” (p. 2)
 
Lev Gumilëv, the missing link – or rather: not missing link – between “old” and “new” Eurasianism enjoys nearly universal popularity in Russia. His theories of Ethnogenesis are generally excepted and taught in schools and universities, often without reference to the Eurasianist Weltanschauung, although they are deeply connected with their organic understanding of peoples and societies. While Gumilëv shares with the Eurasianists the idea that the individual draws the meaning from the totality, Gumilëv’s theory of ethnos is definitively on the more biologistic and deterministic side of possible variations of this idea. One that, as I must say, does not fit well with the ideas of an supra-natural origin of culture, which is the normal religious concept, and also especially stressed by the representatives of integral traditionalism (René Guénon, Julius Evola, and others), whose ideas were introduced to neo-Eurasianism by Aleksandr Dugin and Geidar Dzhemal. As Laruelle writes, “he [Gumilëv] takes up the original Eurasianists’ organicism and radicalizes it, using numerous biological or even genetic metaphors with far-reaching political implications”, although “he does not, strictly speaking, develop a political theory; and […| he cannot be considered a partisan of conservative revolution.” (p. 82) Instead he stressed (as must remembered: in the time of Soviet stagnation of the Brezhnev era) very social conservative norms: endogamy, family life, respect for the elderly, the nation, and rejection of any challenge to the powers that be, all necessary for the survival of the ethnos. Laruelle considers him – understandably – “the least intellectually relevant and the least original (Neo-)Eurasianist.” (p. 82) As Gumilëv was neither in touch with Western intellectuals nor in tune with Soviet science , “his thought, the product of intellectual solitude, was fundamentally autistic” (p. 82), This result, if true, is by the way in striking contradiction to his notion of the supremacy of the collective ethnos as a sovereign whole, and also a total contrast to the very mercurial and alert ideologue of Neo-Eurasianism, Aleksandr Dugin, well-known in the West and very present in Russian media.
 
Before devoting space to Dugin, Laruelle discusses Aleksandr Panarin, whom she clearly favors. She calls him intellectually superior to Dugin and Gumilëv, or to be exact: she writes that “many”, but unnamed “Russian scholars” (p. 86) did consider him to be. Be this at it may, Panarin was in the Yeltsin era a promoter of “people’s capitalism” (p. 87) and in the Putin era an advocate of “the restoration of both Orthodox spirituality and Stalinist statehood.” (p. 88) Maybe he could be considered as flexible or opportunist as Dugin? Nevertheless he presented a “civilized Eurasianism”, “civilized” here being the indicator of “the exact opposite to Dugin’s variety.” (p. 88) Nevertheless Panarin became a member of the Central Council of Dugin’s Eurasian Party in 2002, and planned to write a foreword to a book by Dugin, but as Laruelle writes, “death put an end to this unlikely cooperation.” (p. 89) Panarin’s work was marked by the search for a third way, “between the West’s egalitarian universalism and the ethnic particularism of the non-European world.” (p. 93) Panarin’s model for an Eurasian Empire in his words, as quoted by Laruelle: “The principle of cultural pluralism, as well as attention and tolerance for different ethnocultural experiences are combined with a monist political authority that tolerates no opposition.” (p. 97) One of the intriguing but also problematic ideas of Panarin was the need for a combination of the Eurasian religions into something, what he calls the “Great Tradition” (p. 98), especially a fusion between Orthodox Christianity and Islam. In his quoted words: “We need a new, powerful world-saving idea that would ensure a consensus between Orthodox and Muslim culture for the benefit of a common higher goal.” (p. 99) Later he seemed to have abandoned this attempt in favor of an Orthodox supremacism and a renewed pan-Slavism, according to Laruelle in reaction to the NATO bombardment of Serbia. (p. 100)
 
The chapter on Aleksandr Dugin in titled “Aleksandr Dugin: A Russian Version of the European Radical Right?“ and was published before as a study by the Woodrow Wilson Institute in Washington, DC. While the title indicates the direction and the somewhat limited approach to the multi-faceted Dugin, it can be said that this attempt to analyze the influences of the New Right and the „Traditionalist school“ on Dugin’s theories is of much superior quality than the ramblings of the ubiquous Andreas Umland and his school of Dugin bashing. Like the New Right in Western Europe Dugin has attempted to adopt the teachings of Carl Schmitt, Karl Haushofer, Ernst Niekisch and Moeller van den Bruck, the so-called “Conservative Revolution” in Germany’s Weimar period, to the present situation of Russia, which largely means the attempted forced Westernization through Globalization and the counter-measures of the re-establishment of state power. This “conservative revolution” intellectual heritage is accompanied by two more currents, the New Right or rather: Nouvelle Droite, and the „integral Tradition“, both not so much of German but French and Italian origins, although the thinking of Alain de Benoist not only has a strong „Conservative Revolutionary“ foundation, but was also influenced by Armin Mohler, the personal link between Ernst Jünger and Carl Schmitt, and Alain de Benoist. Additionally and largely unrelated to Benoist was the Belgian European activist Jean Thirirat, whose model of an „European nation“ has preformed Dugin’s „Eurasian nation“ as much as the French Nouvelle Droite’s think tank GRECE and their meta-political approach did for the somehow fluctuating style of Dugin’s intellectual enterprises. Therefore Laruelle is not mislead, when she writes: “Dugin distinguishes himself from other figures in the Russian nationalist movements precisely through his militant Europeanism, his exaltation of the Western Middle Ages, and his admiration for Germany. All these ideological features contrast strongly with the ethnocentrism of his competitors.“ (p. 128)
 
Even more on the point is her acknowledgment of the influence of René Guénon and Julius Evola, and their minor intellectual allies and successors, on Dugin. She calls „Traditionalism“ the „foundation of Dugin’s thoughts“. While it can correctly be said, that the notion of a primordial Tradition as the common origin of all the religious-cultural traditions of Eurasia, can not be found in the writings of the „founding fathers“ of Eurasianism and was directly alien to some of their ideas – the rambling against the „Roman-Germanic civilization“ - , nevertheless Dugin could find only here the organic and integral solution to some of the most urgent problems of Russia’s Eurasian (com)position between Orthodoxy, Islam, Buddhism and other more minor elements: the transcendent – esoteric - unity of the exoteric different heirs of one primordial Tradition. Which is why – in our not Laruelle’s view – and without considering possible personal idiosyncrasy and political opportunism, his brand of neo-Eurasianism must be considered superior to those of his „competitors“, take for example the ill-fated attempt of Panarin’s Islam/Orthodoxy „melting pot“. Dugin’s claim of post-Guénonism because of his attempt to „Russify“ Guénon and to criticize the lack of references to Orthodox Christianity (p. 123), should be seen rather as a complementary effort. Similar is his attempt to reconcile Evolian „paganism“ (p. 123), or rather Aryanism, with Russian Christianity, with its strong national element. And not only of theoretically value is the distinction between Traditional Islam – as represented in the Sufi traditions and in Shiite Iran – and the Western-allied Wahhabite branch. In this context Laruelle makes reference to the important symposium “Islamic Threat or Threat against Islam?” (p. 118) which intended to establish a Russian-Muslim strategic partnership.

A „discourse analysis“ of Aleksandr Dugin (Höllwerth)

Alexander Höllwerth’s doctor thesis in Salzburg (Austria) on the „sacred Eurasian empire of Alexander Dugin“ impresses by it sheer quantity of more than 700 pages. The reader expects to gain access to fundamental texts of Russian neo-Eurasianism, otherwise only available in Russian. This expectation is fulfilled only partially because the author does give way to much space to his own objections, considerations and assumptions. A part called „contextualisations“, which brings nothing new, but gives an oversight of the historical Eurasianist movement, follows the book’s methodological reflections (reaching from Foucault’s discourse notion to Buruma’s occidentalism model).
 
Höllwerth then summarizes the literature from Stephen Shenfield („Russian Fascism“) to Andreas Umland (who is the editor of this volume and wrote its preface) on the biography of Aleksandr Dugin. He gives his estimation of the relationship between the subject of the book and the current Russian regime. Höllwerth states that Dugin is one of the few prominent intellectuals in Russia whom it is allowed to criticize the Kremlin without being banned from public discourse into the small niches of opposition media (which are rather the domain of Dugin’s enemies, the Western orientated liberals). Dugin has written in 2005 that the “acting of Putin can be evaluated as an artificially masked continuation of the pro-American, liberal, pro-oligarch strategy of Yeltsin, as a camouflage of the decline of Russia and its geopolitical spheres of influence.” (Höllwerth, p. 182) But this harsh assessment was followed by a phase of “reconciliation”. One could consider this as an evaluation of differing politics by a principled intellectual, the changes being on the side of the Kremlin and not on the side of the commentator. Höllwerth tends to mystify this point of view, but with the help of Dugin himself or rather his edition of Jean Parvulesco’s book “Putin and the Eurasian Empire” which differentiates between “Putin-1”, the real Putin, and “Putin-2”, the metaphysical Putin, the “mysterious builder of the Great Eurasian Empire of the End” (p. 184), the agent or tool of the great Eurasian conspiracy, a vulgarized or at least popularized variation of the initiation as described by René Guénon, but assuming in the sketch of Parvulesco rather counter-initiative features.
 
But what is the real and not “metaphysical” influence of Aleksandr Dugin, according to Höllwerth? “The attempt to estimate the ‘real political influence’ of Dugin is confronted with the difficulty to separate the plane of staging from the plane of factuality. This difficulty, with which the external scholar is confronted, seems to be part of a conscious strategy: the meaning of Dugin’s staging does, metaphorically put, not be to let the viewer look behind the scenery of the staging, but to focus his attention on the staging itself. (…) ‘Behind the scenery’ activities in connection with the Dugin phenomenon (secret services, political string-pullers, etc.) can not be excluded, are even probable, but should not lead to ambitious speculations based on few evidences.” (p. 194 f.) By the way, a sensationalist piece of work, based on such “ambitious speculations based on few evidences” was published by the same publishing house, which did not dare to include it in their scientific series and did flank it with cautious remarks. (Vladimir Ivanov: Alexander Dugin und die rechtsextremen Netzwerke. Fakten und Hypothesen zu den internationalen Verflechtungen der russischen Neuen Rechten. Stuttgart: Ibidem Verlag, 2007) And of course also with a preface by the inevitable Andreas Umland. A work to be put on the same shelve with Jean Parvulesco’s political fiction, but one has to admit that it has better entertainment value than Höllwerth’s rather sour work.
 
With page 197 starts the real discourse-theoretical body of the book, being also the real achievement of Höllwerth: „Dugin’s construction of world and reality“. Which is itself parted into three: Space, Order, Time, or also: Geopolitics, State, and History. But through these 500 pages goes one leitmotif: Höllwerth tries to reduce the complexity of Dugin’s system of synthesis and distinction to simple dualisms; we and the other, Eurasia (=Russia) against the West, Empire against democracy, etc., which are in return recognized as redundant repetitions of one and only mantra of power. After Dugin’s philosophy and policy has passed through Höllwerth’s mechanism of discourse analysis we arrive at exactly the same result, a more temporizing genius like Andreas Umland did achieve with one piece of paper and only two quotes of Dugin out of context: the exposure of a dangerous enemy of freedom and democracy. Vade retro, Dugin! But with Höllwerth’s help the Western reader can uplift himself by dining from a broad protruding self-affirmation of Western values with a more than saturating scientific apparatus.
 
The most compelling aspect of Höllwerth’s de- and reconstruction of Dugin’s discourse is its stringent structure. Also the obvious inclusion of the most important Western and Eastern authors must be noted. The confrontation with the matadors of Western liberalism (Jürgen Habermas, Sir Karl Popper, Bassam Tibi, Jean-François Lyotard) could be seen as helpful. But the extensive reproduced arguments of Dugin’s counter-parts are put on the same level of discourse with Dugin, even where Höllwerth notes the metaphysical character of Dugin’s traditionalists argument. The resulting impossibility of a dialogue between equals is construed by Höllwerth as a deficit of Dugin’s discourse.
 
Another example of Höllwerth’s inadequate approach: Höllwerth did indeed – and this is rather remark- and laudable - read the French metaphysician René Guénon. But only to point out the deviations of Dugin from the Guénon traditionalist “standard”, which is rather pointless, because Höllwerth himself has already classified Dugin correctly as Russian Evolianist (p. 355 ff.) and most of Höllwerth’s arguments seemingly advocating Guénon could also been directed against Julius Evola, and on this subject a large intra-traditionalist discussion could be cited. More than once Höllwerth argues that Dugin postulates a metaphysical dichotomy of East and West, while Guénon did stress the common original unity and only accepted a difference East-West since the decline of the West beginning with the modern era. But the West is the Occident, the sphere of sunset, by definition, and essential before the temporal decline began. So Dugin and Guénon are both correct, if they are read correctly!
 
Not unrelated is another important objection, which may indeed be problematic if true. This is the dependency of Dugin not only from Western authors in general, but also in his understanding of Eastern, meaning mainly Russian-Orthodox authors. Höllwerth tries to argue this in detail in some examples (for example: p. 664 ff.), this unfortunately cannot be assessed by me, due to my lack of knowledge of the Russian sources. But one thing is clear, this argument of Western influence can cut in two directions. Höllwerth points out that in one of Dugin’s best known texts “The metaphysics of national-bolshevism” Dugin does refer to Sir Karl Popper’s view of Platon, (p. 320 ff.) but everything the ideologue of the “open society” does characterize negatively is affirmed by Dugin, therefore he arrives at the holistic, total state of the philosophical rulers and the caste of watchers, this not through an adequate study of Platon, but as the reverse of an one-sided caricature made by Popper. If we see the Western history of philosophy not as a footnote to Platon, as was famously said, but as the decline from Platon to Popper, which really was the case, we can still see a partial truth in Höllwerth’s criticism of Western dependency by Dugin, but we have also to recast it into a much greater blame against the West, not to have remained true to its origin.
 
The adherence of Dugin to a kind – and which kind - of nationalism or a nation-transcending form of Eurasianism would be another question which would need a deeper consideration than Höllwerth provides. The question of nation can in the East not be separated from the confession. From the point of view of metaphysics and tradition (in the sense of René Guénon) most of the values attributed to the Russian nation should be rather connected with the Russian-Orthodox church. The formulation of the “angels of peoples” by the great Russian philosophers and theologians are thought from the premise of the identity nation=religion and correct for all authentic traditions but certainly not for nations in the modern Western sense, where Evola’s and Guénon’s critique of nationalism is totally applicable. Höllwerth’s attempt to find a contradiction between Dugin and the different strands of thought which convene in his own – traditionalist, conservative revolutionary, Orthodox and Russian – can therefore not be followed so easy.
 
Russia’s Eurasian mission, which lies in the simple fact to be Eurasia in the excellent sense (there is a incomplete Eurasia possible without China or India or Western Europe, but without Russia it makes to sense to speak from Eurasia), is not necessarily a chauvinism of thinking of itself as the hub of the world, but a fact of geopolitics, which can be confirmed by a look at the world map. If the space called Russia would be not be populated by Russians, there would be another people populating this space, and it would have to adopt to the stated property of large space, and would become exactly “Russian” in this way. Thus it becomes clear, why Höllwerth can quote Dugin’s definition of the being (Wesen) of the Russians as space (extension) (p. 401). All this is to keep in mind, when Höllwerth agitates himself on Dugin’s corresponding affirmation, that Russia is the whole (of Eurasia).


The difference between land (Eurasia) and sea (Anglo-America), coincident with rise and decline, Orient and Occident (in the afore mentioned sense of temporal difference by same origin in the metaphysical North, p. 212 ff.) would demand another thorough study. Höllwerth makes a lot out of the seemingly different use of the term “Nomos of the earth” (Nomos der Erde) by Carl Schmitt and Aleksandr Dugin. While Schmitt did mean the search for a new principle of international law for the whole globe, Dugin exclusively uses the phrase as synonym with “Nomos of the land” as contrasted with “Nomos of the sea” (p. 249). This dichotomy of laws according to the different Nomos is not the only problem of mediation, the intra-Eurasian and therefore more urgent is the juristic mediation of the different tradition, when according to Dugin the law is not universal but traditional (for each tradition) (p. 475 ff.). The “integral traditionalism” is exactly the only possible foundation to preserve the differences of the traditions while acknowledging their common and in this sense universal origin (the primordial Tradition). The “universalism” of traditionalism allows to stress the discerned internally and the common ground externally. Especially Hindu tradition and Islam have traditionally absolutely no problems in recognizing the other traditions as varieties of the one Tradition. (But Dugin may not evaluate these two as much as would be desirable, especially in their function of beginning and closing the cycle of mankind.) Finally it becomes absurd when Höllwerth in his “discourse analysis” regards the universalism of all traditions as structurally equivalent to the arrogant “universalism” of Western liberalism. On the one hand, favored by Dugin, the land-bound traditions take all part in the whole of Tradition (analogue to the classic model of idea by Platon), on the other hand, the Western universalism, championed by Höllwerth, is nothing more than a particular, very late development deviation from one specific tradition, the rejection of Western Christianity in its own boundary, and its violent expansion on the way of the world’s seas, postulating itself as the only valuable, and this exactly because it is anti-traditional (“enlightened”)!
 
Coping with Dugin’s philosophical and geopolitical notion of sacredness, Höllwerth seems to misled by a point of view, which he seems to have adopted from Mircea Eliade, a founder of the modern science of comparative religion (p. 209, p. 529 f.). A partial truth, the difference of profane and sacred, is been used as absolute segregation. There exist sacred places (and times), and on this the sacred geography (and sacred history) is founded, whose importance for Dugin’s geopolitics Höllwerth does carve out – much to his credit, as this level of argument is overlooked to often as pure rhetoric. But are there also in a strict sense profane things? “Come in, here do dwell Gods, too”, Heraclitus did say. Or, speaking with Guénon: there exists no profane thing, but only a profane point of view. Dugin seems to look at all questions also – certainly not only – in a metaphysical perspective, and in general he is able to explain why a certain political action is seen as necessary in this metaphysical perspective by him. This opens here the possibility of misuse through the sacralization of the profane, as on the other hand the profanization of the sacred in the West. The Western man is the one who takes the utilitarism as the measure for all things. The pure action – of which Julius Evola speaks - , which principle of not-clinging to the fruits of action has been affirmed by Dugin, the exact opposite of utilitarism, can only be seen as measure for the validity of Dugin’s decisions. To say, that he may not always be in the right in his metaphysical decisions is a different thing than saying he is guided by profane utility, as the sacred point of view does not make a saint. Höllwerth´s grasp of this problems is flawed because of his attempt to arrange the perceived oppositions into mirrored congruencies, instead of acknowledgment their structurally inequality, which would lead to the necessarily conclusion of the metaphysical superiority of the Eurasian tradition over its Western descent and rival.

Eurasianism and Islam (Laruelle, continuation)

In the last two chapters of her book Marlene Laruelle gives attention to the Muslim Eurasianists, first between the Muslim minorities of the Russian federation and then outside. This topic, though well-known by specialists, did not grasp the attention of a broader public as much as for example Dugin’s role in relation to the Kremlin. Therefore Laruelle’s retelling of the sometime short-lived organizational and personal development is very helpful, but can obviously not been retold in this review. In general there are two kinds of involvement of the Muslim minorities, one in specific Islamic Eurasianist parties, and the other the involvement of Islamic representatives in the general Eurasianist movement. There are two rival organizations representing the Muslim citizens of the Russian Federation, who were headed by two personal rivals, Mufti Talgat Tadzhuddin, who died shortly ago, and Mufti Ravil Gainutdin. The first was a member of Dugin’s party, close to the Kremlin, and a friend of the Russian patriarch Alexis II (p. 156), who coincidentally also died shortly ago. Gainutdin on the other hand keeps more distant to the Orthodox Church and the Kremlin (p. 158), and supports one of the more important Eurasianists rival of Aleksandr Dugin, Abdul-Vakhed V. Niizaov and his Eurasianist Party of Russia. (p. 161) The author summarizes the differences of the Muftis, which also reflect the differences of Dugin and Niizaov: “Tadzhuddin and Gainutdin embody two poles of traditional Russian Eurasianism: on the one hand, Russian nationalism and Orthodox messianism; and on the other hand, a more secular patriotism, which combines great-power ambitions with an acknowledgment of Russia’s multiethnic and multireligious character. Thus Eurasianism has become one of the crystallization points between the various Islamic representative bodies (…)” (p. 161 f.) Alongside these two mainstream bodies of Islam in Russia, there exist many smaller groups. One deserves special mention, the Islamic Commitee of Russia, lead by a former ally of Aleksandr Dugin, who broke with him on several issues, Geidar Dzhemal. The philosopher Dzhemal is an Azeri Shiite (Shiism being the dominant branch of Islam in Azerbaijan), with a close relation to the Islamic Republic of Iran, what separates Dzhemal from the other mentioned Muslim representatives. Strangely this fact is not mentioned by Laruelle. What she stresses, is the importance Dzhemal gives to Islam for securing Russia’s future: “Dzhemal […] states: ‘Russia’s only chance to avoid geopolitical disappearance is to become a Islamic state.’ Thus the movement remained on the borderline of Eurasianism, because it talked of conversion rather than cultural symbiosis ” (p. 147) Dugin’s apparently strong opposition to any conversions on the other hand is self-contradictory given his heavy reliance of his “Traditionalist” foundation on the teaching of René Guénon, also known as Sheikh Abd al-Wâhid Yahya. But it cannot neglected that the Orthodox-Islamic tension in the Eurasianist movement is as much ethnic as religious. The Turkic people can claim to represent “Eurasia” even more than Russians do. “In this view, the Russian people are European and party alien to Eurasia, as opposed to the Turkic people, who are considered to better illustrate the great meeting between Europe and Asia. Russia is no longer understood as a great power but as the most backward part of Europe, by contrast with the dynamism of the Far East and China.” (p. 169) A certain ambiguity in this question goes back to the classic Eurasianist movement of the Twenties of the last century, as Laruelle earlier in a different context has already stated: “Eurasianism’s place within the Russian nationalist spectrum has remained paradoxical due to the fact that it can be interpreted in either a ‘Russocentric’ or a ‘Turkocentric’ way. However, the paradox is not simply in the eye of the outside beholder; it has also divided the Neo-Eurasianists, who have accused each other of advocating the supremacy of one people over another.” (p. 5)
 
Naturally there is no question on which side the Eurasianist interpretation leans in the cases of Turkish Eurasianism outside of Russia, which is the final topic of this manifold book. In Kazakhstan one can state a “Eurasianism in Power” (p. 171), but a pragmatic Eurasianism this is, without any of the eschatological or traditionalist features of Dugin’s world-view. But Kazhakh Eurasianism as a whole is a multifaceted movement: “’Eurasianist’ Kazakh nationalism has several embodiments: a literary tradition introduced by Olzhas Suleimenov; a highly pragmatic variety used by the presidential administration; and a type of Eurasianist rhetoric that merely masks a much more traditional view of the nation and its right to exist, and mentions Russia only in the negative.” (p. 172) Suleimenov being a friend and ally of Lev Gumilëv (p. 175) and an apologist of “multiethnicity, tolerance, and diversity”, as characteristics of Eurasia. (p. 175) Also present in this intellectual Eurasianism seems to be a religious syncretism, “embracing all the religions that have ever (co)existed in the steppe. For example, the Kazakh Eurasianists make a great deal of archaeological traces of Nestorian Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and Shamanism, trying to go beyond the classic Orthodox-Islamic dualism.” (p. 176) President Nazarbaev proposed a “Union of Eurasian States” already in 1994 (p. 177) and embodies a mainly “economically based Eurasianism, whose integrationists ideas are popular among those who have suffered from the breakdown of links between the former Soviet republics.” (p. 177) But Nazarbaev is nothing less than an ideology-free technocrat, he has written even a book “In the stream of history”, in which he claims the Aryan and sedentary origin of Kazakhstan, predating the Mongol nomadic arrival. (p. 186) Additionally, the country’s Muslim character of the country is stressed, and Nazarbaev is proud of the global Islamic relevance Muslim scholars of Kazhakh origin like Al-Farabi and Al-Buruni.
 
Finally the only example of Eurasianism beyond the border of the former Soviet Union, studied by Laruelle, is the case of Turkey. Here the Eurasianist claim of the Turkish people goes along with the implication, “that Russia and Turkey are no longer competing for the mythical territory of Inner Asia – which both Eurasianists and pan-Turkists claim as their people’s ancestral homeland – but are Eurasian allies.” (p. 171) Laruelle starts by postulating common ideological roots of Eurasianism and Turkism, the “official Turkish state discourse on the nation’s identity” (p. 193), in romanticism and “Pan-“Ideologies (p. 188), but this seems to be rather a feature of Pan-Slavism than of Eurasianism with its re-evaluation of the non-Russian strands of the Empire. A similar development in the development from Turkism to Avrasyanism seems to be lacking. Rather it can be seen as a turning the back to the West, to which Mustafa Kemal, the so-called Atatürk (Father of the Turks), wanted to direct the aspirations of the Turks. The author states the original competition between the Turkish Avrasyian tendency and the Russian Eurasianist movements, similar to the natural antagonistic relation of nationalisms. But the interesting developments are the recently “attempts (…) to turn the two ‘Eurasias’ into allies rather than competitors” and parallel “a Dugin-style ideologization of the term in response to American adcendancy.” (p. 198) The few pages Laruelle dedicates to these developments are rather brief, and she has in the mean time published a more extensive study (Russo-Turkish Rapprochement through the Idea of Eurasia: Alexander Dugin’s Networks in Turkey, Jamestown Foundation, Occasional Paper, 2008), which itself has been overtaken by the dismantling of large parts of these „networks“ through the Ergenekon affair, but which is definitively outside the scope of this review.
 
The different manifestations of Eurasianism in this book leave the author and the reader with the question of the unity of Eurasianists idea. Laruelle states that Eurasianism is “a classic example of a flexible ideology. This explains its success, its diversity, and its breadth of coverage.” (p. 221) Without arguing about sheer words the author cannot be followed in her strict subsumption of Eurasianism under the term nationalism. At least a more nuanced view of nation in a more traditional sense, common to both Orthodox and Islamic thinking, in difference to the Western concept of nation-state (as I discussed in the part on Höllwerth) would have to be considerated instead of stating that the Eurasianists “concept of ‘civilization’ is only a euphemism for ‘nation’ and ‘empire.’” (p. 221).

 


Article printed from eurasia-rivista.org: http://www.eurasia-rivista.org

URL to article: http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/two-studies-on-neo-eurasianism/19891/

lundi, 11 novembre 2013

“Rusia es la Tercera Roma”

El 16 de octubre de 2013 se publicaba esta entrevista en el prestigioso medio italiano BARBADILLO, laboratorio di idee nel mare del web. Alfonso Piscitelli entrevistaba a Adolfo Morganti, presidente de la asociación italiana IDENTITÀ EUROPEA, que estudia y promueve la construcción de una Europa fiel a sus raíces clásicas y cristianas. El tema central que aborda la entrevista es Rusia, pero la cultura del entrevistador y del entrevistado logran que sea todo un diálogo ameno y provechoso. Hemos creído oportuno traducirla y publicarla en RAIGAMBRE para el público hispanohablante

La asociación Identità Europea tiene en los históricos Franco Cardini y Adolfo Morganti, editor del “Il Cerchio”, a sus exponentes más importantes. Hace años que promueve iniciativas que reclaman una reflexión sobre las raíces del continente europeo (raíces clásicas y cristianas) y sobre su destino. Recientemente “Identità Europa” ha organizado en San Marino un Congreso sobre “Europa en la época de las grandes potencias, desde 1861 a 1914”, en el ámbito de ese discurso se ha abordado también la naturaleza compleja de las relaciones entre Italia y Rusia. Replanteamos el argumento a menudo descuidado por los historiadores contemporáneos, con el presidente de Identità Europea, Morganti.

Alfonso Piscitelli.: En la segunda mitad del XIX se articulaba una red compleja de alianzas entre naciones europeas continentales: la Triple Alianza (Alemania, Austria, Italia) y por un cierto tiempo el Pacto de los Tres Emperadores (Alemania, Austria, Rusia). ¿Fue el intento de superar los nacionalismos en orden a una cooperación continental?

Adolfo Morganti: Era la tentativa de superar los límites y los conflictos cebados por el nacionalismo jacobino, pero al mismo tiempo eran fuertes las tensiones estratégicas que se localizaban en el área balcánica con Rusia, que patrocinaba los movimientos nacionalistas del pueblo eslavo y Austria que contenía estas pulsiones subrayando el aspecto supranacional del Imperio de los Habsburgo. Sarajevo no fue una sorpresa, como localización del foco de la primera guerra mundial.

A. P.: E Italia, ¿cómo se movía sobre el plano internacional?

A. M.: Todos conocemos el impulso profundo que el arte italiano dio a Rusia: un impulso evidente en San Petersburgo. Menor fue la intensidad de las relaciones marítimas entre Italia y el Mar Negro, que han plasmado la estructura económica misma de aquellas regiones. Sobre el plano diplomático, después de la intervención piamontesa en la Guerra de Crimea, las relaciones con Rusia indudablemente tenían que recuperarse: en efecto, por largo tiempo, Rusia representó algo extraño y distante, en los mismos años en los que Italia establecía una alianza con Austria y Hungría.

A. P.: Con el enemigo por excelencia de la época del Risorgimento [Austria].

A. M.: Más tarde, con el viraje que supuso 1914, obviamente la situación cambió las tornas: los rusos vinieron a ser aliados en el curso de la Primera Guerra Mundial, pero las relaciones gubernamentales y diplomáticas no fueron tan frecuentes y orgánicas como lo fueron, en cambio, las relaciones económicas.

A. P.:: ¿Crees que hoy Rusia deba ser incluida en la identidad europea, a la que alude el nombre de tu asociación?

A. M.: Con seguridad, la parte europea de Rusia debe ser considerada un elemento importante en el discurso sobre la Europa contemporánea. A partir de su conquista de Siberia, relativamente reciente, Rusia ha adquirido una vocación más amplia: la de Eurasia; pero Europa es impensable sin su área oriental, así como la identidad cristiana del continente es impensable sin contemplar el papel de la ortodoxia. Rusia, por una parte es Europa y reconocida como tal (y desde un punto de vista existencial hoy defiende los valores europeos incluso más que muchos estados de la Comunidad Europea), por otra parte, se atribuye una misión y una identidad que rebasa los confines de la misma Europa.

A. P.: El diálogo ortodoxo se ha reanudado a lo grande en los años sesenta con Pablo VI, con la recíproca retirada de excomuniones y el abrazo con el patriarca Atenagoras.

A. M.: Generando entusiasmos y resistencias a las dos bandas: resistencias que en el ámbito ortodoxo amenazaron con producir un cisma, que más tarde se hizo realidad.

A. P.: Y el hecho de que Juan Pablo II fuese un eslavo, un polaco (no extraño al “humus cultural” del nacionalismo polaco), ¿ha facilitado o ha creado alguna fricción y malentendidos entre las dos partes?

A. M.: Ciertamente, cuando la primera jerarquía católica de la Rusia post-soviética fue elegida por Juan Pablo II, la presencia de prelados polacos fue relevante y esto creó notables problemas de coexistencia con los ortodoxos. La misma acción de los franciscanos en Rusia era vista como una fuerza de penetración católica en el área del cristianismo ortodoxo. Ahora, con el cambio de jerarquía, en que la presencia de Italia está representada autorizadamente por el actual Obispo de Moscú, estos problemas casi se han disuelto.

A. P.: Si recuerdo bien, fue Ratzinger quien determinó una nueva relación, promoviendo el cambio de jerarcas.

A. M.:: Exactamente.

A. P.: Un recordatorio siempre es útil… ¿por qué se originó y por qué persiste la división entre cristianos católicos y cristianos ortodoxos?

A. M.: Hay toda una serie de diferencias dogmáticas que dividen a católicos y ortodoxos: la cuestión del “filioque” (de la procesión del Espíritu Santo), la diversas valoraciones de ultratumba (los ortodoxos no conciben el purgatorio), el diverso modo de entender la confesión. Son diferencias importantes, pero en la historia del cristianismo tales divergencias no han impedido necesariamente la unidad de las iglesias: por caso, pensemos que, durante una época en la historia, el cristianismo irlandés calculaba la Pascua de manera diferente al cristianismo continental. Ya hemos tenido otras situaciones de diversidad, que no afectan a la unidad subyacente. En el caso ortodoxo vino, en cambio, una separación profunda, pero no ocultemos que el cisma maduró sobre la cuestión del primado del Obispo de Roma, primado de honor, según los ortodoxos; primado jerárquico, según los católicos.

A. P.: También hay temas fuertes que unen a los dos mundos espirituales, pensemos en la gran devoción a la Madre de Dios; y en lo que atañe al tema mariano no podemos olvidar que al inicio del siglo XX, la profecía de Fátima está estrechamente ligada al tema de Rusia. ¿Qué ideas te has hecho a propósito de esto?

A. M.: La profecía de Fátima veía en Rusia el centro de una gran apostasía, que luego se verificó con el comunismo; pero las profecías son un terreno resbaladizo. Sin lugar a dudas, el gran gigante ruso constituye un escenario fundamental para la articulación de las fuerzas en la confrontación entre tradición y modernidad, entre el cristianismo y la tentativa ilustrada de disolverlo o reducirlo a la esfera privada, está a los ojos de todos.

A. P.:  ¿Es verdad o solo es una simplificación decir que el espíritu cristiano de Rusia está atraído particularmente por el Evangelio de San Juan y por el Apocalipsis?

A. M.: Es un enfoque para la escatología en general. Pero este enfoque es compartido con la milenaria tradición católica: en el ámbito católico hasta lo que no ha mucho se hacía en las llamadas meditaciones sobre los “Novísimos” (muerte, juicio universal, infierno y paraíso) era intensa; después (por usar un eufemismo) no ha sido valorada al máximo…

A. P.: Y el tema típicamente ruso de la Tercera Roma, ¿puede todavía jugar el papel de idea movilizadora en el ánimo de Rusia y en el ánimo de los europeos que miran con atención a Rusia?

A. M.:: Rotundamente: sí. Rusia es la Tercera Roma, tanto para los rusos creyentes como para los laicos. Los laicos ven en el poder de Moscú la continuación efectiva de una autoridad imperial a través de todas las modificaciones históricas posibles. Para el creyente, el concepto de Tercera Roma tiene una resonancia ulterior, pero todos los sujetos político-culturales rusos comparten el sentido de esta misión histórica, sean comunistas o nacionalistas, religiosos o laicos.

A. P.: Sin embargo, en el inmenso territorio ruso existen también otras tradiciones religiosas: el ministro de defensa Shoigú es un budista de la zona siberiana.

A. M.: También hay regiones de la Federación Rusa de mayoría hebrea y zonas en las que se arraigó el islam chiíta (principalmente en la parte ocupada por población turcófona) o sunnita. Desde los tiempos del imperio zarista, la multiplicidad de tradiciones religiosas no ha creado problemas de convivencia.

A. P.: ¿Podría decirnos su valoración personal de la figura de Vladimir Putin?

A. M.: ¡Putin es un ruso! En cuanto tal, él continúa encarnando esta misión de Rusia, cristiana e imperial. El hecho de que Putin sea más creyente o menos es indiferente. Su misión personal es la de proteger a Rusia y Rusia tiene esta identidad (imperial y cristiana) y no otra alguna…

(Traducción al español por Manuel Fernández Espinosa)

Fuente original en italiano: L’intervista. L’editore Adolfo Morganti: “Mosca è ancora la Terza Roma”

Fuente: Raigambre

vendredi, 25 octobre 2013

Eurasian Union: Substance and the Subtext

EurasianUnion_6051.jpg

Eurasian Union: Substance and the Subtext


Ph.D., Professor of the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.
 
Ex: http://www.geopolitica.ru
 

The Eurasian Union has come to the present stage in its evolution within a remarkably compressed time-frame. Although the idea was first mooted by the Kazakh president Nursultan Nazarbaev in 1994, it hibernated for long years.[1] It was only in late 2011 that Vladimir Putin revived the idea; visualised it as one of the major centres of economic power alongside the EU, the US, China and APEC; and initiated the process of its implementation. In November 2011, the presidents of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus signed an agreement to establish the Eurasian Economic Space (EES) that would graduate towards the Eurasian Union. The EES came into existence on 1 January 2012. The paper proposes to examine the origin of the idea and assess its implementation todate with an analysis of the substance and subtext of the organization.

Eurasian Union: The Origins

On 3 October 2011, Vladimir Putin published a signed article in the daily newspaper Izvestia titled “New Integration Project in Eurasia: Making the Future Today.” Putin was the Russian Prime Minister at that time and set to take over the Russian Presidency. The article can thus be interpreted as the assignment he set for himself in his second tenure. On the ground, the “Treaty on the Creation of a Union State of Russia and Belarus” already existed. The Treaty envisaged a federation between the two countries with a common constitution, flag, national anthem, citizenship, currency, president, parliament and army. On 26 January 2000, the Treaty came into effect after the due ratifications by the Russian Duma and the Belarus Assembly. It provided for political union of the two, creating a single political entity. Whether the Treaty laid down a proto Eurasian Union remains to be seen.

The European Union (EU) announcement in 2008 of its Eastern Partnership Programme (EPP) may also have inspired the Russian drive towards reintegration of the Eurasian space. The EPP was initiated to improve political and economic relations between the EU and six "strategic" post-Soviet states -- Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine -- in the core areas of democracy, the rule of law, human rights, the promotion of a market economy, and sustainable development.[2]  There was much debate over whether to include Belarus, whose authoritarian dictatorship disqualified it. The eventual invitation to Belarus was the concern over an excessive Russian influence in that country.

The US plan to deploy the NATO missile defence system in Poland and Czech Republic was already a source of concern for the Russians. China was emerging as a serious player in the region through its heavy investments in energy and infrastructure. The Russian determination to keep the post-Soviet states away from the US, the EU and China made the Eurasian project a priority in its foreign policy. The Treaty between Russia and Belarus intended to keep the latter into the Russian fold.[3]

 Eurasianism: The Idea

Eurasianism as an idea predates the Soviet Union. The Russian identity has been contested by the Occidentalists, the Slavophils and the Eurasianists. The latter claim Russia as the core of the Eurasian civilization. Today, the former Soviet states accept the Russian centrality but not the core-periphery division bet Russia and the rest.

Within Russia itself, the Eurasianists always considered the Soviet Union to be a Greater Russia. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Eurasian political project is to reunite the Russians from the former Soviet territories and ultimately to establish a Russian state for all the Russians. Aleksander Dugin is an ideologue and activist for neo-Eurasianism in Russia. His political activities are directed at restoring the Soviet space and unification of the Russian-speaking people. The South Ossetian President Eduard Kokoity is a sworn Eurasianist himself and eager to make his country a part of Russia.

Organization and Accomplishments

The Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC), the governing body of the EES is set up in Moscow for the time being. Kazakhstan has already staked its claim to host its permanent headquarters. The formula under which the 350-member body would be filled allots Russians 84 percent of staff, the Kazakhs 10 percent and the Belarusians a mere 6 percent. The formula has been worked out on the basis of the population in the three countries. The expenses towards accommodation and infrastructure would be borne by Russia.

The EEC will be eligible to make decisions with regard to customs policies, as also the issues relating to macroeconomics, regulation of economic competition, energy policy, and financial policy. The Commission will also be involved in government procurement and labour migration control.[4] The right of the EEC to sign contracts on behalf of all of them is contested.

The Supreme Eurasian Union Council will be the apex body of the group. The vice- premiers of the three countries would be leading their countries’ delegations in this body. There are differing opinions on the powers of its apex body.

Eurasian Union is an economic grouping. Its objective is to expand markets and rebuild some of the manufacturing chains destroyed by the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Customs Union of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus had set the process toward this goal and the Eurasian Union is a continuation of the same process.[5]

The EEC has made some progress, in the meantime. It has simplified the trade rules, eliminated border customs and facilitated free movement of goods, services and capital. It has also encouraged migration of labour among its signatories. The trade among the three is estimated to have gone up by forty percent last year alone. Russia has benefitted from cheaper products and labour force from the rest of the two and several hundred Russian enterprises have re-registered in Kazakhstan to avail cheaper tax rates. Kazakhs and Belarusians have found a large market for their products in Russia.

Major hurdles still remain. A common currency has not been agreed to. The pace of economic integration is yet another point of debate among the three. Belarus would not be comfortable with market integration, which would require economic reforms. Eventually, the economic reforms could lead to political reforms and even changes in political system. Belarus is least prepared for such an eventuality.

Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan         

Within Russia, the Eurasianism still holds an appeal; and not just among the marginal groups. The Eurasian Union is perceived as an expression of Eurasianism that would lead to the state of Russia for all Russians. There are calls to invite countries like Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Finland and even China and Mongolia to join the Eurasian Union. At the leadership level, Putin may also prefer ruling over an expanded space encompassing the entire or most of the former Soviet territory.

The Russian raison d’état for the Eurasian Union cannot be traced to such feelings alone. The missionary zeal to reach out to the neighbours involves subsidizing them. As a general rule, economic integration must necessarily involve mutual benefits for all the parties - even when the benefits are not in equal measure. An economic arrangement does not only eliminate tariffs and other restrictive trade barriers among the signatories, it also formulates and implements tariffs and trade barriers against the non-signatories. Facilitating trade among themselves and restricting trade with the outsiders is the dual track of any economic group. 

As regional integration proceeds in much of the world (not just through the EU but also via NAFTA, ASEAN and Washington’s proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, among others), the post-Soviet space remains largely on the sidelines. A lack of horizontal trading links and isolation from global markets contribute to the region’s persistent underdevelopment. By reorienting members’ economies to focus on the post-Soviet space, a Eurasian Union would create new barriers between member states and the outside world.[6] Russia is particularly worried about the Chinese forays into its neighbourhood. And the EU Eastern Partnership Programme threatens to encroach into the space that Moscow considers its own sphere of influence.

A second powerful reason for Russia to reach out to its neighbours is that the neighbours are steadily making Russia their home. The influx of migrants from the former Soviet territories has generated a lot of resentment and will soon become a serious political issue. In the circumstances, helping to improve the economic situation beyond the Russian borders and assimilate the new arrivals in a common citizenship is being considered. The then president Dmitry Medvedev explicitly linked the issue of immigrants to the expansion of the state borders. He spoke of the time when the giant state had to comprise different nationalities that created “Soviet People”. "We should not be shy when bringing back the ideas of ethnic unity. Yes, we are all different but we have common values and a desire to live in a single big state," he said.[7]

Russia is not single-mindedly committed to the Eurasian Union. It has initiated and nurtured several other multi-lateral organizations and become a member of scores of others initiated by others. The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) consisting of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan[8] is one such. So is the Commonwealth of Independent States comprising most of the post-Soviet countries. It is a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that is clearly a China-led group. The Quadrilateral Forum comprising Russia, Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan is a Russian project.

It has not shied away from making deals with the EU, either. In 2003, it entered into an agreement with the EU to create four common spaces: 1. of freedom, security and justice; 2. cooperation in the field of external security; 3. economy; and 4. research, education and cultural exchange. Since the formalisation of the Customs Union, Putin has insisted that the EU formalise its relations with the Customs Union before a new basic treaty between the EU and Russia could be formalised. At the EU-Russia Summit in June 2012, he also sought the EU support for the Kazakh and Belarusian bids to join the WTO.[9]

Kazakhstan has formulated and pursued a “multivector” foreign policy since independence. It seeks good relations with its two large neighbours as also with the West. Its operational idiom, therefore, is “diversify, diversify and diversify”.

Its relations with the US are centred on counter-terrorism. In Central Asia, it is now the most favoured US partner in the war on terror. It has welcomed the US-sponsored New Silk Road. The Aktau Sea port is expected to emerge as the capital city on this cross-Caspian Road as the central point for transportation, regional educational cooperation and tourism. The Transportation and Logistics Centre is being developed in the city. Aktau hopes to play a role within the New Silk Road that Samarkand played in the Old Silk Road.[10]

Its relations with Europe are as good. Its bilateral cooperation with the EU dates back to 1999, when it entered into the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with it. The European Commission has agreed to support its application for membership of the WTO. On 1 January 2010, Kazakhstan became the first post-Soviet state to assume the chairmanship of the 56-member Vienna-based Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Its trade with the EU accounts for as much as the trade of all the Central Asian countries put together. France has a trade agreement with it that is worth $2 billion under which France would help build a space station and cooperate on nuclear development.

It is its close ties – in fact, too close ties – with China that explains its active membership of the Eurasian Union. China’s presence in the country is pervasive. In 2005, the Asatu-Alashanku oil pipeline between the two countries went into use. The second stage of the same from Kenkyiak to Kumkol is already in works. A gas pipeline is being discussed. In the same year, China bought Petrokazakhstan that was the former Soviet Union’s largest independent oil company. At $4.18 billion, it was the largest foreign purchase ever by a Chinese company. In 2009, it gained a stake in the MangistauMunaiGas, a subsidiary of the KazMunaiGas, which is the Kazakh national upstream and downstream operator representing the interests of the state in the petroleum sector. Even as economic ties get stronger, there could be a point of friction between the two regarding the Uighur-based East Turkestan Islamic Movement in the Xinjiang province of China. There are 180,000 Kazakhs of Uighur descent, which is a source of discomfort to China.

Belarus is a landlocked country and dependent on Russia for import of raw materials and export to the foreign markets. Its dependence on Russia is aggravated by the fact that the US has passed the “Belarus Democracy Act”, which authorizes funding for pro-democracy Belarusian NGOs and prevents loans to the government. The EU has imposed a visa ban on its president Alexander Lukashenko. Even as the Belarus’s dependence on Russia is overwhelming, their bilateral relations have gone through severe frictions. In 2004, there was a gas dispute as Russia stopped the gas supply for six months before a compromise on the price was worked out.

In 2009, the two fought what has come to be called “milk wars”. Moscow banned import of Belarusian dairy products, claiming that they did not meet Russian packaging standards, a non-tariff measure allowed under the common customs code. The disagreement cost Belarus approximately $1 billion. The real problem was that Belarusian farmers were heavily subsidized, meaning that the cost of milk production in Belarus was substantially lower than that in Russia. As a result, Russian dairy producers were on the verge of bankruptcy and looked to their government for support. In response to Russian action, Belarus introduced a ban on the purchase of Russian agricultural machinery, accusing Russia of not providing leasing for Belarusian tractors (a major source of income for Belarus).[11]

Destination Ukraine?

Ukraine is the raison d’être for the entire Eurasian project, according to many. “Once past the verbal hype, it becomes clear that in fact it [Eurasian Union] has nothing to do with Eurasia and has everything to do with a single country, which, incidentally, is situated in Europe of all places: Ukraine,” according to an analyst.[12] Its key task is to draw Kiev into the integration project.

The primary reason for Russian stake in Ukraine is the Ukraine-Russia-Turkmen gas pipeline. Till the break-up of the Soviet Union, it was a domestic grid. Today, the gas trade between Turkmenistan, Russia and Ukraine is not just a commercial proposition, but an illustration of triangular dependencies of the three countries. The key issues in terms of transit are that all Turkmenistan’s gas exports outside Central Asia pass through Russia, which puts the latter in complete control of around three-quarters of Turkmenistan’s exports. Russia’s position vis-à-vis Ukraine is extremely vulnerable in that more than ninety percent of its gas exports to Europe pass through that country.

Thus, Ukraine is the transit point as well as the choke point of the Turkmen and Russian exports. It has also been a leaking point of the deliveries. In early 1990s, there were serious disruptions as Ukraine pilfered the gas for its own domestic use. Since then the gas deliveries have become an important issue in the political and security relationship between Russia and Ukraine, having featured in the package of agreements which have included issues such as the future of the Black Sea Fleet and Ukrainian nuclear weapons. There was a serious stand-off between the two in 2009, when the Russians cut off natural gas supplies to Ukraine over price dispute. A compromise was reached only after Ukraine agreed to pay more for the gas that was, till then, subsidised.[13]

The second most important Russian stake in Ukraine is that Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula hosts a Russian navy base whose lease term was extended for twenty-five years in 2010 by a special agreement between Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Viktor Yanukovych, despite an unresolved gas dispute. This facility provides Moscow with strategic military capabilities in an area that Russia once considered crucial for the security of its southwestern borders and its geopolitical influence near the “warm seas.”[14] In return for the extension of the lease, Russia agreed to a thirty percent drop in the price of natural gas it sold to Ukraine.

A third reason for Russian interest in Ukraine could be that the latter represents a promising market of 45 million potential consumers, in the context where Russia seeks to diversify its own economy and export destinations.

Russian diplomacy to retain control over Ukraine and the US diplomacy to extend its control over the same have repeatedly to come to a clash. Till recently, Ukraine was pointedly excluded from both the EU and the NATO expansions[15]; as also from the list of possible invitees. Since the “Orange Revolution”, the situation has radically changed. How the energy pipeline politics plays out in the changed circumstances remains to be seen.

For its part, Ukraine has not closed its options between the EU and the Eurasian Union. Its prime minister Mykola Azarov, speaking at a meeting to discuss “Ukraine at the Crossroads: The EU and/or the Eurasian Union: Benefits and Challenges” said, “Ukraine has never contrasted one economic organization with the other and we cannot do that from many points of view. We are in ‘between’ and we must have friends both here and there.”[16]

Conclusions

There is no Eurasian Union todate. And yet, it has been the subject of intense scholarly scrutiny as also of prescriptive analysis. Its future membership, the direction of its evolution and the gamut of its activities must remain speculative in the meanwhile.

In lieu of the final conclusions, some tentative recapitulation of the above is in order. The Russians aim to retain the former Soviet space within their own sphere of influence, seeking to diminish the US, Chinese and the EU presence out of it to the extent possible. The Kazakhs are keeping all their options open: seeking a central role in the US-sponsored war on terror and the New Silk Road, permitting pervasive Chinese presence in their economy, promoting bilateral and institutional ties with the EU, and becoming a member of the Eurasian Union. “Diversify” is the name of the Kazakh game. Belarus is landlocked and dependent on Russia for its trade exports and imports, and the Belarus president is persona non grata in much of the West. Under the circumstances, the Eurasian Union is a solution to much of its problems.

Ukraine has signed a Memorandum of Understanding on trade cooperation with Eurasian Economic Commission. Much will depend on whether and when Ukraine decides to join the Eurasian Union.

Published in Journal of Eurasian Affairs


[1] The Kazakh people like to point out that Kazakhstan’s president Nursultan Nazabaev was the first leader to propose the Eurasian Union in 1994. Chinara Esengul, “Regional Cooperation”, March 27, 2012. http://www.asiapathways-adbi.org/2012/03/does-the-eurasian-union-have-a-future/

[2] Kambiz Behi and Daniel Wagner, “Russia’s Growing Economic Influence in Europe and beyond”,  23 July 2012. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kambiz-behi/russias-growing-economic-influence_b_1696304.html

[3]  On 30 September 2011, Belarus withdrew from the EU initiative citing discrimination and substitution of the founding principles. Three days thereafter, it refuted its decision to withdraw. The EU-Russia competition was obviously at work in quick turnarounds in Belarusian position.

[4] Retrieved from news.mail.ru and kremlin.ru in Russian. Quoted in Wikipedia, “Eurasian Union”.

[5] The Customs Union came into existence on 1 January 2010. Removing the customs barriers among them, the countries took the first step towards economic integration.

[6]Jeffrey Mankoff, “What a Eurasian Union Means for Washington”, National Interest  http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/what-eurasian-union-means-washington-6821

[7] Gleb Bryanski, “Putin, Medvedev Praise Values of the Soviet Union”, Reuters, 17 November 2011,  http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/11/17/idINIndia-60590820111117   

[8] In June 2012, Uzbekistan decided to suspend its membership of the CSTO.

[9] http://www.euractiv.com/europes-east/putin-promotes-eurasian-union-eu-news-513123 “Putin Promotes Eurasian Union at the EU Summit”, 5 June 2012

[11] Behi and Wagner, n. 2

[12] Fyodor Lukyanov, gazeta.ru. 17 September 2012. Quoted in http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/russianow/opinion/9548428/eurasian-union-explanation.html   

[13] The Ukrainian prime minister at that time, Yulia Tomashenko, has since been sentenced to seven years in prison for abusing the authority and signing the deal.

[14]  Georgiy Voloshin, “Russia’s Eurasian Union: A Bid for Hegemony?”, http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/russias-eurasian-union-a-bid-for-hegemony-4730

[15] Putin was reported to have declared at the NATO-Russian Summit in 2008 that if Ukraine were to join the NATO, he would consider annexing the Eastern Ukraine and Crimea in retaliation.

 

Раздел: 
Регион: 

lundi, 21 octobre 2013

La geopolítica rusa del siglo 21

por Alfredo Jalife-Rahme

Ex: http://paginatransversal.wordpress.com

La Jornada, Bajo la Lupa – Entre los prominentes invitados al seminario internacional del Centro de Estudios de la Transición/Centro de Estudios Geoestratégicos de la UAM-X estuvo Sivkov Konstantin Valentinovich, primer vicepresidente de la Academia de Problemas Geopolíticos y doctor en ciencias militares.

Konstantin es segundo de a bordo de Leonid Ivashov, anterior jefe del departamento de asuntos generales en el Ministerio de Defensa de la URSS. Cobra mayor relieve su postura a raíz del triunfo diplomático de Rusia en Siria (ver Bajo la Lupa, 22/9/13).

Ivashov es muy conocido en los multimedia internacionales y sus puntos de vista suelen ser polémicos (v.gr. el terrorismo internacional no existe: su despliegue beneficia a la oligarquía global) y considera que mientras el imperio de Estados Unidos se encuentra al borde del colapso, corresponde a los BRICS la misión de reconfigurar el mundo (Réseau Voltaire, 15/6/11).

De la ponencia de Konstantin, La geopolítica de la URSS y Rusia, me enfocaré en la parte de Rusia.

A su juicio, la lucha geopolítica global basada en la ideología fue cambiada a la confrontación de civilizaciones: la civilización occidental (euro-estadunidense) confronta las civilizaciones ortodoxa, islámica, confuciana (china). Resalta la similitud con la tesis huntingtoniana del choque de civilizaciones que lleva a la inevitabilidad del conflicto de la civilización occidental con el resto (del planeta).

Identifica cuatro de los más importantes factores al desarrollo de la geopolítica mundial:

1. Formación intensiva de un único sistema mundial de poder dominado por EEUU.

2. Intenso crecimiento poblacional y presión al ecosistema por consumismo occidental.

3. Desequilibrio global industrial y de materias primas: el mayor potencial industrial se concentra en EEUU/Europa/Japón, mientras los recursos de materias primas se concentran en Rusia y en los países del tercer mundo, y

4. El carácter independiente de las trasnacionales como sujeto geopolítico

La activación de los cuatro actores genera una crisis global por la contradicción entre el consumismo y la escasez de materias primas. Define a Rusia como una entidad geopolítica cuya base es Eurasia.

Su inmenso potencial intelectual, su posición del centro euroasiático y su potencial militar significativo pone en duda la durabilidad del modelo unidireccional sin remover (sic) a Rusia como sujeto de la geopolítica” a la que habría que demoler como a su antecesora URSS.

Arguye que la etapa más lúgubre de la historia de Rusia en la década de los 90 del siglo 20 (nota: la era entreguista Yeltsin) encontró a la élite política rusa bajo el control total (¡supersic!) de EEUU.

Ocurre el desmantelamiento científico de Rusia y la privatización de sus joyas geoestratégicas, llegando hasta el asesinato de sus principales científicos, mientras las principales empresas de petróleo/gas e infraestructura de transporte acabaron en manos de compradores (sic) domésticos y trasnacionales.

Así la geopolítica de Rusia operó bajo el control directo de los servicios de espionaje de EEUU: capitulación total. ¡Uf!

Peor aún: el liderazgo ruso fomentó la de-sintegración interna. Pero no contaron con la resistencia oculta de los bajos niveles de la jerarquía y las protestas de la población que hicieron fracasar el esquema desintegrativo que permitió la llegada al poder de Putin, con su equipo proveniente de las fuerzas armadas y los servicios de seguridad, como nuevo estadio de la geopolítica rusa.

Considera que el fracaso de las campañas de Irak y Afganistán, la liberación de Sudamérica de la hegemonía de EEUU, en particular Venezuela, y el fracaso de la operación (¡supersic!) Primavera Árabe, debilitaron la influencia de EEUU en Rusia cuando Occidente exhibió sus pies de barro.

Rusia se libera así de su subordinación a los dictados de EEUU en la esfera de la geopolítica global y comienza un regreso suave a los principios de la geopolítica soviética, pero con diferentes bases conceptuales e ideológicas.

Juzga que los instrumentos más importantes de la influencia geopolítica rusa fueron creados con el único plan de una red de oleo/gasoductos.

A partir de la derrota de EEUU en Irak, Rusia operó un acercamiento con China cuando estableció sus tres proyectos geopolíticos exitosos: el Grupo de Shanghai, los BRICS y la Unión Euroasiática. El Grupo de Shanghai genera el espacio euroasiático de Bielorrusia a China mediante una unión económica.

Los BRICS han cortado en términos económicos el asa Anaconda (nota: del nombre de la ominosa serpiente constrictora más grande del mundo) rompiendo una profunda brecha en el sistema de zonas, la influencia de EEUU que cubre a Rusia.

En una entrevista a Pravda.ru (15/9/11), Konstantin explica el significado del cerco a Rusia por EEUU y su despliegue misilístico en la periferia inmediata rusa, parte del proyecto Anaconda: Rusia es todavía percibida por EEUU como el principal adversario estratégico y su tarea consiste en neutralizar las armas nucleares de Rusia y empujarlo fuera de las principales áreas de los océanos mundiales, aun del mar Negro.

La Unión Euroasiática (Rusia, Bielorrusia y Kazajstán) cubre 85 por ciento del territorio de la ex URSS y es el precursor de mayor integración en el espacio postsoviético.

Rusia se pronuncia por la multipolaridad, en cooperación particular con Europa continental que desea sacudirse la hegemonía de EEUU.

Juzga que los cambios tectónicos en la geopolítica global asociados a la transferencia del centro económico de gravedad a la región Asia/Pacífico, sumado de la crisis financiera occidental, implican la inevitabilidad de una seria reorganización del panorama geopolítico, acoplado con la amenaza de conflictos militares de gran escala (sic).

Aduce que el triunfo presidencial de Putin significó una fuerte derrota para las fuerzas occidentales internas en Rusia, lo cual disminuyó considerablemente su impacto en la geopolítica rusa, ya que el control occidental del país es un factor crítico para la restauración y conservación de la dominación del mundo por Occidente.

Los vectores prioritarios de la geopolítica rusa: 1. Al oeste: desarrollo de relaciones igualitarias con Europa y normalización de relaciones con EEUU, para prevenir el desliz a una nueva guerra fría. 2. Al sur: la zona del Cáucaso, medioriente y noráfrica, donde Rusia aspira a normalizar la situación militar y política y frenar los conflictos militares, sobre todo en Siria (¡supersic!) 3. En Sudamérica (nota: no Norteamérica ni Centroamérica: desarrollo de relaciones económicas), y 4. En Asia: el más importante hoy (¡supersic!) para Rusia donde se compromete a un mayor reforzamiento de buenas relaciones con sus grandes vecinos China e India, Vietnam, las dos (sic) Coreas, y la normalización de relaciones con Japón.

Llama la atención que Konstantin no haya citado la invasión de Georgia a Osetia del Sur y la vigorosa respuesta rusa que, a mi juicio, cambió dramáticamente al mundo (El mundo cambió en el Cáucaso; Bajo la Lupa, 20/8/08).

Ahora al unísono de Rusia, la misma serpiente constrictora Anaconda ha reaparecido en el océano Pacífico, donde tiene en la mira a la apetecible China, muy difícil de digerir.

Fuente: alfredojalife.com

Twitter: @AlfredoJalife

Facebook: AlfredoJalife

dimanche, 20 octobre 2013

La geopolítica existencial de Carlo Terracciano

   


por Alexander Dugin

E: http://paginatransversal.wordpress.com

La elección de Carlo Terracciano

Creo que Carlo Terracciano es uno de los más importantes geopolíticos europeos de los últimos decenios. Estoy convencido de que va a ser reconocido como uno de los clásicos  autores modernos de esta disciplina. Tuve la oportunidad de conocer a Carlo Terracciano personalmente, y siempre he admirado la rectitud de su posición ideológica en la vida: La geopolítica era para él una elección existencial, vivió en plena conformidad con sus principios, lo que demuestra algo impensable en nuestra época: Una actitud personal romana, olímpica – la lealtad, el apego total a la causa, la integridad moral completa sin tener en cuenta los efectos de las presiones de la modernidad.

Carlo Terracciano era un hombre de ideas y un hombre de acción, al mismo tiempo. En su caso, la teoría y la práctica se fusionaron en algo indivisible. ¿Cuál era su idea principal y cuál fue su acto esencial?

El nacimiento de la geopolítica de la espuma del mar

Carlo Terracciano heredó la tradición geopolítica del continentalismo europeo. En sus escritos (recopilados en una serie de artículos en “Nel Fiume della storia”), traza la génesis ideológica de esta escuela. El imperialista británico H. Mackinder fue el primero en articular la principal ley geopolítica – oposición dualista entre la civilización del Mar (talasocracia) y la civilización de la Tierra (telurocracia). Mackinder mismo era un brillante representante de la talasocracia y se encargó de transmitir la tradición de la estrategia talasocrática, el procedimiento de la percepción geopolítica de Gran Bretaña a los Estados Unidos. Mackinder fue uno de los fundadores de la London School of Economics, contribuyó a la aparición de “Chattem House”, el Real Centro de Estudios Estratégicos e inspiró el primer equipo del CFR (Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores), publicando en «Foreign Affairs» sus posteriores artículos. De él al americano A. Mahan se puede trazar la línea recta de la geopolítica atlantista, pasando por el realismo americano (con algo de “liberalismo muscular”, transnacionalismo y globalización) hasta llegar a Kissinger, Brzezinski, D. Rockefeller, por un lado, y los neocons en el otro.

La hegemonía planetaria de Estados Unidos y la idea de talasocracia global con el Gobierno Mundial deriva de la visión planetaria de Mackinder, llevada a sus límites lógicos. El mundo puede llegar a ser realmente global, sólo cuando el poder del Mar definitivamente acabe con el poder de la Tierra (o viceversa). Ese fue el objetivo de la vida de Mackinder. Y ahora vemos que muchos de sus proyectos se cumplen: insistía en el desmantelamiento de Rusia, en la creación de un “cordón sanitario” en Europa del Este, en la necesidad de derrotar a Alemania y Rusia, y todo esto de alguna manera se realizó a finales del siglo XX, proporcionando así las condiciones para el surgimiento de un mundo unipolar y la hegemonía global de EE.UU. Este imperio talasocrático se convierte en una realidad ante nuestros ojos.

Respuesta Continental

 

carlterr44.jpegPero en el primer cuarto del siglo XX, el desafío conceptual de H. Mackinder fue contestado por los geopolíticos que se ubicaron en el lado de la telurocracia. Se trataba, en primer lugar, de la escuela alemana de Karl Haushofer, quien comenzó a desarrollar una base geopolítica telurocrática, Geopolítica-2 (mientras que la geopolítica talasocrática anglosajona se puede llamar “Geopolítica-1″). Así se sentaron las bases para la tradición continentalista.

La escuela de Haushofer ofreció a Alemania realizar su naturaleza telurocrática y unificar Europa sobre la base continental; para lograrlo era necesario concluir una alianza con la Unión Soviética y fortalecer los lazos con Japón y así destruir la talasocracia mundial – la alianza de Inglaterra, EE.UU. y Francia. La consolidación de todas las potencias terrestres era la única manera de deshacerse de las potencias marítimas y la tentación de organizar el espacio mundial bajo su modelo talasocrático. Este concepto fue desarrollado por el proyecto de una nueva división del mundo sobre la base de las Pan-ideas – cuatro áreas que iban a ser integradas económicamente, políticamente y estratégicamente a lo largo del meridiano – de norte a sur. Haushofer había creado un importante baluarte conceptual de la Geopolítica-2, con el cual se sentaban las bases para el continentalismo europeo en el que Alemania fue concebida como el centro de la telurocracia europea (un hecho natural reconocido por el propio Mackinder).

Tras la derrota de Alemania y las potencias del Eje en la Segunda Guerra Mundial la geopolítica telurocrática ha sido desacreditada durante mucho tiempo y se perdió entre las sombras. Autores americanos han llegado a sugerir que habría que distinguir la anglosajona «Geopolitics» de la alemana «Geopolitik», identificando la primera como un “método completamente aceptable de análisis de la ciencia política en el ámbito de las relaciones internacionales”, y la segunda como”Fantasías imperialistas”. En estas definiciones de lo que es “científico” y lo que no, vemos sólo el típico doble rasero y la clásica propaganda política de los ganadores. Las potencias marítimas derrotaron a las potencias terrestres, y establecieron una disciplina colonial – en particular en el campo de la ciencia, porque el conocimiento, como Michel Foucault ha mostrado, es sinónimo de poder.

Sin embargo, la escuela continentalista de la geopolítica telurocrática continuó existiendo en Europa en condiciones marginales también después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Los ejemplos son las obras del general austríaco Jordis von Lohausen, el teórico belga y fundador del movimiento pan-europeo “Joven Europa” Jean Thiriart (a quien, casualmente, Carlo Terracciano encontró por primera vez en Moscú en mi apartamento en 1992) y el destacado filósofo francés Alain de Benoist. La característica principal de esta continental Gepolítica 2 es la visión del mundo desde el punto de vista de la Tierra. De esto podemos deducir fácilmente el papel de cada jugador en la “gran guerra de los continentes.” Los que están en el lado de la Tierra están automáticamente contra el mar, es decir, contra el mundo anglosajón, en contra de la dominación de EE.UU. y en contra de la globalización occidental  (mundialismo).

Testimonio telurocrático de Carlo Terracciano

Carlo Terracciano era un sucesor directo de la tradición geopolítica continentalista, el teórico más notable y persistente practicante de la Geopolítica-2. Su obra es quizás el ejemplo más completo y coherente de esta tradición. No se limita a seguir reciclando teorías pre-existentes, sino que aplica los principios básicos de la geopolítica telurocrática para analizar la situación actual en el mundo. No dejó una sombra de duda en su elección personal: habla en nombre de todo el continente de Europa, de la telurocracia. En las condiciones de ocupación y dominación atlantista talasocrática es un gesto viril de la rebelión espiritual y cognitiva. Así Terracciano lleva a cabo un acto simbólico importante: lo que constituye el polo subjetivo, dotado de la voluntad y de la mente, que surge del vertedero de la Europa post-moderna, convirtiéndose en un proyecto alternativo revolucionario de los países de Europa. Ésta posible pero aún no realizable Europa surge – aunque sea sólo en teoría – de entre las ruinas de la modernidad agonizante. Terracciano es una especie de testigo geopolítico, en sus escritos y acciones testifica que la victoria del Mar no es absoluta y que en Europa permanece una red de decidida resistencia geopolítica continentalista y que esta red es plenamente consciente de la naturaleza, finalidad y participaciones en la gran guerra de los continentes. Por lo tanto, Carlo Terracciano está salvando la geopolítica continental europea tradicional, preparando así el restablecimiento teórico de Europa.

Terracciano como Eurasiatista

Además, el momento decisivo en la evolución de las teorías Carlo Terracciano fue su encuentro con la tradición geopolítica eurasiatista restablecida en Rusia desde finales de los 80. La escuela moderna eurasiatista rusa de la geopolítica fue fundada a finales de los años 80 como una reflexión geopolítica post-soviética en la visión de mundo de Mackinder, como una especie de respuesta al desafío talasocrático. La lógica constituyente de la construcción de la geopolítica Eurasiatista era muy similar a la génesis de la geopolítica alemana de la escuela de Haushofer. Pero en el caso de Rusia, la simetría era aún más perfecta: Mackinder identificó como el principal enemigo del poder marítimo al Heartland, cuyo control garantiza a la talasocracia la dominación del mundo. Los eurasiatistas rusos en los últimos años 80 aceptaron el marco principal del mapa geopolítico y acordaron reconocer la esencia de la historia de Rusia en la telurocracia. La Rusia es el Heartland, así Geopolítica-2 es la causa rusa. Así se sentaron las bases del moderno neo-eurasismo.

La geopolítica euroasiática rusa se reunió con el continentalismo europeo en 1992 – durante una visita conjunta a Moscú de Carlo Terracciano y Jean Thiriart. Jean Thiriart fue el autor del concepto de “Imperio Euro- soviético de Vladivostok a Dublín” y Carlo Terracciano en esa época escribió su obra programática “En la espuma de la historia” (“Nel fiume della Storia”). Desde entonces el continentalismo europeo y el eurasismo ruso se convirtieron casi en la misma  línea geopolítica. Algo similar se describe en el concepto de Haushofer del proyecto continental del bloque geopolítico “Berlín-Moscú-Tokio”. La misma idea fue revivida en el plano teórico en los años 90 en Rusia. El estrecho diálogo geopolítico ruso – europeo comenzó entonces en Moscú y sigue creciendo hasta la actualidad. Al mismo tiempo, otros geopolíticos europeos, en particular Alain de Benoist y Claudio Mutti, visitaron Moscú, entrando en la misma dirección de consideraciones geopolíticas. En Francia, unos puntos de vista muy similares fueron desarrollados por el excelente escritor tradicionalista Jean Parvulesco.

Carlo Terracciano tuvo en esa amistad eurasiática el papel principal. Con una energía apasionada comenzó a desarrollar la tendencia eurasiatista, invitando a la unión en un bloque continental telurocrático de todos aquellas fuerzas inconformistas contra el status quo. Su obra, aunque se ha desarrollado en el ámbito de una élite intelectual y de escuelas geopolíticas, ha tenido un impacto considerable. Las ideas son importantes, y cualquier acción política siempre se inicia con el proyecto, el programa, la estrategia.

Islam y telurocracia

El análisis de la situación actual ha llevado a Carlo Terracciano a la conclusión de que muchos países islámicos y la civilización islámica en su conjunto debe ser considerada como una aliada crucial en la alianza telurocrática en la lucha común contra la hegemonía estadounidense y la globalización plutocrática. Por lo tanto, la importancia del factor islámico se ha convertido en un componente vital del neocontinentalismo moderno. Terracciano debe considerarse como uno de sus fundadores. El Islam es un Poder telurocrático – esta fue la conclusión a la que llegó Carlo Terracciano. Se convirtió desde entonces en una especie de axioma geopolítico para el eurasismo contemporáneo.

Terracciano hizo una serie de viajes y dio una serie de conferencias en los países islámicos – Irán, Siria, etc, promoviendo por todas partes la geopolítica euroasiática continentalista. Ideas y acciones, como siempre en el caso de Carlo Terracciano no difirieron.

Nacional comunismo

carloTerr.jpegLa formación de puntos de vista geopolíticos han estado acompañados por Terracciano con los correspondientes cambios ideológicos y políticos. La apelación a los criterios geopolíticos, los conceptos y la evaluación del significado crucial de telurocracia exigió la revisión de los fundamentos políticos del patriotismo clásico europeo, que por lo general se refiere a la “Tercera Posición” (anti-liberalismo y anti-comunismo), en el espíritu de Evola, Heidegger y Yockey. Si aceptamos el punto de vista de la potencia terrestre, la Unión Soviética pasó inmediatamente de ser uno de los dos enemigos de Europa (junto con el Occidente capitalista liberal, personificada en los EE.UU.) a ser un aliado. Esto requiere una revisión radical de la “Tercera Posición” y la transición a una fusión entre el europeísmo y el sovietismo, el nacional-bolchevismo. Por una evolución semejante a mediados de los 80′ pasó el máximo teórico de la europea “Nouvelle Droite” Alain de Benoist. A diferencia de muchos otros “nacional revolucionarios” Carlo Terracciano, sin dudarlo, aceptó la dirección ideológica nacional-comunista y se convirtió en uno de los líderes del comunismo nacional en Italia. El Anti-sovietismo y el anticomunismo (sobre todo ahora, después de la caída de la Unión Soviética) se convirtieron en obsoletos y sirven como herramientas en las manos de talasocracia, los liberales y los globalistas. Así que cada ciudadano europeo coherentemente revolucionario debe resueltamente terminar con eso y cooperar activamente con todas las fuerzas de izquierda que luchan contra la hegemonía estadounidense y el capitalismo liberal, que encarnan la esencia de la talasocracia y la civilización del mar. Este giro a la izquierda de Terracciano fue la conclusión lógica de su análisis geopolítico, y él ha dado pasos más decisivos en esta dirección uniéndose así con la tradición de la “Joven Europa” (siguiendo el ejemplo de Claudio Mutti, amigo y colega de Carlo Terracciano ), y convirtiéndose en un pionero de las nuevas tendencias nacional-comunistas y eurasiatistas en la política moderna italiana y europea. Para esta posición política Carlo Terracciano consagró todo un libro bajo el expresivo nombre de “Comunismo Nacional”.

La justicia social es un valor de la sociedad tradicional. La jerarquía basada en el principio material y la estratificación de clases, que constituye la base del capitalismo, es el mal absoluto y debe ser abolida. La lucha contra el liberalismo, el capitalismo y la oligarquía global por la libertad, la justicia y el orden social basado en la solidaridad y la ayuda mutua es la principal tarea de los nacional-revolucionarios. No se puede tolerar compromiso alguno con la burguesía y sus valores mercantilistas, materialistas y egoístas. El hombre es un ser social. La tradición es una causa del ser colectivo, una causa social. Con el fin de afirmar la sociedad tradicional y aplicarla a escala mundial, es necesario destruir la cosmópolis capitalista fundada en la veneración incondicional del “becerro de oro”. Y en este caso las fuerzas de izquierdas que luchan por la justicia social, son aliadas y amigas, así como las fuerzas de la derecha, que defienden los valores tradicionales – como la espiritualidad, la fe y la fidelidad a las raíces (de hecho, todos éstos valores son incompatibles con el capitalismo y el espíritu comercial).

Tradicionalismo y la geopolítica de lo Sagrado

Por último, el aspecto crucial del pensamiento de Carlo Terracciano se asocia con el tradicionalismo y la Tradición. Terracciano siguió el camino trazado por Julius Evola, viéndose a sí mismo como portador de las tradiciones espirituales de Occidente, que se remontan a las profundidades de la antigüedad, al neoplatonismo greco-romano. Era respetuoso frente al Islam y el hinduismo, sentía simpatía por la ortodoxia griega y rusa, pero hasta el final de sus días se abstuvo de aclarar sus puntos de vista religiosos con una confesión concreta. Él era un tradicionalista y un fuerte partidario de los antiguos valores indoeuropeos. Estos valores, a su juicio, tenían que estar en el centro de la guerra santa que él libró contra el mundo moderno.

La tradición está ligada a la tierra. La modernidad está vinculada al mar. Telurocracia significa Tradición, la modernidad significa talasocracia. Así la geopolítica de Terracciano obtiene una dimensión sagrada. No es sólo un instrumento técnico para el correcto análisis político o la planificación estratégica, sino una ideología, una elección espiritual, una llamada para una batalla sagrada escatológica, un Endkampf, que nos exige movilizar todo nuestro ser.

Muy buen guerrero

Carlo Terracciano nos da un ejemplo de cómo debería ser la vida de un auténtico geopolítico en el campo de la ciencia, la teoría, la existencia, la ontología, la escatología. Esta es la movilización total del alma, el pago completo de las creencias de todo el contenido de la vida heroica y trágica.

Hoy en día muchos se quejan de que no hay más lugar para los actos heroicos y luchas, todo está condenado a perder desde el principio, nada puede dar resultados empíricos. Esto sólo demuestra debilidad, cobardía y bajeza. Si creemos en algo y nuestra fe es suficientemente fuerte, somos siempre capaces de cambiar el mundo. No hay enemigo imbatible para el ardiente espíritu humano. Carlo Terracciano nos da el ejemplo de un hombre que hasta su último aliento defendió sus creencias. Sus creencias son nuestras creencias. Su lucha es nuestra lucha. Y la lucha de aquellos que vendrán después de nosotros.

Confieso que no me interesa qué clase de hombre era Carlo Terracciano, aunque sus amigos afirman que era genial, amable, honesto. No importa. Es subjetivo. Objetivamente, él era un héroe. El verdadero héroe del continente, de la civilización de la tierra, de Eurasia. Y eso es mucho más importante. Sólo la idea sí importa. Y otra cosa también tiene importancia – la vida humana arrojada al fuego de una gran fe y una gran causa.

Un tradicional proverbio japonés dice: No sólo es bueno el guerrero que sirve honestamente a un buen Estado, bueno es el guerrero que sirve honestamente a cualquier estado – entre ellos el muy malo, y este servicio honesto es el que convierte al mal estado en uno bueno. Carlo Terracciano era un guerrero muy bueno. El guerrero de Europa.

Texto original: Open Revolt

Traducido para TM por Felix W.

Fuente: Tribulaciones Metapolíticas

lundi, 14 octobre 2013

Pour une Europe-Puissance alliée à la Russie

eurorus112.jpg

Pour une Europe-Puissance alliée à la Russie

par Marc Rousset
Ex: http://www.les4verites.com

Pourquoi cet endettement excessif des États ? À cause du libre-échange mondialiste et de la perte structurelle des emplois industriels aussi bien en Europe qu’aux États-Unis, à cause du droit-de-l’hommisme, à cause de la perte de nos valeurs traditionnelles et du refus du travail, de l’autorité, du dépassement de soi, à cause de l’immigration extra-européenne folle et ruineuse, à cause, enfin, de l’idéologie socialiste laxiste et l’État-providence qui court à la faillite !

Tous les ingrédients sont rassemblés pour constituer le mélange explosif, avec le chômage exponentiel, la décadence programmée et le mariage homosexuel au forceps, les scandales financiers de l’UMPS en chaîne…

François Hollande, tout comme le trop faible Louis XVI, verra et vivra une Révolution nationale ! Souhaitons-lui, comme à tous les traîtres droit-de-l’hommistes, de ne pas avoir à passer un jour devant un tribunal révolutionnaire d’exception !

Hollande est incapable de réaliser une dévaluation française par voie interne en procédant à l’indispensable restructuration de notre économie (35 heures, retraites, 2 millions de fonctionnaires en trop par rapport à l’Allemagne…). Il pourrait bien être le fossoyeur de l’euro !

Quel sera l’élément déclencheur de la crise ? La remontée des taux d’intérêt qui sera insupportable pour les États.

Pour maintenir les taux d’intérêt artificiellement bas, la Fed achète tous les mois pour 85 mil­liards de dollars d’obligations du Trésor américain. C’est ce qui fait monter les actions à Wall Street, comme à la veille de 1929, car elles deviennent artificiellement attractives par rapport aux obligations.

Si les taux d’intérêt à long terme augmentent progressivement de 6 %, ce qui est la tendance historique structurelle à long terme, il y aura alors un krach obligataire en même temps qu’un krach des actions.

Le déficit français annuel augmentera alors d’environ 100 milliards d’euros par an, soit 5 % du PIB, ce qui sera insoutenable pour l’État français. Ce sera alors l’explosion complète du système financier avec des faillites bancaires en chaîne.

La BCE elle-même sera impuissante, car elle n’aura plus qu’à choisir entre la banqueroute, l’explosion de l’euro et la déflation ou une hyper-inflation dans toute la zone euro, si elle émet de la monnaie, en pratiquant un « quantitative easing » pire qu’aux États-Unis.

L’Allemagne, à la veille de la catastrophe, refusera le schéma traumatisant de l’hyper-inflation.

Pensons, nous aussi, à notre survie en joignant nos forces à celles de l’Allemagne dans ce mon­de du XXIe siècle où les nations européennes prises séparément ne peuvent pas survivre, car n’ayant pas la taille minimale critique de survie de 150-160 millions d’hommes.

Faisons tout pour garder l’euro, contrairement à la démagogie économique et aux stupidités souverainistes étroites du FN ! La réintroduction et la dévaluation du franc conduiraient inéluctablement à une terrifiante hyper-inflation tout à fait semblable à celle de l’Alle­magne en 1923.

Si demain, il y a tsunami économique, la faute n’en incombera pas, en effet, aux banques ou à l’euro, boucs émissaires trop faciles, mais seulement au laxisme démagogue de la France socialiste et des pays d’Europe du Sud.

Quant à notre avenir, il est à l’Est, avec la grande Europe, de Brest à Vladivostok ! Il passe par une politique nataliste et le respect de la famille, la relance d’une démographie blanche dans toute l’Europe, la ré-industrialisation, la « volonté de puissance » avec une Défense européenne crainte et respectée, la constitution d’un noyau dur franco-allemand centré sur le Rhin à Strasbourg.

Cette Europe carolingienne se rapprocherait de la Russie pour favoriser le développement économique, mettre fin à l’invasion migratoire barbare en provenance de l’Afrique, monter la garde à l’Est en raison du risque de déferlement islamiste dans le Caucase et en Asie Centrale, assurer le contrôle civilisationnel européen sur la Sibérie (60 % du territoire russe) face à la Chine impérialiste…

Marc Rousset
Économiste, auteur de « La Nouvelle Europe Paris-Berlin-Moscou »

samedi, 12 octobre 2013

Multipolarism as an Open Project

BRICS468.jpg

Multipolarism as an Open Project

 Professor of the Moscow State University, Doctor of political sciences, founder of the contemporary Russian school of Geopolitics, leader of the International Social Movement “Eurasian Movement”, Moscow, Russian Federation.

 

I. Multipolarism and “Land Power”

Geopolitics of the Land in the Global World

In the previous part we discussed the subject of globalism, globalization, and mondialism in a view considered to be generally accepted and “conventional”. Geopolitical analysis of the phenomenon of the subject of globalism, globalization, and mondialism has showed that in the modern globalism we only deal with one of the two geopolitical powers, namely, with a thalassocracy, a “Sea Power” that from now on claims for uniqueness, totality, and normativeness and strives to pretend to be the only possible civilization, sociological and geopolitical condition of the world.

Therewith, the philosophy of globalism is based upon the internal surety with universalism of exactly the Western-European value system thought to be the summary of all the diverse experience of the human cultures on all stages of their history.

And finally, in its roots, globalization has an active ideology (mondialism) and power structures that spread and bring this ideology into use. If taking into account that the latter are the most authoritative intellectual US centers (such as CFR and neoconservatives), structures of the US Supreme Military Command and their analysts (Owens, Sibrowsky, Barnett, Garstka), international oligarchs (such as George Soros), a number of international organizations (The Bilderberg Club, Trilateral Commission, etc.), and innumerous amount of analysts, politicians, journalists, scientists, economists, people of culture and art, and IT sector employees spread all over the world, we can understand the reason why this ideology seems to be something that goes without saying for us. That we sometimes take globalization as an “objective process” is the result of a huge manipulation with public opinion and the fruit of a total information war.

Therefore, the picture of global processes we described is an affirmation of the real state of affairs just in part. In such a description, there is a significant share of a normative and imperative volitional (ideological) wish that everything should be quite so, which means, it is based upon wrenches and, to some extent, striving to represent our wishful thinking as reality.

In this part, we will describe an absolutely different point of view on globalization and globalism that is impossible from inside the “Sea Power”, i.e. out of the environment of the nominal “Global World”. Such a view is not taken into account either in antiglobalism or in alterglobalism because it refuses from the most fundamental philosophical and ideological grounds of Eurocentrism.  Such a view rejects the faith in:

  •  universalism of the Western values, that Western societies, in their history, have passed the only possible way all the other countries are expected to pass;
  • progress as an indisputable forwardness of historical and social development;
  • that it is limitless technical, economical, and material development, which is the answer for the most vital needs of all humankind;
  • that people of all cultures, religions, civilizations, and ethnoses are principally the same as the people of the West and they are governed by the same anthropological motives;
  • absolute superiority of capitalism over other sociopolitical formations;
  • absence of any alternative for market economy;
  • that liberal democracy is the only acceptable form of political organization of the society;
  • individual freedom and individual identity as the superior value of human being;
  • liberalism as a historically inevitable, higher-priority, and optimal ideology.

In other words, we proceed to the position of the “Land Power” and consider the present moment of the world history from the point of view of Geopolitics-2, or the thalassocratic geopolitics as an episode of the “Great Continent War”, not as its conclusion.

Of course, it is difficult to refuse that the present moment of historical development demonstrates a number of unique features that, if desired, can be interpreted as the ultimate victory of the Sea over the Land, Carthage over Rome and Leviathan over Behemoth. Indeed, never in history the “Sea Power” was such a serious success and stretched might and influence of its paradigm in such a scale. Of course, Geopolitics-2 acknowledges this fact and the consequences included. But it clearly realizes that globalization can be also interpreted otherwise, namely, as a series of victories in combats and battles, not as the ultimate win in the war.

Here, a historical analogy suggests itself: when German troops were approaching to Moscow in 1941, one could think that everything was lost and the end of the USSR was foredoomed. The Nazi propaganda commented the course of the war quiet so: the “New Order” is created in the occupied territory, the authorities work, economical and political hierarchy is created, and the social life is organized. But the Soviet people kept on violently resisting – at all the fronts as well as in the rear of the enemy, while systematically moving to their goal and their victory.

Now, there is precisely this moment in the geopolitical stand of the Sea and the Land. Information policy inside the “Sea Power” is built so as no-one has any doubt that globalism is an accomplished fact and the global society has come about in its essential features, that all the obstacles from now on are of a technical character. But from certain conceptual, philosophical, sociological, and geopolitical positions, all of it can be challenged by suggesting an absolutely different vision of the situation. All the point is in interpretation. Historical facts make no sense without interpretation. Likewise in geopolitics: any state of affairs in the field of geopolitics only makes sense in one or another interpretation. Globalism is interpreted today almost exclusively in the Atlantist meaning and, thus, the “sea” sense is put into it. A view from the Land’s position doesn’t change the state of affairs but it does change its sense. And this, in many cases, is of fundamental importance.

Further, we will represent the view on globalization and globalism from the Land’s position – geopolitical, sociological, philosophical, and strategical.

Grounds for Existence of Geopolitics-2 in the Global World

How can we substantiate the very possibility of a view on globalization on the part of the Land, assuming that the structure of the global world, as we have shown, presupposes marginalization and fragmentation of the Land?

There are several grounds for this.

  1. The human spirit (conscience, will, faith) is always capable to formulate its attitude to any ambient phenomenon and even if this phenomenon is presented as invincible, integral, and “objective”, it is possible to take it in a different way – accept or reject, justify or condemn. This is the superior dignity of man and his difference from animal species. And if man rejects and condemns something, he has the right to build strategies to overcome it in any, most difficult and insuperable, situations and conditions. The advance of the global society can be accepted and approved but it can be rejected and condemned as well. In the former case, we float adrift the history, in the latter one – we seek a “fulcrum” to stop this process. History is made by people and the spirit plays the central part here. Hence, there is a theoretical possibility to create a theory radically opposite to the views that are built on the base of the “Sea Power” and accept basic paradigms of the Western view on the things, course of history, and logic of changing sociopolitical structures.
  2. The geopolitical method allows to identify globalization as a subjective process connected with a success of one of the two global powers. Be the Land ever so “marginal and fragmentized», it has serious historical grounds behind itself, traditions, experience, sociological and civilization background. The Land’s geopolitics is not built on a void place; this is a tradition that generalizes some fundamental historical, geographical, and strategical trends. Therefore, even on the theoretical level, estimation of globalization from the position of Geopolitics-2 is absolutely relevant. Just as well as there is the “subject” of globalization in its center (mondialism and its structures), the Land Power can and does have its own subjective embodiment. In spite of a huge scale and massive forms of the historical polemics of civilizations, we, first of all, deal with a stand of minds, ideas, concepts, theories, and only then – with that of material things, devices, technologies, finances, weapons, etc.
  3. The process of desovereignization of national states has not yet become nonreversible, and the elements of the Westphalian system are still being partly preserved. That means that a whole range of national states, by virtue of certain consideration, can still bank on realization of the land strategy, i.e. they can completely or partially reject globalization and the “Sea Power’s” paradigm. China is an example of it; it balances between globalization and its own land identity, strictly observing that the general balance is kept and that only what consolidates China as a sovereign geopolitical formation is borrowed from the global strategies. The same can be also said about the states the US have equaled to the “Axis of Evil” — Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, etc. Of course, the threat of a direct intrusion of US troops hangs over these countries like the sword of Damocles (on the model of Iraq or Afghanistan), and they are continuously subject to more politic network attacks from inside. However, at the moment their sovereignty is preserved what makes them privileged areas for development of the Land Power. It is also possible to refer here a number of hesitant countries, such as India, Turkey and others, which, being significantly involved into the globalization orbit, preserve their original sociological features, getting out of accord with the official precepts of their governing regimes. Such situation is characteristic of many Asian. Latin-American and African societies. 
  4. And, finally, the most general. — The present state of Heartland. The world dominance, as we know, and thus, reality or evanescence of monopolar globalization depends on it. In 1980-90-s, Heartland fundamentally reduced its influence area. Two geopolitical belts – Eastern Europe (whose countries were within the “Socialist Block”, “Warsaw Pact», Comecon, etc.) and the Federative Republics of the USSR consistently withdrew from it. By the mid 1990-s, a bloody testing for a possibility of further breakdown of Russia into “national republics” had started in Chechnya. This fragmentation of Heartland, down to a mosaic of marionette dependent states in place of Russia, had to become the final accord of construction of the global world and the “end of history”, after which it would be much more difficult to speak about the Land and Geopolitics-2. Heartland is of central importance in the possibility of strategical consolidation of all Eurasia and, thus, the “Land Power”. If the processes that took place in Russia in 1990-s had moved in a groove and its disintegration kept on, it would be much more difficult to challenge globalization. But since late 1990-s — early 2000-s, a turning-point has taken place in Russia, disintegration was stopped; moreover, the federal authorities have restored control over the rebellious Chechnya. Then V. Putin implemented a legal reform of the Federation subjects (excision of the article about “sovereignty”, governors’ appointment, etc.) that has consolidated the power vertical all over Russia. The CCI integration processes have started gathering pace. In August 2008, in the course of the five-day conflict of Russia with Georgia, Russia took its direct control over territories beyond the borders of the Russian Federation (Southern Ossetia, Abkhazia), and acknowledged their independence, in spite of a huge support of Georgia on the part of the US and the NATO countries and pressure of the international public opinion. Generally, since early 2000-s Russia as Heartland has ceased the processes of its self-disintegration, has reinforced its energetics, has normalized the issues of energy supply abroad, has refused from the practice of unilateral reduction of armaments, having preserved its nuclear potential. Whereby, influence of the network of geopolitical agents of Atlantism and Mondialism on the political authority and strategical decision making has qualitatively diminished, consolidation of the sovereignty has been understood as the top-priority issue, and integration of Russia into a number of globalist structures menacing its independence has been ceased. In a word, Heartland keeps on remaining the foundation of Eurasia, its “Core” — weakened, suffered very serious losses, but still existing, independent, sovereign, and capable to pursue a policy, if not on a global scale, then on a regional one. In its history, Russia has several times fallen yet lower: the Domain Fragmentation on the turn of the 13th century, The Time of Troubles, and the events of 1917-1918 show us Heartland in a yet more deplorable and weakened condition. But every time, in some period, Russia revived and returned to the orbit of its geopolitical history again. The present state of Russia is difficult to recognize brilliant or even satisfactory from the geopolitical (Eurasian) point of view. Yet in general — Heartland does exist, it is relatively independent, and therefore, we have both a theoretical and practical base to consolidate and bring to life all the pre-conditions for development of a response to the phenomenon of monopolar globalization on the part of the Land.

Such an answer of the Land to the challenge of globalization (as a triumph of the “Sea Power”) is Multipolarism, as a theory, philosophy, strategy, policy, and practice.

Multipolarism as a Project of the World Order from the Land’s Position

Multipolarism represents a summary of Geopolitics-2 in actual conditions of the global process evolution. This is an extraordinarily capacious concept that demands a through consideration.

Multipolarism is a real antithesis for monopolarity in all its aspects: hard (imperialism, neocons, direct US domination), soft (multilateralism) and critical (alterglobalism, postmodernism, and neo-Marxism) ones.

The hard monopolarity version (radical American imperialism) is based upon the idea that the US represents the last citadel of the world order, prosperity, comfort, safety, and development surrounded by a chaos of underdeveloped societies. Multipolarism states the directly opposite: the US is a national state that exists among many others, its values are doubtful (or, at least, relative), its claims are disproportional, its appetites are excessive, methods of conducting its foreign policy are inacceptable, and its technological messianism is disastrous for the culture and ecology of the whole world.  In this regard, the multipolar project is a hard antithesis to the US as an instance that methodically builds a unipolar world, and it is aimed to strongly disallow, break up, and prevent this construction.

The soft monopolarity version does not only act on behalf of the US, but on behalf of “humanity”, exclusively understanding it as the West and the societies that agree with universalism of Western values. Soft monopolarity does not claim to press by force, but persuade, not to compel, but explain profits peoples and countries will obtain from entering into globalization. Here the pole is not a single national state (the US), but Western civilization as a whole, as a quintessence of all the humanity.

Such, as it is sometimes called, “multilateral” monopolarity (multilateralism, multilateralization) is rejected by Multipolarism that considers Western culture and Western values to represent merely one axiological composition among many others, one culture among different other cultures, and cultures and value systems based on some absolutely different principles to have the full right for existence. Consequently, the West in a whole and those sharing its values, have no grounds to insist on universalism of democracy, human rights, market, individualism, individual freedom, secularity, etc. and build a global society on the base of these guidelines.

Against alterglobalism and postmodern antiglobalism, Multipolarism advances a thesis that a capitalist phase of development and construction of worldwide global capitalism is not a necessary phase of society development, that it is despotism and an ambition to dictate different societies some kind of single history scenario. In the meantime, confusion of mankind into the single global proletariat is not a way to a better future, but an incidental and absolutely negative aspect of the global capitalism, which does not open any new prospects and only leads to degradation of cultures, societies, and traditions. If peoples do have a chance to organize effective resistance to the global capitalism, it is only where Socialist ideas are combined with elements of a traditional society (archaic, agricultural, ethnical, etc.), as it was in the history of the USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam and takes place today in some Latin-American countries (e. g., in Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, etc.).

Further, Multipolarism is an absolutely different view on the space of land than bipolarity, a bipolar world.

map1

map2

Multipolarism represents a normative and imperative view on the present situation in the world on the part of the Land and it qualitatively differs from the model predominated in the Yalta World in the period of the “Cold War”.

The Bipolar World was constructed under the ideological principle, where two ideologies – Capitalism and Socialism – acted as poles. Socialism as an ideology did not challenge universalism of the West-European culture and represented a sociocultural and political tradition that threw back to the European Enlightenment. In a certain sense, Capitalism and Socialism competed with each other as two versions of Enlightenment, two versions of progress, two versions of universalism, two versions of the West-European sociopolitical idea.

Socialism and Marxism entered into a resonance with certain parameters of the “Land Power”, and therefore they did not win where Marx had supposed, but where he excluded this possibility – in an agricultural country with the predominant way of life of a traditional society and imperial organization of the political field. Another case of an (independent) victory of Socialism – China – also represented an agricultural, traditional society.

Multipolarism does not oppose monopolarity from the position of a single ideology that could claim for the second pole, but it does from the position of many ideologies, a plenty of cultures, world-views and religions that (each for its own reasons) have nothing in common with the Western liberal capitalism.  In a situation, when the Sea has a unified ideological aspect (however, ever more going to the sphere of subauditions, not explicit declarations), and the Land itself doesn’t, representing itself as several different world-view and civilization ensembles, Multipolarism suggests creating a united front of the Land against the Sea.

Multipolarism is different from both the conservative project of conservation and reinforcement of national states. On the one hand, national states in both colonial and post-colonial period reflect the West-European understanding of a normative political organization (that ignores any religious, social, ethnical, and cultural features of specific societies) in their structures, i.e. the nations themselves are partially products of globalization. And on the other hand, it is only a minor part of the two hundred fifty-six countries officially itemized in the UN list today that are, if necessary, capable to defend their sovereignty by themselves, without entering into a block or alliance with other countries. It means that not each nominal sovereign state can be considered a pole, as the degree of strategical freedom of the vast majority of the countries acknowledged is negligible. Therefore, reinforcement of the Westphalian system that still mechanically exists today is not an issue of Multipolarism.

Being the opposition of monopolarity, Multipolarism does not call to either return to the bipolar world on the base of ideology or to fasten the order of national states, or to merely preserve the status quo. All these strategies will only play in hands of globalization and monopolarity centers, as they have a project, a plan, a goal, and a rational route of movement to future; and all the scenarios enumerated are at best an appeal to a delay of the globalization process, and at worst (restoration of bipolarity on the base of ideology) look like irresponsible fantasy and nostalgia.

Multipolarism is a vector of the Land’s geopolitics directed to the future. It is based upon a sociological paradigm whose consistency is historically proven in the past and which realistically takes into account the state of affairs existing in the modern world and basic trends and force lines of its probable transformations. But Multipolarism is constructed on this basis as a project, as a plan of the world order we yet only expect to create.

2 Multipolarism and its Theoretical Foundation

The absence of the Multipolarism Theory

In spite of the fact that the term “Multipolarism” is quite often used in political and international discussions recently, its meaning is rather diffuse and inconcrete. Different circles and separate analysts and politicians insert their own sense in it. Well-founded researches and solid scientific monographs devoted to Multipolarism can be counted on fingers[1]. Even serious articles on this topic are quite rare[2]. The reason for this is well understood: as the US and Western countries set the parameters of the normative political and ideological discourse in a global scale today, according to these rules, whatever you want can be discussed but the sharpest and most painful questions. Even those considering unipolarity to have been just a “moment[3]” in the 1990-s and a transfer to some new indefinite model to be taking place now are ready to discuss any versions but the “multipolar” one. Thus, for example, the modern head of CFR Richard Haass tells about “Non-Polarity” meaning such stage of globalization where necessity in presence of a rigid center falls off by itself[4]. Such wiles are explained by the fact that one of the aims of globalization is, as we have seen, marginalization of the “Land Power”. And as far as Multipolarism can only be a form of an active strategy of the “Land Power” in the new conditions, any reference to it is not welcome by the West that sets the trend in the structure of political analysis in the general global context. Still less one should expect that conventional ideologies of the West take up development of the Multipolarism Theory.

It would be logical to assume that the Multipolarism Theory will be developed in the countries that explicitly declare orientation upon a multipolar world as the general vector of their foreign policy. The number of such countries includes Russia, China, India, and some others. Besides, the address to Multipolarism can be encountered in texts and documents of some European political actors (e.g., former French minister of Foreign Affairs Hubert Vidrine[5]). But at the moment, we can as well hardly find something more than materials of several symposiums and conferences with rather vague phrases in this field. One has to state that the topic of Multipolarism is not properly conceptualized also in the countries that proclaim it as their strategical goal, not to mention the absence a distinct and integral theory of Multipolarism.

Nevertheless, on the base of the geopolitical method from the position of the “Land Power” and with due account for the analysis of a phenomenon called globalism, it is quite possible to formulate some absolute principles that must underlie the Multipolarism Theory when the matter comes to its more systemized and expanded development.

Multipolarism: Geopolitics and Meta-Ideology

Let’s blueprint some theoretical sources, on whose base a valuable theory of Multipolarism must be built.

It is only geopolitics that can be the base for this theory in the actual conditions. At the moment, no religious, economical, political, social, cultural or economical ideology is capable to pull together the critical mass of the countries and societies that refer to the “Land Power” in a single planetary front necessary to make a serious and effective antithesis to globalism and the unipolar world. This is the specificity of the historical moment (“The Unipolar Moment”[6]): the dominating ideology (the global liberalism/post-liberalism) has no symmetrical opposition on its own level. Hence, it is necessary to directly appeal to geopolitics by taking the principle of the Land, the Land Power, instead of the opposing ideology. It is only possible in the case if the sociological, philosophical, and civilization dimensions of geopolitics are realized to the full extent.

AD4pt-greece.jpgThe “Sea Power” will serve us as a proof for this statement. We have seen that the very matrix of this civilization does not only occur in the Modem Period, but also in thalassocratic empires of the Antiquity (e.g., in Carthage), in the ancient Athens or in the Republic of Venice. And within the Modern World itself atlantism and liberalism do not as well find complete predominance over the other trends at once. And nevertheless, we can trace the conceptual sequence through a series of social formations: the “Sea Power” (as a geopolitical category) moves through history taking various forms till it finds its most complete and absolute aspect in the global world where its internal precepts become predominant in a planetary scale. In other words, ideology of the modern mondialism is only a historical form of a more common geopolitical paradigm. But there is a direct relation between this (probably, most absolute) form and the geopolitical matrix.

There is no such direct symmetry in case of the “Land Power”. The Communism ideology just partly (heroism, collectivism, antiliberalism) resonated with geopolitical percepts of the “ground” society (and this just in the concrete form of the Eurasian USSR and, to a lesser degree, of China), as the other aspects of this ideology (progressism, technology, materialism) fitted badly in the axiological structure of the “Land Power”. And today, even in theory, Communism cannot perform the mobilizing ideological function it used to perform in the 20th century in a planetary scale. From the ideological point of view the Land is really split into fragments and, in the nearest future, we can hardly expect some new ideology capable to symmetrically withstand the liberal globalism to appear. But the very geopolitical principle of the Land does not lose anything in its paradigmatic structure. It is this principle that must be taken as a foundation for construction of the Multipolarism Theory. This theory must address directly to geopolitics, draw principles, ideas, methods and terms out of it. This will allow to otherwise take both the wide range of existing non-globalist and counter-globalist ideologies, religions, cultures, and social trends. It is absolutely unnecessary to shape them to transform into something unified and systematized. They can well remain local or regional but be integrated into a front of common stand against globalization and “Western Civilization’s” domination on the meta-ideological level, on the paradigmatic level of Geopolitics-2 and this moment – plurality of ideologies – is already laid in the very term “Multi-polarism” (not only within the strategical space, but also in the field of the ideological, cultural, religious, social, and economical one).

Multipolarism is nothing but extension of Geopolitics-2 (geopolitics of the Land) into a new environment characterized with the advance of globalism (as atlantism) on a qualitatively new level and in qualitatively new proportions. Multipolarism has no other sense.

Geopolitics of the Land and its general vectors projected upon the modern conditions are the axis of the Multipolarism Theory, on which all the other aspects of this theory are threaded. These aspects constitute philosophical, sociological, axiological, economical, and ethical parts of this theory. But all of them are anyway conjugated with the acknowledged – in an extendedly sociological way – structure of the “Land Power” and with the direct sense of the very concept of “Multipolarism” that refers us to the principles of plurality, diversity, non-universalism, and variety.

3 Multipolarism and Neo-Eurasianism

Neo-Eurasianism as Weltanschauung

Neo-Eurasianism is positioned nearest to the theory of Multipolarism. This concept roots in geopolitics and operates par excellence with the formula of “Russia-Eurasia” (as Heartland) but at the same time develops a wide range of ideological, philosophical, sociological and politological fields, instead of being only limited with geostrategy and application analysis.

What is in the term of “Neo-Eurasianism” can be illustrated with fragments of the Manifesto of the International “Eurasian Movement” “Eurasian Mission»[7]. Its authors point out five levels in Neo-Eurasianism allowing to interpret it in a different way depending on a concrete context.

The first level: Eurasianism is a Weltanschauung.

According to the authors of the Manifesto, the term “Eurasianism” “is applied to a certain Weltanschauung, a certain political philosophy that combines in itself tradition, modernity and even elements of postmodern in an original manner. The philosophy of Eurasianism proceeds from priority of values of the traditional society, acknowledges the imperative of technical and social modernization (but without breaking off cultural roots), and strives to adapt its ideal program to the situation of a post-industrial, information society called “postmodern”.

The formal opposition between tradition and modernity is removed in postmodern. However, postmodernism in the atlantist aspect levels them from the position of indifference and exhaustiveness of contents. The Eurasian postmodern, on the contrary, considers the possibility for an alliance of tradition with modernity to be a creative, optimistic energetic impulse that induces imagination and development.

In the Eurasianism philosophy, the realities superseded by the period of Enlightenment obtain a legitimate place – these are religion, ethnos, empire, cult, legend, etc. In the same time, a technological breakthrough, economical development, social fairness, labour liberation, etc. are taken from the Modern. The oppositions are overcome by merging into a single harmonious and original theory that arouses fresh ideas and new decisions for eternal problems of humankind. (…)

The philosophy of Eurasianism is an open philosophy, it is free from any forms of dogmatism. It can be appended by diversified areas – history, religion, sociological and ethnological discoveries, geopolitics, economics, regional geography, culturology, various types of strategical and politological researches, etc. Moreover, Eurasianism as a philosophy assumes an original development in each concrete cultural and linguistic context: Eurasianism of the Russians will inevitably differ from Eurasianism of the French or Germans, Eurasianism of the Turks from Eurasianism of the Iranians; Eurasianism of the Arabs from Eurasianism of the Chinese, etc. Whereby, the main force lines of this philosophy will, in a whole, be preserved unalterable.(…)

The following items can be called general reference points of the Eurasianism philosophy:

  • differentialism, pluralism of value systems against obligatory domination of a single ideology (in our case and first of all, of the American liberal democracy);
  • traditionalism against destruction of cultures, beliefs and rites of the traditional society;
  • a world-state, continent-state against both bourgeois national states and “the world government”;
  • rights of nations against omnipotence of “the Golden Billion” and neo-colonial hegemony of “the Rich North”;
  • an ethnos as a value and subject of history against depersonalization of nations and their alienation in artificial sociopolitical constructions;
  • social fairness and solidarity of labour people against exploitation, logic of coarse gain, and humiliation of man by man.»[8]

Neo-Eurasianism as a Planetary Trend

On the second level: Neo-Eurasianism is a planetary trend. The authors of the Manifesto explain:

«Eurasianism on the level of a planetary trend is a global, revolutionary, civilization concept that is, by gradually improving, addressed to become a new ideological platform of mutual understanding and cooperation for a vast conglomerate of different forces, states, nations, cultures, and confessions that refuse from the Atlantic globalization.

It is worth carefully reading the statements of the most diverse powers all over the world: politicians, philosophers, and intellectuals and we will make sure that Eurasianists constitute the vast majority. Mentality of many nations, societies, confession, and states is, though they may not suspect about it themselves, Eurasianist.

If thinking about this multitude of different cultures, religions, confessions, and countries discordant with “the end of history” we are imposed by atlantism, our courage will grow up and the seriousness of risks of realization of the American 21st century strategical security concept related with a unipolar world establishment will sharply increase.

Eurasianism is an aggregate of all natural and artificial, objective and subjective obstacles on the way of unipolar globalization, whereby it is elevated from a mere negation to a positive project, a creative alternative. While these obstacles exist discretely and chaotically, the globalists deal with them separately. But it is worth just integrating, pulling them together in a single, consistent Weltanschauung of a planetary character and the chances for victory of Eurasianism all over the world will be very serious.»[9]

Neo-Eurasianism as an Integration Project

On the next level, Neo-Eurasianism is treated as a project of strategical integration of the Eurasian Continent:

“The concept “the Old World” usually defining Europe can be considered much wider. This huge multicivilization space populated with nations, states, cultures, ethnoses and confessions connected between each other historically and spatially by the community of dialectical destiny. The Old World is a product of organic development of human history.

The Old World is usually set against the New World, i.e. the American continent that was discovered by the Europeans and has become a platform for construction of an artificial civilization where the European projects of the Modern, the period of Enlightenment have taken shape. (…)

In the 20th century Europe realized its original essence and had gradually been moving to integration of all the European states into a single Union capable to provide all this space with sovereignty, independence, security, and freedom.

Creation of the European Union was the greatest milestone in the mission of Europe’s return in history. This was the response of “the Old World” to the exorbitant demands of the “New” one. If considering the alliance between the US and Western Europe – with US domination – to be the Atlantist vector of European development, then the integration of European nations themselves with predomination of the continental countries (France-Germany) can be considered Eurasianism in relation to Europe.

It becomes especially illustrative, if taking into account the theories that Europe geopolitically stretches from the Atlantic to the Urals (Ch. de Gaulle) or to Vladivostok. In other words, the interminable spaces of Russia are also valuably included in the field of the Old World subject to integration.

(…) Eurasianism in this context can be defined as a project of strategical, geopolitical, economical integration of the North of the Eurasian Continent realized as the cradle of European history, matrix of nations and cultures closely interlaced between each other.

And since Russia itself (like, by the way, the ancestors of many Europeans as well) is related in a large measure with the Turkish, Mongolian world, with Caucasian nations, through Russia – and in a parallel way through Turkey – does the integrating Europe as the Old World already acquire the Eurasianism dimension to full extent; and in this case, not only in symbolic sense, but also in geographical one. Here Eurasianism can be synonimically identified with Continentalism.[10]»

These three most general definitions of Neo-Eurasianism demonstrate that here we deal with a preparatory basis for construction of the Multipolarism Theory. This is the ground view on the sharpest challenges of modernity and attempt to give an adjust response to them taking into account geopolitical, civilization, sociological, historical and philosophical regularities.


[1]  Murray D.,  Brown D. (eds.) Multipolarity in the 21st Century. A New World Order. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2010; Ambrosio Th. Challenging America global Preeminence: Russian Quest for Multipolarity. Chippenheim, Wiltshire: Anthony Rose, 2005; Peral L. (ed.) Global Security in a Multi-polar World. Chaillot

Paper. Paris: European Institute for Security Studies, 2009; Hiro D. After Empire: The Birth of a Multipolar World. Yale: Nation Books , 2009.

[2] Turner Susan. Russia, Chine and the Multipolar World Order: the danger in the undefined// Asian Perspective. 2009. Vol. 33, No. 1. C. 159-184; Higgott Richard Multi-Polarity and Trans-Atlantic Relations: Normative Aspirations and Practical Limits of EU Foreign Policy. – www.garnet-eu.org. 2010. [Electronic resource] URL: http://www.garnet-eu.org/fileadmin/documents/working_papers/7610.pdf (дата обращения 28.08.2010); Katz M. Primakov Redux. Putin’s Pursuit of «Multipolarism» in Asia//Demokratizatsya. 2006. vol.14 № 4. C.144-152.

[3] Krauthammer Ch. The Unipolar Moment// Foreign Affairs. 1990 / 1991 Winter. Vol. 70, No 1. С. 23-33.

[4] Haass R. The Age of Non-polarity: What will follow US Dominance?’//Foreign Affairs.2008. 87 (3). С. 44-56.

[5] Déclaration de M. Hubert Védrine, ministre des affaires étrangères sur la reprise d’une dialogue approfondie entre la France et l’Hinde: les enjeux de la resistance a l’uniformisation culturelle et aux exces du monde unipolaire. New Delhi — 1 lesdiscours.vie-publique.fr. 7.02.2000.  [Electronic resource] URL: http://lesdiscours.vie-publique.fr/pdf/003000733.pdf

[6] Krauthammer Ch. The Unipolar Moment. Op.cit.

[7] Евразийская миссия. Манифест Международного «Евразийского Движения». М.: Международное Евразийское Движение, 2005.

[8] Ibid

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

This entry was posted in Journal of Eurasian Affairs, vol.1, Num.1, 2013 by eurasianaffairs. Bookmark the permalink.

mercredi, 09 octobre 2013

The Western Challenge to Eurasian Integration

kir0.jpg

The Western Challenge to Eurasian Integration

by Nikolai Malishevski

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

Recently, official Warsaw and not-so-official Stockholm have taken a number of steps to reinforce their successes in the East in order to gain new bargaining chips for the upcoming Eastern Partnership summit in Vilnius in November 2013, which will be devoted to developing a unified policy on the East for European countries. According to a statement by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton, this summit will be «an opportunity to deepen the relations» between the EU and the member countries of the Eastern Partnership. The fact that the heads of all the EU member states plan to attend also speaks to that.

The Eastern Partnership, initiated by Washington and Brussels, was formed at the suggestion of Warsaw and Stockholm after the failure of the Georgian aggression in Ossetia. Essentially it has become a kind of continuation of GUAM, which demonstrated its military and political inadequacy in August 2008. The participation of Belarus and Armenia (which are not members of GUAM) is an attempt at a kind of «revenge» for the military and political defeat of Georgia. You could call the Eastern Partnership a tool for energy colonialism, turning Russia into a mere supplier of raw materials to the West, «pushing» it into the northeast of the Eurasian continent and creating a «sanitary» energy collection zone along its borders from the Black Sea to the Baltic. It's not for nothing that many in Russia consider the Eastern Partnership a kind of 'calque' from Adolf Hitler's concept of gaining Lebensraum in the East.

The main players in the project are Sweden in the north, Poland in the west, and NATO member Turkey in the south… Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova have been assigned to Poland, with its neosarmatism and the sympathies of Catholics. To Turkey with its neoturanism, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia have been assigned (and to some extent the Central Asian republics - unofficially, through the personal business interests of their leaders in Ankara, as in Kyrgyzstan, for example). The Scandinavians, with the support of international structures like the Soros Foundation, are taking an avid interest in Karelia, the Kola Peninsula, the islands of the Gulf of Finland and their mineral and forest resource, as well as opposing Russia’s plans in the Arctic.

North. Overseen by Sweden, acting through Finland, which is conveniently located close to the «northern capital»« St. Petersburg. Operations are conducted using the following tools: 

a) Swedish-speaking citizens of Finland who have close ties with the Finnish political elite, the public servants, and who openly express anti-Russian revanchist views, such as Mikael Storsjo, the publisher of the terrorist site Caucasus Center and chairman of the Pro-Caucasus Association, who was convicted of illegally dispatching dozens of terrorists, including relatives of Basayev; 

b) media structures such as the Sweden-based Web center of the site Caucasus Center (the site itself, which has been declared a terrorist resource by the UN, was operating there as well until it was moved to Finland in 2004) and anti-Russian Finnish media activists (Kerkko Paananen, Ville Ropponen, Esa Makinen, Jukka Malonen, etc.) who support the «white ribbon opposition» in Russia; 

c) public structures such as the Pro-Caucasus Association, which is registered in Sweden, the Finnish-Russian Civil Forum (Finrosforum, Suomalais-venalainen kansalaisfoorumi), and U.S-oriented human rights organizations like the Helsinki Group, Amnesty International, etc..

Financing comes from the north, which borders directly on Russia via Finland (from which, in a similar calque, the «export of revolution» and money for it from American and European bankers came even before 1917), and there is an attempt to unite all anti-Russian forces in Europe and Russia itself - from Chechen terrorists, for whom «Turkish transit» is organized to the motley «white ribbon» opposition (supporters of Nemtsov, Navalny, Limonov, Kasparov, etc.).

West. Poland, which does not share a border with Russia (except for the Kaliningrad enclave), operates along the perimeter of a broad geopolitical «arc». From Kaliningrad in the north (already called «Królewiec» by Warsaw diplomats on the official site of the Consulate General of Poland), through Belarus and Ukraine, which are being considered as potential «friendly» territories in the east, to the Crimea in the south. 

With regard to Ukraine and Moldova, the ambitions of Warsaw, which has taken a course toward the creation of a fourth Rzeczpospolita and has its own vision of the future of the lands on Ukraine's right bank, to a great extent coincide with those of Romania and Hungary. Catholic Poland is essentially coordinating its policy with coreligionist Hungary, as their points of view on a number of issues coincide and complement one another, allowing them to develop a common strategy. With regard to Belarus, something similar (with some reservations) is happening with the Latvians and Lithuania, including support via Scandinavia for the pro-Western opposition in Minsk, which has found understanding from the «white ribbonists» and public servants who sympathize with them in Russia.

In the first half of 2013 the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), the «thought factory for the European Union» which conducts analyses on foreign policy and security, distinguished Poland in five areas of foreign policy. Poland was recognized as a leader in implementing joint projects in the framework of NATO and the Common Foreign and Security Policy and was praised for its (visa) policy with regard to Russia, Ukraine and Moldova and for its foreign policy for «the most activity for the democratization» of Belarus. Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, after a discussion of the implementation of «Eastern Partnership» programs at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels, reported (18.02.2013) that his country's eastern policy has met with numerous successes, saying, «Note that we are talking with our Eastern partners about association agreements and not about war. At present, the East is a place where Europe is conducting successful policy. In only remains to formalize these successes in the form of bilateral agreements».

South. In the south Warsaw operates in unison with Ankara, since the sympathy of the Tatar population of the Crimea toward NATO member Turkey facilitates the mutual understanding of local Turks and NATO member Poland. In 2013 several events took place, such as a press conference for the protection of the rights of Crimean Tatars, in which not only the chairman of the Union of Polish Tatars, Selim Chazbiewicz; the head of the communications department of the Crimean Tatar Majlis, Ali Khamzin; and others took part, but also influential Polish politicians such as Lech Wałęsa and former Minister of Internal Affairs Jadwiga Chmielowska. Previously in Simferopol a visa application center and a Consulate General of the Republic of Poland were opened which today demonstrate noticeable activity in the public and cultural life of the autonomous region and Sevastopol, especially in the area of collaborating with the Crimean Tatar Majlis and discrediting the Russian movement. And Poland became the second country after Russia whose consulate in the Crimea received the status of a consulate general. 

From Turkey, via Finland and its citizens of Swedish origin, transit has been organized for extremists who kindle the flame of separatist jihad in the «southern underbelly» of Russia (including the terrorists of Shamil Basayev's battalion of Chechen suicide attackers «Riyad-us Saliheen»).  The Scandinavians coordinate activities with the Turks in the media sphere as well. For example, the Web administrator of the terrorist site Caucasus Center, Islam Matsiev, came to Finland from Turkey. On the Turkish side, Basayev's IHH foundation is collecting funds in Turkey, Dubai, the U.S., England and France to finance the international terrorist network called the «Caucasus Emirate», whose mouthpiece is Caucasus Center (the official representative in Turkey is Musa Itayev, and in Finland it is Islam Makhauri, the brother of Rustam Makhauri - the «Minister of Defense of the Caucasus Emirate», Doku Umarov's personal bodyguard and the representative of terrorist Ali Taziev («Magas».). 

The level of an event held in Washington in late June 2013 at one of the oldest and most authoritative «think tanks» in the U.S., the Heritage Foundation, dedicated to the future of the Eurasian Union and «protecting vitally important interests of the U.S. and its allies in this sphere» with the participation of diplomats, scholars and analysts, goes to show that Western strategists are no longer hiding the fact that they are wary of and closely observing events in the former Soviet Union. And they are not idle in doing so, but are actively building their own toolkit for resisting the rebirth and integration of Eurasia.

 

mardi, 08 octobre 2013

Entrevista a Geidar Dzhemal

Ex: http://paginatransversal.wordpress.com & Nakanune.ru

Los ministros de exteriores de Rusia, EE.UU. y Siria están discutiendo la posibilidad de destruir las armas químicas, lo que le quita motivos a los EE.UU. para llevar a cabo el ataque con misiles. El cabeza del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores ruso Serguei Lavrov en cuestión de nada se ha convertido en uno de los políticos más populares e influyentes, después de “haber atrapado” hábilmente a sus colegas estadounidenses en las redes que ellos mismos habían colocado. Sin embargo, ello no significa que el conflicto esté resuelto o próximo a solucionarse. En el mundo quedan bastantes fuerzas influyentes dispuestas a atacar a Siria, pero también la influencia de Rusia, China e Irán se hace cada vez más patente. Sobre quién se opone al ataque exterior, sobre los que se enfrentan a ellos, sobre el papel desempeñado por Serguei Lavrov y John Kerry y la diplomacia secreta, y sobre cómo se va a transformar la región del Próximo Oriente ha hablado con Nakanune.ru el politólogo, filósofo, presidente del Comité Islámico de Rusia Geidar Dzhemal.

Nakanune.ru – En el “Foro de Valdai” uno de los expertos dijo que la cuestión siria es el asunto diplomático más complejo desde los tiempos de la caída del telón de acero. ¿Está de acuerdo con semejante valoración?

Geidar Dzhemal - No es así en absoluto. En los tiempos del “telón de acero”, en mayor o menor medida, existía cierto enfrentamiento entre el campo socialista y el mundo capitalista. Ahora asistimos al simulacro del enfrentamiento y la confabulación real a nivel de la diplomacia secreta, porque la decisión de no atacar a Siria la tomaban a la vez Obama, Putin, Irán y, claro está, también China que está entre los bastidores, que no alza la voz, pero el factor de cuya presencia es muy real en todos los sentidos. Todos los sujetos mencionados estaban interesados en que el ataque no se llevara a cabo. Entre los interesados en que sí se produjera estaban la Unión Europea, la euroburocracia, el Fondo Monetario Internacional y algunos personajes en el escenario del Gran Oriente Próximo, quienes estaban interesados en la derrota de Asad por motivos de prestigio u otros, como es el caso, por ejemplo de Arabia Saudí y de Turquía. Para ellos la derrota o el conflicto con Occidente, con Obama sobre el tema de Siria equivalía a la bajada del rating de su régimen en casa, lo que iba a crearles problemas en política interior. Para Arabia Saudí además es importante el hecho de que no está atada al actual inquilino de la Casa Blanca, sino al segmento radical republicano de la clase política de los EE.UU., que está orientado hacia una política nacional-imperial, del tipo del Imperio Romano. En tal caso Arabia Saudí se convierte en el país clave en la región o conserva este estatus. Esos clientes: la burocracia de la UE, los especuladores del FMI, los sauditas y los turcos se orientaban nítidamente hacia el ataque contra Asad. Además de ellos existen también los círculos que entienden perfectamente que en cuanto a la imagen, la renuncia al ataque significa rebajar el estatus de Occidente como centro de la civilización, como árbitro, como el modelo-matriz global de la civilización contemporánea, es decir que el Occidente deja de ejercer la hegemonía. Pero a Obama esto le trae sin cuidado porque persigue otros objetivos.

Nak – ¿Cuáles?

GD – Obama quiere conservar los EE.UU. como el centro emisor del dólar, que emite la moneda de cambio para la economía mundial, que no tiene alternativas, y así poder conservar el papel de árbitro para los EE.UU. Pero también comprende que el papel de arbitraje de los EE.UU. no puede conservarse ejerciendo el imperialismo romano de tipo arcaico, sino poniendo el sistema mundial del dólar al servicio de la recuperación de la economía real en los Estados Unidos y algunos otros aspectos. Para eso hace falta replegarse de la serie de conflictos iniciados por la administración republicana. Es su objetivo personal, no se trata del superobjetivo de la élite estadounidense que está dividida en varios clanes.

Nak – Con Obama la cosa está clara ¿pero cómo interactúan Irán, Rusia y China?

GD- Estos países forman un bloque unido, dentro del cual, por supuesto, hay diferentes posturas y estatus, pero en este bloque, aunque le sorprenda a la opinión pública, domina la República Popular China. Siguiendo su costumbre, RPCh. actúa desde detrás de los bastidores, como figura en la sombra, que presuntamente se une a las propuestas de Moscú en el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU, pero en realidad el factor principal, que determina la dirección de este bloque es China, al menos para Rusia. Precisamente China posee las palancas de influencia política, conexiones necesarias al sistema mundial, el recurso político-militar y económico, que permite a la actual dirección de Pekín tener una política independiente propia.

Irán es un país totalmente autosuficiente al día de hoy, prácticamente único en el Próximo Oriente que mantiene su seguridad alimentaria, que no pueden romper las sanciones, y que además forma parte de los diez países de mayor potencial militar. Irán prácticamente no tiene análogos, pero el hecho se suele olvidar, lo siguen percibiendo como si fuera un país tercermundista de Oriente Próximo. Irán es una civilización independiente con 2,5 mil años de historia que ejerció su influencia sobre la formación de la conciencia europea, de la civilización europea hace dos mil años, porque las capas culturales iranís formaron al Imperio Romano tardío y ejercieron influencia sobre toda la región mediterránea. La tradición religiosa persa, su tradición preislámica moldeó el rostro de toda la posterior civilización occidental. Irán es un país muy poderoso e influyente, al que no lograrán aislar las sanciones de ningún tipo. Ayer 17 empresas iranís por decisión judicial fueron liberadas de las sanciones en la Unión Europea, antes hubo otros casos similares. De facto, sin airearlo están desmontando las sanciones, teniendo en cuenta que además tenían un carácter en gran medida declarativo, porque incluso en los momentos más duros del aislamiento de Irán y de las presiones externas las empresas estadounidenses seguían sacando petróleo de Irán, sin hablar de China, que seguía comerciando con Irán abiertamente.

Así que no es correcto comparar la situación actual con la de la “cortina de hierro”, hoy todos los enfrentamientos dentro del sistema tienen un carácter simulado y procuran camuflar la confabulación real, la diplomacia secreta, que por supuesto también existía durante el período del enfrentamiento entre los dos campos, pero no hasta ese punto. Entonces este sistema estaba polarizado y era más sólido que ahora. En la actulidad hay más de dos factores, cada uno de los cuales tira para su lado, hoy, como mínimo son tres y, posiblemente, más. Actualmente el sistema es más blando, por eso la necesidad de la diplomacia secreta es mayor, y como bien dijo el ministro de exteriores de Francia Laurent Fabius, hoy no existe ni la unipolaridad, ni la bipolaridad, ni la multipolaridad. Hoy existe la ceropolaridad, lo que significa que ningún país, incluyendo a los EE.UU., Unión Europea y la RPCh. puede ejercer la influencia definitiva sobre el transcurso de los acontecimientos. Ninguno. Lo que significa que ha aumentado la necesidad de la diplomacia secreta, porque en la época bipolar, la URSS y los EE.UU. se turnaban y podían ejercer cada uno por separado su influencia en el curso de los acontecimientos.

Por ejemplo, gracias a la URSS los EE.UU. perdieron la guerra en Vietnam. Gracias a la URSS y la a confabulación de la diplomacia secreta en Francia en 1968 no se hundió el régimen capitalista y los comunistas no llegaron al poder – ese fue el pacto entre Moscú y Washington. Hay bastantes ejemplos así. Pero si en el primer plano está la diplomacia secreta y la confabulación, entonces hablar del triunfo de la así llamada diplomacia “blanca”, es decir de la diplomacia abierta, oficial, es simplemente ridículo. Esto se hace para la opinión pública, para los espectadores, para crear un espacio unívoco, no es más que eso.

Nak – A muchos les había sorprendido que los EE.UU. hicieran caso de la propuesta de Rusia y suspendieran el ataque por aire. Ahora Serguei Lavrov y John Kerry está discutiendo sobre la cuestión de las armas químicas. Algunos expertos aseguran que Lavrov sobre esa ola se ha convertido en un político de nivel mundial. ¿Qué lugar en esta combinación ocupa la cuestión de las armas químicas?

GD – En este caso puede observar cómo un show simulado lleva a las valoraciones exageradas e igualmente simuladas. En primer lugar, la iniciativa sobre las armas químicas, como todos recordarán, se debía a Kerry, quien siguiendo las órdenes de su jefe Obama apareció y anunció que “si fuera posible que Asad renunciara a su arsenal químico, entonces, tal vez, nosotros consideraríamos la posibilidad de no llevar a cabo el ataque, pero Asad no lo hará nunca – es imposible”. Está claro que los políticos de semejante nivel oficial nunca hablan por hablar, no se ponen a divagar sobre lo que podría suceder. Está claro que fue una bola lanzada que había que recoger. En seguida tras esta declaración Lavrov dijo: “le tomamos la palabra a los EE.UU.”. Pero los Estados Unidos no podían dirigirse directamente a Rusia y decir: “Por qué no hacemos una jugada que nos quite la responsabilidad de asestar el ataque, porque había una “línea roja” con respecto a las armas químicas, y nos están empujando fuerzas, atadas a la UE y al FMI, para meternos en este asunto. Vamos a hacer juntos esta jugada”. Entonces ya no sería la diplomacia secreta.

Nak – ¿Y cómo ha trabajado en este caso la diplomacia secreta?

GD – La diplomacia secreta es cuando esta iniciativa de Kerry, expresada en modo conjuntivo con gran dosis de duda, se le pasa a Irán. Irán habla con Asad, después de lo cual se dirige, en secreto, a Rusia, y le propone intervenir con la iniciativa de poner las armas químicas bajo control. Y aunque la primera frase fue vocalizada por Kerry, pero Rusia dice que “le toma la palabra a los EE.UU.”. Son juegos de niños. Por otro lado, está totalmente claro que Irán no podría tomar iniciativa sin los EE.UU., porque cómo iban a saber los iranís que el consentimiento de Asad en entregar las armas químicas realmente suspendería el ataque contra Siria. Para eso hacen falta garantías secretas, pero sólidas. Resulta que Irán mantiene la comunicación directa con los EE.UU. y esas garantías fueron dadas – si las iniciativas son presentadas como la “toma de la palabra”, entonces los EE.UU. tienen la posibilidad de no atacar a Siria. A continuación Irán ya seguro se lo dice a Rusia, Lavrov recibe el encargo, y junto con Kerry los dos toman el pelo a la opinión pública mundial, como dos héroes, dos caballeros, que han salvado el mundo de la guerra, del abismo que se habría abierto de haber sido asestado el ataque con misiles. Está claro que se trata de un show, sin el cual la diplomacia actual no puede funcionar, porque la política actual se ha convertido en puro simulacro, debido a que el 5% del peso pertenece a los diplomáticos “blancos” y el 95% a varios escalones de la trastienda secreta, cuando todas las cuestiones se resuelven entre los bastidores fuera de alcance de la opinión pública. Y, por cierto, la cosa no ha empezado ayer. Y si alguien afirma que no es más que conspirología, entonces, perdonen, pero en 1918 el camarada Lenin hizo público el acuerdo diplomático secreto de la Entente, anterior a la Primera Guerra Mundial. Así que vayan a decir que todo es conspirología y que se lo había inventado.

Nak – ¿La acusación de los Estados Unidos de que estuvimos suministrando armas químicas a Siria de la que durante toda la semana se estuvo defendiendo Serguei Ivanov, también forma parte del espectáculo diplomático?

GD – Todo lo que se hacía entonces era transparente para ambos bandos. En la última etapa los EE.UU. y la URSS formaban un iceberg – si los EE.UU. representaban la cúspide que se elevaba por encima del agua, la parte de abajo era la URSS y viceversa. El sentido de esta metáfora es que todos los asuntos de los EE.UU. tenían una parte subacuática en forma del campo socialista, todos los asuntos de la URSS tenían una parte subacuática representada por los EE.UU. y el “mundo libre”. La CIA y el KGB eran como la cinta de Moebius, también hoy lo conservan, aunque en mucho menor medida, porque el KGB realmente era el protagonista de la guerra invisible, del “frente invisible”, a diferencia del FSB que no tiene semejante nivel. Ambos bandos tenía su red de agentes del mismo valor. Así que todo lo que hacía la CIA era transparente para el KGB y viceversa. Existía la línea telefónica directa – el “teléfono rojo”. Así que todas esas acusaciones son una tontería.

Nak – ¿Y si hablamos del intercambio de artículos de Putin y McCain, qué significado tiene?

GD – El significado de este pique es que Putin abiertamente cuestiona las pretensiones de los EE.UU. al estatus de la autoridad moral mundial, pero la polémica de Obama con Putin es inadmisible, porque Obama se apoya en Putin, quien le entrega el pase. En particular, con el asunto del ataque a Siria Putin le ha proporcionado a Obama la posibilidad de conservar la influencia política, autoridad, estatus y las perspectivas de los demócratas para las elecciones de 2014 al proporcionarle la excusa para no meterse en el conflicto sirio. Por eso Obama no puede mantener semejante polémica con Putin, máxime, cosa muy probable, que en el fondo de su alma está de acuerdo con Putin.

Nak – ¿Por qué lo piensa?

GD – Obama es demócrata-cosmopolita, que ha nacido no se sabe dónde y estudió en un colegio musulmán en Indonesia. Su padre real es un keniata musulmán, y su padrastro con el que vivió en sus años ya más conscientes es un musulmán indonesio. Es un hombre que ha vivido fuera de los Estados Unidos y no es tan idiota como McCain, quien representa el producto completo del sistema aislacionista estadounidense de conciencia y quien, por lo visto, descubrió el extranjero por primera vez al ser enviado al frente en Vietnam. Y dado que Obama no fue formado por la matriz estadounidense, por cierto, de las más precarias del planeta, creo que para sus adentros está plenamente de acuerdo con Putin. Al mismo tiempo, los EE.UU. no podían dejarlo sin respuesta, pero confiaron la respuesta a McCain, un payaso, quien representa el lado republicano del establishment político, pero que incluso en este lado no es tomado en serio. Es una figura odiosa. Es como Zhirinovsky, pero sin reflexión. Zhirinovsky hace el tonto conscientemente, a sabiendas, pero McCain lo hace totalmente en serio, convencido de que es el portavoz de la profunda verdad estadounidense, lo cual lo convierte en todavía más absurdo y cómico. Es decir que McCain es un payaso que no sabe que es un payaso.

Nak – ¿Y le encargan a él la respuesta?

GD – Le encargan la contestación que se convierte así en una payasada, desprovista de toda convicción, de toda fuerza, que deja paso a insultos personales. Putin les dice a los Estados Unidos, “no sois excepcionales, así que quedaros tranquilos, porque no tenéis autoridad moral para ser los árbitros del proceso mundial”. Y McCain le contesta: “y tú eres un cabrón, un tirano”. A lo mejor es un tirano ¿pero acaso es una respuesta? Cualquiera que hay leído la carta y la respuesta pensará “que la peste se lleve a vuestras dos casas”. En cualquier caso es una respuesta de payaso, porque Putin toca los temas fundamentales, hablando de los Estados Unidos en general – él no dice quién es Obama, qué es la constitución norteamericana, en qué cree o no cree Obama y su predecesor. Pero McCain como un clown contesta: “chavales, este tipo os gobierna mal, no cree en vosotros”. Vaya estupidez. Qué más da en lo que cree o no cree Putin. ¿Acaso la situación cambiaría, si apareciera, por ejemplo, Prójorov, quien cree de otra manera? La respuesta por sí misma es propia de un colegial de provincia, desprovisto del pensamiento sistémico y que simplemente se dedica a tirar de los pelos a las niñas durante el recreo o a meterse con alguno más débil del curso inferior. No es la respuesta de un hombre que esté conectado a algún significado, que domine aunque sea en el modelo estadounidense de pensamiento. Fue hecho a propósito. McCain, quien es un don nadie, que representa el bando republicano, hostil a Obama, es llamado a responder a un artículo fundamental que causó una gran conmoción en los Estados Unidos. Es una respuesta asimétrica, pero no a favor de los EE.UU. A lo mejor es una forma de pago a Putin de parte de los Estados Unidos y de Obama – una respuesta tan inadecuada.

Nak – ¿Con la situación creada es posible pronosticar cómo se va a desarrollar la situación en torno a Siria? El ataque fue suspendido, parece que se han puesto de acuerdo sobre las armas químicas ¿pero y después qué?

GD – Es bastante difícil pronosticar. Creo que Asad durará hasta las próximas elecciones. La suspensión del ataque como resultado aumenta poderosamente el peso y la importancia de Irán en Oriente Próximo. Irán se convierte realmente en la superpotencia regional que, siguiendo los canales diplomáticos secretos, es reconocida como tal por los Estados Unidos, que con Obama contribuyeron bastante a su paso al primer plano. En particular, las propias sanciones son un potente medio para fortalecer a Irán: reforzar su estabilidad política interior, solidaridad, preparación defensiva. Las experiencias adversas han demostrado a todo el mundo que Irán es autosuficiente e incluso si se le aísla y se le rodea con alambre de espino o con un muro según el modelo israelí, este muro no va a ayudar, porque en un territorio de 1 millón 600 mil kilómetros cuadrados los recursos agrícolas y demás de Irán son suficientes para mantener a flote a la población de cien millones de personas, aunque incluso no llegan a cien. A lo mejor no estarán prosperando y tendrán que apretarse el cinturón, pero no tendrán especiales problemas. En el mundo hay pocos centros que pueden ser autosuficientes.

Nak – ¿Quién más aparte de Irán?

GD – Los EE.UU. y Canadá podrían subsistir en aislamiento, Unión Europea podría sobrevivir, tiene la posibilidad de mantener a su población a flote. China ha alcanzado este nivel, es exportadora de la producción agrícola. China ha logrado tener la autosuficiencia agrícola y es su principal baza. Todo el siglo XX el imperialismo ha luchado para que ningún pueblo, salvo Occidente poseyera la autosuficiencia agrícola. Allá donde había países del tercer mundo exportadores de alimentos, les llevaban la ayuda humanitaria, gracias a sus presidentes colocados a traición que daban el visto bueno. La ayuda humanitaria, que se repartía allí gratis, acababa con la agricultura como ocurrió, por ejemplo, con Bangladesh. Al país llevaron el arroz en cantidades gigantescas que repartían gratis y así destruyeron a la agricultura. Y si no podían hacerlo de esta manera, entonces establecían tales impuestos para los granjeros, como ocurrió en Egipto con Mubárak, que éstos abandonaban el campo y se iban a subsistir a las ciudades, porque con aquellos impuestos era imposible trabajar – los precios de compra eran ridículos y los impuestos enormes.

Nak – ¿Se trata de una política programada de Occidente?

GD – Era una directriz del FMI. Incluso América Latina tiene problemas con la alimentación. A principios del siglo pasado Argentina era un poderoso país agrícola que suministraba carne al mundo entero. Después aquello fue destruido. Prácticamente todos los países se encuentran sumidos en el caos agrícola y dependen de unos pocos monopolios que controlan el producto agrícola mundial. Más concretamente el mercado del grano está controlado por 5 Compañías Transnacionales, que controlan el 85% del mercado mundial de trigo. Tan solo están China e Irán que pueden subsistir por su cuenta pese a todo, al igual que la Unión Europea, los EE.UU. y Canadá. Rusia se autoabastece tan solo en un 30%. Imagínese que mañana aíslan a Rusia, declaran sanciones contra ella la colocan bajo boicot. Ello significaría que el 70% de la población se iba a quedar sin alimentos. La gente tendría que abandonar las ciudades y lanzarse al campo para conseguir allí patatas, raíces, zanahorias o lo que sea. Se trata simplemente del colapso agrícola que siempre lleva a la destrucción de la vertical del poder etc., porque cuando no hay nada que comer comienza el caos. Por algún motivo nadie habla de ello. Todo el mundo habla del dinero, del petróleo, de la industria ligera y pesada, pero nadie dice que la seguridad alimentaria es el tema Nº1. Y en Irán está asegurada, por eso el desenlace de la situación en Siria lleva a que, tras unos años de pruebas muy duras Irán expulsará a Arabia Saudí, Turquía y Egipto del podio, sobre el que habían permanecido como los líderes de la región y países Nº1.

Nak – ¿O sea que en la región va a haber una seria transformación?

GD - Queda claro que Egipto ahora no está en ninguna parte ni en el sentido moral, ni político, ni económico. La autoridad de Arabia Saudí disminuye notablemente a raíz de cómo ha terminado el asunto con el ataque contra Siria. Se sabe que el ministro de seguridad de Arabia Saudí Bandar bin Sultán, estrechamente vinculado a la CIA y miembro del clan más influyente dentro de la dinastía saudita, quien hace poco estuvo visitando a Putin para convencerlo sobre Siria – está rabioso, histérico, al ver los resultados a los que ha llevado el espectáculo puesto en escena por Kerry y Lavrov, por Obama y Putin, con el esencial papel de intermediario desempeñado por Irán. Las campanas doblan por Arabia Saudí y su papel en la región. Irán se convierte en el país Nº1 y a continuación crece la inestabilidad alrededor de Irán y de sus fronteras porque hay en marcha la movilización de los sunitas radicales contra este país chiita. En realidad este es el esquema previsto desde el principio. Mientras tanto en el mundo la crisis prosigue su marcha, el mundo se desliza hacia la gran guerra con esta configuración. Ha sido asestado un golpe al FMI, ha sido asestado un golpe contra el predominio mundial del capital bancario especulativo en su conjunto. De momento está ganando Obama con su máquina impresora de dólares y la RPCh. con su 30% de las reservas mundiales de oro almacenadas. Lógicamente, el conflicto entre ellos también es inevitable, porque el dólar por un lado y el oro, por el otro, son como dos osos metidos en la misma guarida.

22/09/2013

(Traducido del ruso para por Arturo Marián Llanos)

Fuente: Nakanune.ru

mercredi, 18 septembre 2013

Il Processo Ergenekon: Un’analisi giuridica e politica in ordine cronologico

ergenekon-trial.jpg

Il Processo Ergenekon: Un’analisi giuridica e politica in ordine cronologico

Aytekin Kaan Kurtul

Ex: http://www.statopotenza.eu

Il 5 agosto ha avuto luogo l’ultima udienza del processo Ergenekon che si trattava della “formazione di un’organizzazione terrorista” che “ha tentato ad organizzare un colpo di stato contro il Governo attuale (Erdoğan)”. L’inchiesta era stata iniziata nel 2007, con la “scoperta” delle armi “segrete” e dei “diari del golpe” dalla polizia, i quali erano stati “forniti” nel dipartimento della polizia secondo i video fatti da parte della polizia (gia’ qui si capisce come si e’ svolto il processo) .


Dopo il consolidamento del potere della “nuova oligarchia islamica” (ovvero dopo le elezioni generali e l’elezione presidenziale del 2007, con le quali il partito di Erdoğan ha praticamente “nominato” il Presidente)  il processo e’ stato portato davanti alla Corte dove sono state scritte le accuse. I soggetti in questione venivano accusati di far parte di un’organizzazione terrorista, chiamata Ergenekon, che mirava ad organizzare un colpe di stato contro il Governo Erdoğan. Anche se le accuse venivano considerate dentro il quadro di un tentato colpo di stato, i primi ad essere arrestati erano civili. Il piu’ noto di questi, Ergun Poyraz, era un ricercatore e uno scrittore indipendente che aveva scritto libri sulle relazioni “intime” tra le sette mafiose in Turchia (come la setta Gülen) , “gli stati religiosi” (il Vaticano e l’Israele) e i capitalisti finanziari d’Occidente. Il libro che veniva considerato come “una prova di delitto” s’intitolava “Erdoğan e Gül: I Figli d’Israele“, tanto per mostrare la liberta’ di espressione in Turchia.


Un altro personaggio noto tra i primi ad essere arrestati era l’imprenditore Kuddusi Okkır. Egli era il fondatore di un’impresa di informatica che cercava di sviluppare tecnologie nazionali per non dipendere totalmente dal rete statiunitense. Okkır e’ stato arrestato il 20 giugno 2007 ed e’ morto in carcere (presumabilmente a causa della tortura) prima della prima udienza del processo Ergenekon, nella data del 6 giugno 2008. Il 22 gennaio 2008, e’ stata iniziata la seconda onda di arresti. Questa volta i bersagli erano prevalentemente militari, con alcune eccezioni. Due di queste erano l’avvocato Kemal Kerinçsiz e la portavoce della Chiesa Ortodossa Turca, Sevgi Erenerol. Kemal Kerinçsiz era noto per aver impugnato scrittori liberali come Orhan Pamuk per “aver incitato odio razziale, aver insultato la nazione turca e aver incitato una guerra contro i confinanti della Repubblica” (artt. 301, 304 del Codice Penale). Sevgi Erenerol, invece, era una sacerdotessa cristiana e una scrittrice nota per le sue idee patriottiche.


Il 21 marzo 2008 era la data dell’inizio della onda piu’ grande. Personaggi noti dell’opposizione legale in Turchia come il Presidente del Partito dei Lavoratori (noto per essere uno dei primi due partiti comunisti a difendere il socialismo eurasiatista), il Dottor Doğu Perinçek; il giornalista socialista noto per essere torturato durante il regime della giunta del ’71, İlhan Selçuk; il Vice Presidente del Partito dei Lavoratori, Ferit İlsever; il Vice Presidente del Partito dei Lavoratori, Nusret Senem; il fondatore della Fondazione del Pensiero Kemalista, Şener Eruygur; l’ex generale e personaggio kemalista Hurşit Tolon; giornalista socialdemocratico e deputato del Partito Repubblicano del Popolo, Mustafa Balbay; il tenente noto per aver provato ad arrestare i soldati statiunitensi ad İncirlik, Hasan Atilla Uğur e l’accademico Erol Mütercimler sono stati detenuti dalla polizia e la maggior parte e’ stata arrestata.
L’1 luglio 2008 ha testimoniato l’espansione dell’onda precedente ed e’ stato arrestato il Presidente Fondatore dell’Unione Giovanile di Turchia (l’Unione della Gioventu’ di Turchia), Adnan Türkkan. L’Unione Giovanile di Turchia (l’Unione della Gioventu’ di Turchia) e’ stata definita come “l’ala giovanile dell’organizzazione terrorista Ergenekon” dalla stampa liberale (conosciuta come “la stampa dei pinguini” dopo la Sollevazione di Giugno), anche se non era definita cosi neanche nelle accuse. L’arresto e’ stato seguito da repressioni nelle universita’ e tanti studenti hanno dovuto lottare per praticare il loro diritto allo studio.

La prima udienza e lo “schema” dell’organizzazione


La prima udienza ha avuto luogo nel comune di Silivri nella provincia di İstanbul (il quale e’ abbastanza lontano dal centro) il 20 ottobre 2008 ed e’ stato dichiarato lo “schema” dell’organizzazione. Secondo lo “schema”, non c’era una gerarchia o qualsiasi struttura organizzativa – c’era solo un “gruppo” di leader composto prevalentemente da militari. Tra questi leader, c’erano due personaggi noti: il Generale Martire Eşref Bitlis e l’ex generale Hurşit Tolon.


Il Generale Martire Eşref Bitlis era stato assassinato misteriosamente il 17 febbraio 1993. Egli era noto per aver promosso il dialogo con i contadini curdi per risolvere la questione curda. Il 7 febbraio 1993, il Generale Bitlis aveva dichiarato che “gli aerei statunitensi che partono da İncirlik portano armi e forniture ai terroristi del PKK nell’Iraq settentrionale e gli israeliani gli offrono informazioni vitali riguardo le nostre posizioni nella regione“. Era stato assassinato 10 giorni dopo.


L’ex generale Hurşit Tolon, invece, era uno dei primi militari a dichiarare il fatto che “far parte della NATO e’ una minaccia per l’esistenza della Repubblica“. Egli aveva promosso un’alleanza con “l’altro polo che sta crescendo, cioe’ quello guidato oggi dalla Cina, dalla Russia, dall’India e dall’Iran. In questo quadro l’Iran e’ il nostro alleato naturale per il fatto che abbiamo legami sociali e nemici in comune – a prescindere dalle nostre differenze ideologiche“.


Gli avvocati dei prigionieri hanno obiettato l’intero processo citando la mancanza delle prove concrete, l’illegalita’ dell’invasione della sfera privata durante l’inchiesta e il fatto che il Generale Bitlis era gia’ morto nel 1993 e quindi non era fisicamente capace di fare un colpo di stato nel 2008. Le loro obiezioni non sono state prese in considerazione.

L’aggiunta dell’attacco al Consiglio di Stato e il salafita Osman Yıldırım


Il 3 agosto 2009, il caso che riguarda l’attacco al Consiglio di Stato perpetuato da un salafita che si chiama Osman Yıldırım e’ stato aggiunto al caso Ergenekon, rendendo la cosidetta “organizzazione terrorista” in questione “un’organizzazione terrorista attiva”. Osman Yıldırım era stato condannato precedentemente per “aver commesso matricidio” e “aver venduto la propria nipote” (artt. 81, 227 del Codice Penale). Nelle prime udienze nel processo riguardo all’attaco al Consiglio di Stato, egli aveva affermato che mirava a “distruggere il regime laico infedele e costruire il Sacro Califfato. Io sono un cittadino dello Stato Islamico dell’Asia Minore  e un nemico del bastardo europeo che ha fondato il regime“, riferendosi al fondatore della Repubblica, il comandante antimperialista Mustafa Kemal Atatürk che era nato a Salonica. Per di piu’ ha ammesso che egli aveva perpetuato l’attacco. Nonostante il fatto che egli ha commesso i crimini “mirando a distruggere l’ordine repubblicano e l’unione nazionale” ed “essersi opposto all’ordine costituzionale” (artt. 302, 309 del Codice Penale), e’ stato rilasciato dopo l’ultima udienza (per aver collaborato con la corte) mentre decine di giornalisti, accademici e politici e anche l’ex Comandante in Capo delle Forze Armate Turche con il quale lo stesso Governo Erdoğan aveva collaborato sono stati simbolicamente condannati all’ergastolo.

La durata della reclusione e le sentenze della Corte Costituzionale e della CEDU


La maggior parte dei prigionieri e’ stata in carcere per piu’ di cinque anni senza una sentenza definitiva, una situazione che era stata legittimizzata con l’ultima riforma del Codice di Procedura Penale che aveva prolungato la durata massima di reclusione a 10 anni. La riforma, comunque, e’ stata dichiarata incostituzionale da parte della Corte Costituzionale con la sentenza 07/2013 pubblicata il 2 agosto 2013 sulla Gazzetta Ufficiale. Secondo la Corte, siccome la norma presente e’ stata annullata, dovrebbe essere applicata la norma precedente che aveva fissato la durata massima a 5 anni.


La sentenza e’ stata emessa parzialmente in conformita’ con le ultime sentenze della CEDU riguardo alla massima durata di reclusione. La CEDU, infatti, nella sentenza Vaccaro v. la Repubblica Italiana, aveva deciso che sei anni di reclusione era inaccettabile in un caso piu’ “leggero” rispetto al processo Ergenekon. Nonostante le sentenze della CEDU (le cui massime dovrebbero essere applicate nelle corte nazionali siccome la Turchia e’ una firmataria della Convenzione) e l’ultima sentenza della Corte Costituzionale della Repubblica di Turchia, la corte penale ha deciso di non rilasciare i prigionieri mentre uno che doveva essere condannato all’ergastolo secondo il Codice Penale vigente e’ stato rilasciato.

Una sintesi


Come avete visto, il processo Ergenekon e’ stato un processo illegale, incostituzionale e disumano sia nel senso giuridico che nel senso morale. L’Associazione degli Avvocati ha dichiarato che essa non riconosce le sentenze e giornalisti comunisti come Jürgen Elsasser e partiti comunisti come il Partito Comunista della Federazione Russa hanno espresso solidarieta’ ai prigioneri politici in Turchia. Gli antimperialisti nel mondo hanno visto che personaggi come l’ex Comandante in Capo delle Forze Armate Turche sono stati arrestati “simbolicamente”, ovvero per rendere piu’ “credibile” il processo che era totalmente politico e mirava a reprimere l’opposizione legale in Turchia. E ultimamente il Primo Ministro Erdoğan ha affermato che “non riconoscere le sentenze Ergenekon e’ un delitto“. Le sue parole contraddicono le norme del Codice Penale ma se esse valgono piu’ del diritto nazionale e della Costituzione, possiamo parlare di uno stato di diritto?
Scusate la mia liberta’ di espressione.

Le sentenze


Adnan Türkkan, membro fondatore dell’Unione Giovanile di Turchia (l’Unione della Gioventu’ di Turchia): 10 anni e 6 mesi in carcere
Tunç Akkoç, membro fondatore dell’Unione Giovanile di Turchia (l’Unione della Gioventu’ di Turchia), membro del Comitato Centrale del Partito dei Lavoratori: 11 anni in carcere
Doğu Perinçek, Presidente del Partito dei Lavoratori: Ergastolo + 117 anni in carcere
Ferit İlsever, Vice Presidente del Partito dei Lavoratori: 15 anni in carcere
Nusret Senem, Vice Presidente del Partito dei Lavoratori: 20 anni, 3 mesi in carcere
Mehmet Bedri Gültekin, Vice Presidente del Partito dei Lavoratori: 10 anni, 6 mesi in carcere
Zafer Şen, membro del Comitato Centrale del Partito dei Lavoratori: 8 anni, 9 mesi in carcere
Erkan Önsel, membro del Comitato Centrale del Partito dei Lavoratori: 9 anni in carcere
Mustafa Balbay, Deputato del Partito Repubblicano del Popolo: 34 anni e 8 mesi in carcere
Tuncay Özkan, giornalista socialdemocratico: Ergastolo aggravato
Yalçın Küçük, accademico marxista: Ergastolo aggravato
İlker Başbuğ, Ex Comandante in Capo delle Forze Armate Turche: Due ergastoli aggravati seguenti + 4 anni, 2 mesi in carcere
Hikmet Çiçek, giornalista comunista: 21 anni in carcere
Sevgi Erenerol, Portavoce della Chiesa Ortodossa Turca: Ergastolo
Şener Eruygur, Fondatore della Fondazione del Pensiero Kemalista: Ergastolo
Tenente Hasan Atilla Uğur: 29 anni, 3 mesi in carcere
Dursun Çiçek, ammiraglio: Ergastolo aggravato
Mustafa Özbek, Presidente del Sindacato Türk-Metal: Ergastolo
Deniz Yıldırım, ex direttore editoriale del quotidiano comunista Aydınlık: 16 anni, 10 mesi in carcere
Hurşit Tolon, ex generale: Ergastolo aggravato
Kemal Kerinçsiz, avvocato: Ergastolo aggravato
Emcet Olcaytu, avvocato: 13 anni, 2 mesi in carcere
Adnan Akfırat, giornalista: 19 anni in carcere
Ünal İnanç, giornalista: 19 anni in carcere
Ergün Poyraz, scrittore: 29 anni, 4 mesi in carcere
Vedat Yenerer, giornalista: 7 anni, 6 mesi in carcere
Kemal Alemdaroğlu, accademico: 15 anni, 8 mesi in carcere
Mehmet Perinçek, accademico, figlio di Doğu Perinçek: 6 anni e 3 mesi in carcere
Ferit Bernay, accademico: 10 anni in carcere
Mustafa Yurtkuran, accademico: 10 anni in carcere
Aydın Gergin, membro del Partito dei Lavoratori: 8 anni in carcere
Tenente Fikri Karadağ: Ergastolo aggravato
İsmail Hakkı Pekin, ex generale: 7 anni, 6 mesi in carcere
Özlem Konur Usta, editore del quotidiano comunista Aydınlık: 6 anni, 3 mesi in carcere
Mehmet Bozkurt, editore del quotidiano comunista Aydınlık: 9 anni, 3 mesi in carcere
Turan Özlü, fondatore del canale televisivo Ulusal: 9 anni in carcere
Sinan Aygün, Deputato del Partito Repubblicano del Popolo: 13 anni, 6 mesi in carcere
Tenente Fuat Selvi: Ergastolo
Fatih Hilmioğlu, accademico: 23 anni in carcere
Serdar Öztürk, veterano di guerra: 25 anni, 6 mesi di carcere
Mahir Çayan Güngör, corrispondente del canale televisivo Ulusal: 6 anni, 3 mesi in carcere
Kemal Yavuz, ex generale: 7 anni, 6 mesi in carcere

mardi, 17 septembre 2013

LA GEOPOLITICA DELLE LINGUE

langues-monde.jpg

Claudio MUTTI

LA GEOPOLITICA DELLE LINGUE

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

Sommario del numero XXXI (3-2013 [1])
 

“In queste condizioni, vi possono essere soltanto

lingue vincitrici e lingue vinte”

(J. V. Stalin, Al compagno Kholopov, 28 luglio 1950)

Lingua e Impero

Se il termine geolinguistica non fosse già utilizzato dai glottologi per significare la geografia linguistica o linguistica areale, ossia lo studio della diffusione geografica dei fenomeni linguistici, lo si potrebbe impiegare per indicare la geopolitica delle lingue, cioè il ruolo del fattore linguistico nel rapporto tra lo spazio fisico e lo spazio politico. A suggerire questa possibilità non è solo l’esistenza di analoghi composti nominali, come geostoria, geofilosofia, geoeconomia, ma anche la relazione della geopolitica delle lingue con una disciplina designata da uno di tali termini: la geostrategia.

La lengua es compañera del imperio“: il nesso tra egemonia linguistica ed egemonia politico-militare, così icasticamente rappresentato dal grammatico e lessicografo Elio Antonio de Nebrija (1441-1522), sottende la definizione che il Maresciallo di Francia Louis Lyautey (1854-1934) diede della lingua: “un dialetto che ha un esercito e una marina”. Al medesimo ordine di idee si ispira il generale Jordis von Lohausen (1907-2002), allorché prescrive che “la politica linguistica venga messa sullo stesso piano della politica militare” ed afferma che “i libri in lingua originale svolgono all’estero un ruolo talvolta più importante di quello dei cannoni”1. Secondo il geopolitico austriaco, infatti, “la diffusione d’una lingua è più importante d’ogni altra espansione, poiché la spada può solo delimitare il territorio e l’economia sfruttarlo, ma la lingua conserva e riempie il territorio conquistato”2. È questo, d’altronde, il senso della celebre frase di Anton Zischka (1904-1997): “Preferiamo i professori di lingue ai militari”.

L’affermazione del generale von Lohausen potrebbe essere illustrata da una vasta gamma di esempi storici, a partire dal caso dell’Impero romano, che tra i suoi fattori di potenza ebbe la diffusione del latino: una parlata contadina che con lo sviluppo politico di Roma diventò, in concorrenza col greco, la seconda lingua del mondo antico, usata dai popoli dell’Impero non perché costretti, ma perché indotti a ciò dal prestigio di Roma. Da principio il latino servì alle popolazioni assoggettate per comunicare coi soldati, i funzionari e i coloni; in seguito diventò il segno distintivo della comunità romana.

Tuttavia allo spazio imperiale romano, che per mezzo millennio costituì un’unica patria per le diversae gentes comprese tra l’Atlantico e la Mesopotamia e la Britannia e la Libia, non corrispose un’unica lingua: il processo di latinizzazione fu più lento e difficile quando i Romani si trovarono a contatto coi territori in cui si parlava la lingua greca, espressione e veicolo di una cultura che godeva, negli ambienti della stessa élite romana, di un prestigio superiore. Quello romano fu dunque in sostanza un impero bilingue: il latino e il greco, in quanto lingue della politica, della legge e dell’esercito, oltre che delle lettere, della filosofia e delle religioni, svolgevano una funzione sovranazionale, alla quale gli idiomi locali dell’ecumene imperiale non potevano adempiere.

Sicuramente è pressoché impossibile separare con una netta linea di confine il dominio del latino e quello del greco all’interno dell’Impero romano; nondimeno possiamo affermare che la divisione dell’Impero in due parti e la successiva scissione avvennero lungo una linea di demarcazione coincidente grosso modo col confine linguistico, che tagliava a metà sia i territori europei sia quelli nordafricani. In Libia, è proprio lungo questa linea che si è recentemente prodotta la frattura che ha separato di nuovo la Tripolitania dalla Cirenaica.

In seguito la carta linguistica dell’Europa ci presenta una situazione che Dante descrive identificando tre distinte aree: quella del mondo germanico, in cui fa rientrare anche Slavi e Ungheresi, quella di lingua greca, quella degl’idiomi neolatini3; all’interno di quest’ultima egli può ulteriormente distinguere le tre unità particolari di provenzale (lingua d’oc), francese (lingua d’oil) e italiano (lingua del ). Ma Dante è ben lungi dall’usare l’argomento della frammentazione linguistica per sostenere la frammentazione politica; anzi, egli è convinto che solo la restaurazione dell’unità imperiale potrebbe far sì che l’Italia, “il bel paese là dove il sì suona”4, torni ad essere “il giardin dello ‘mperio”5. E l’impero ha la sua lingua, il latino, poiché, come dice lo stesso Dante, “lo latino è perpetuo e non corruttibile, e lo volgare è non stabile e corruttibile”6.

In un’Europa linguisticamente frammentata, che il Sacro Romano Impero vorrebbe ricostituire in unità politica, una potente funzione unitaria è svolta proprio dal latino: non tanto dal sermo vulgaris, quanto dalla lingua di cultura della res publica clericorum. Questo “latino scolastico”, se vogliamo indicarne la dimensione geopolitica, “è stato il portatore per tutta l’Europa, ed anche fuori, della civiltà latina e cristiana: confermandola, come nelle Spagne, nell’Africa (…), nelle Gallie; o acquisendo ad essa zone nuove o appena sfiorate dalla civiltà romana: la Germania, l’Inghilterra, l’Irlanda, per non parlare poi anche di paesi nordici e slavi”7.

Le grandi aree linguistiche

Fra tutti gl’idiomi neolatini, l’espansione maggiore è stata raggiunta dalla lengua castellana. In seguito alla bolla di Alessandro VI, che nel 1493 divise il nuovo mondo tra Spagnoli e Portoghesi, il castigliano si impose nelle colonie appartenute alla Spagna, dal Messico fino alla Terra del Fuoco; ma anche dopo l’emancipazione i singoli Stati sorti sulle rovine dell’Impero delle Americhe mantennero il castigliano come lingua nazionale, ragion per cui l’America latina possiede una relativa unità culturale e il dominio linguistico spagnolo si estende anche ad una parte del territorio statunitense.

Per quanto riguarda il dominio dell’altra lingua iberica, a testimoniare l’estensione dell’area coloniale che in altri tempi appartenne al Portogallo basterebbe il fatto che l’idioma di Camões è “la lingua romanza che ha dato origine al maggior numero di varietà creole, per quanto alcune siano estinte o in via di estinzione”8: da Goa a Ceylon, a Macao, a Giava, alla Malacca, a Capo Verde, alla Guinea. Tra gli Stati che hanno raccolto l’eredità lusofona, si impone oggi il Paese emergente rappresentato dall’iniziale dell’acronimo BRICS: il Brasile, coi suoi duecento milioni di abitanti, a fronte dei dieci milioni e mezzo che vivono nell’antica madrepatria europea.

L’espansione extraeuropea del francese come lingua nazionale, invece, è stata inferiore a quella che esso ha avuto come lingua di cultura e di comunicazione. Infatti, se il francese è la quinta lingua più parlata nel mondo per numero di locutori (circa duecentocinquanta milioni) ed è la seconda più insegnata come lingua straniera, si trova invece al nono posto per numero di madrelingua (circa settanta milioni; circa centotrenta se si aggiungono anche gl’individui bilingui). In ogni caso, è l’unica lingua a trovarsi diffusa, come lingua ufficiale, in tutti i continenti: è lingua di scambio in Africa, il continente che annovera il maggior numero di entità statali (più d’una ventina) in cui il francese è lingua ufficiale; è la terza lingua nell’America del Nord; è usata anche nell’Oceano Indiano e nel Pacifico meridionale. Gli Stati e i governi che a vario titolo hanno in comune l’uso del francese sono raggruppati nell’Organizzazione Internazionale della Francofonia (OIF), fondata il 20 marzo 1970 con la Convenzione di Niamey.

Eminentemente eurasiatica è l’area d’espansione del russo, lingua comune e ufficiale di uno Stato multinazionale che, pur nel succedersi di fasi storiche e politiche che ne hanno cambiato la dimensione territoriale, rimane il più esteso sulla faccia della terra. Se nel periodo sovietico il russo poteva essere glorificato come “lo strumento della civiltà più avanzata, della civiltà socialista, della scienza progressista, la lingua della pace e del progresso (…) lingua grande, ricca e potente (…) strumento della civiltà più avanzata del mondo”9 e in quanto tale reso obbligatorio nell’insegnamento dei paesi dell’Europa orientale, dopo il 1991 esso gode di un diverso statuto in ciascuno degli Stati successori dell’Unione Sovietica. Nella Federazione Russa, la Costituzione del 1992 sancisce il diritto di ogni cittadino alla propria appartenenza nazionale ed all’uso della lingua corrispondente ed inoltre garantisce a ciascuna Repubblica la facoltà di avvalersi, accanto alla lingua ufficiale russa, delle lingue delle nazionalità che la costituiscono.

Se il russo è al primo posto per l’estensione del territorio dello Stato del quale esso è lingua ufficiale, il cinese detiene la preminenza per il numero dei parlanti. Usato attualmente da circa un miliardo e trecento milioni di persone, il cinese si presenta fin dall’antichità come un insieme di varianti che rendono alquanto problematica l’applicazione del termine dialetto; fra tutte primeggia il mandarino, un gruppo grande e variegato che a sua volta si distingue in mandarino del Nord, dell’Ovest e del Sud. Il mandarino del Nord, che ha il suo centro a Pechino, è stato preso a modello per la lingua ufficiale (tōnghuà, letteralmente “lingua comune”), parlata come lingua madre da più di ottocento milioni di persone. Ufficialmente la popolazione della Repubblica Popolare Cinese, che nella sua Costituzione si definisce “Stato plurinazionale unitario”, consta di cinquantasei nazionalità (minzu), ciascuna delle quali usa la propria lingua; fra queste, la più numerosa è quella han (92% della popolazione), mentre le altre cinquantacinque, che costituiscono il restante 8%, “parlano almeno sessantaquattro lingue, di cui ventisei hanno una forma scritta e sono insegnate nelle scuole elementari”10.

L’hindi e l’urdu, che possono essere considerati continuazioni del sanscrito, sono le lingue predominanti nel subcontinente indiano, dove dieci Stati dell’Unione Indiana costituiscono la cosiddetta “cintura hindi” e dove l’urdu è lingua ufficiale del Pakistan. La differenza più evidente tra queste due lingue consiste nel fatto che la prima si serve della scrittura devanagari, mentre la seconda fa uso dell’alfabeto arabo; sul piano lessicale, l’hindi ha recuperato una certa quantità di elementi sanscriti, mentre l’urdu ha incorporato molti termini persiani. Per quando riguarda in particolare l’hindi, si potrebbe dire che esso ha svolto nel subcontinente indiano una funzione analoga a quella del mandarino in Cina, poiché, formatosi sulla base di un dialetto parlato nelle vicinanze di Delhi (il khari boli), insieme con l’inglese è diventato, fra le ventidue lingue citate nella Costituzione indiana, la lingua ufficiale dell’Unione.  

L’arabo, veicolo della rivelazione coranica, con l’espansione dell’Islam si è diffuso ben al di fuori dei suoi confini originari: dall’Arabia al Nordafrica, dalla Mesopotamia alla Spagna. Caratterizzato da una notevole ricchezza di forme grammaticali e da finezze di rapporti sintattici, incline ad arricchire il proprio lessico attingendo vocaboli da dialetti e da lingue straniere, l’arabo prestò il proprio sistema alfabetico a lingue appartenenti ad altre famiglie, quali il persiano, il turco, l’urdu; codificato dai grammatici e divenuto lingua dotta del dâr al-islâm, si sostituì al siriaco, al copto, ai dialetti berberi; arricchì con numerosi prestiti il persiano, il turco, le lingue indiane, il malese, le lingue iberiche; come strumento di filosofia e di scienza, influenzò le lingue europee quando i califfati di Bagdad e di Cordova costituivano i maggiori centri di cultura ai quali poteva attingere l’Europa cristiana. Oggi l’arabo è in diversa misura conosciuto, studiato ed usato, in quanto lingua sacra e di pratica rituale, nell’ambito di una comunità che oltrepassa il miliardo di anime. Come lingua madre, esso appartiene a circa duecentocinquanta milioni di individui, stanziati su un’area politicamente frazionata che dal Marocco e dalla Mauritania si estende fino al Sudan ed alla Penisola araba. A tale denominatore linguistico si sono richiamati i progetti di unità della nazione araba formulati nel secolo scorso: “Arabo è colui la cui lingua è l’arabo”11 si legge ad esempio nello statuto del Baath.  

La lingua dell’imperialismo statunitense

In tutta la prima metà del Novecento, la lingua straniera più conosciuta nell’Europa continentale era il francese. Per quanto riguarda in particolare l’Italia, “solo nel 1918 vennero istituite cattedre universitarie di inglese ed alla stessa data risale la fondazione dell’Istituto britannico di Firenze, che, con la sua biblioteca e i suoi corsi linguistici, divenne ben presto il centro più importante di diffusione appunto della lingua inglese a livello universitario”12. Alla Conferenza di pace dell’anno successivo gli Stati Uniti, che si erano ormai introdotti nello spazio europeo, imposero per la prima volta l’inglese – accanto al francese – quale lingua diplomatica. Ma a determinare il decisivo sorpasso del francese da parte dell’inglese fu l’esito della seconda guerra mondiale, che comportò la penetrazione della “cultura” angloamericana in tutta l’Europa occidentale. Dell’importanza rivestita dal fattore linguistico in una strategia di dominio politico non era d’altronde inconsapevole lo stesso Sir Winston Churchill, che il 6 settembre 1943 dichiarò esplicitamente: “Il potere di dominare la lingua di un popolo offre guadagni di gran lunga superiori che non togliergli province e territori o schiacciarlo con lo sfruttamento. Gl’imperi del futuro sono quelli della mente”. Con la caduta dell’Unione Sovietica, nell’Europa centro-orientale “liberata” l’inglese non solo ha scalzato il russo, ma ha anche soppiantato in larga misura il tedesco, il francese e l’italiano, che prima vi avevano un’ampia circolazione. D’altronde, l’egemonia dell’inglese nella comunicazione internazionale si è ulteriormente consolidata nella fase più intensa della globalizzazione.

Così i teorici angloamericani del mondo globalizzato hanno potuto elaborare, basandosi sul peso geopolitico esercitato dalla lingua inglese, il concetto di “Anglosfera”, definito dal giornalista Andrew Sullivan come “l’idea di un gruppo di paesi in espansione che condividono principi fondamentali: l’individualismo, la supremazia della legge, il rispetto dei contratti e degli accordi e il riconoscimento della libertà come valore politico e culturale primario”13. Pare che ad introdurre il termine “Anglosfera” sia stato nel 2000 uno scrittore americano, James C. Bennett; a suo parere “i paesi di lingua inglese guideranno il mondo nel XXI secolo” (Why the English-Speaking Nations Will Lead the Way in the Twenty-First Century è il sottotitolo del suo libro The Anglosphere Challenge), poiché l’attuale sistema degli Stati è condannato a crollare sotto i colpi del cyberspazio anglofono e dell’ideologia liberale. Lo storico Andrew Roberts, continuatore dell’opera storiografica di Churchill con A History of the English Speaking Peoples since 1900, sostiene che il predominio dell’Anglosfera è dovuto alla lotta dei paesi anglofoni contro le epifanie del Fascismo (ossia – sic – “la Germania guglielmina, il nazismo, il comunismo e l’islamismo”), in difesa delle istituzioni rappresentative e del libero mercato.

Meno ideologica la tesi dello storico John Laughland, secondo il quale “l’importanza geopolitica della lingua inglese è (…) rilevante solo in funzione della potenza geopolitica dei paesi anglofoni. Potrebbe essere uno strumento da questi usato per rafforzare la loro influenza, ma non è una fonte indipendente di quest’ultima, perlomeno non della potenza militare”14. La lingua, conclude Laughland, può rispecchiare la potenza politica, ma non la può creare.

In questo caso la verità sta nel mezzo. È vero che l’importanza di una lingua dipende – spesso ma non sempre – dalla potenza politica, militare ed economica del paese che la parla; è vero che sono le sconfitte geopolitiche a comportare quelle linguistiche; è vero che “l’inglese avanza a detrimento del francese perché gli Stati Uniti attualmente restano più potenti di quanto non lo siano i paesi europei, i quali accettano che sia consacrata come lingua internazionale una lingua che non appartiene a nessun paese dell’Europa continentale”15. Tuttavia esiste anche una verità complementare: la diffusione internazionale di una lingua, contribuendo ad aumentare il prestigio del paese corrispondente, ne aumenta l’influenza culturale ed eventualmente quella politica (un concetto, questo, che pochi riescono ad esprimere senza fare ricorso all’anglicismo soft power); a maggior ragione, il predominio di una lingua nella comunicazione internazionale conferisce un potere egemone al più potente fra i paesi che la parlano come lingua madre.

Per quanto concerne l’attuale diffusione dell’inglese, “lingua della rete, della diplomazia, della guerra, delle transazioni finanziarie e dell’innovazione tecnologica, non vi è dubbio: questo stato di cose regala ai popoli di lingua inglese un incomparabile vantaggio e a tutti gli altri un considerevole svantaggio”16. Come spiega meno diplomaticamente il generale von Lohausen, il vantaggio che gli Stati Uniti hanno ricavato dall’anglofonia “è stato uguale per i loro commercianti e per i loro tecnici, per i loro scienziati e i loro scrittori, i loro uomini politici e i loro diplomatici. Più l’inglese è parlato nel mondo, più l’America può avvantaggiarsi della forza creativa straniera, attirando a sé, senza incontrare ostacoli, le idee, gli scritti, le invenzioni altrui. Coloro la cui lingua materna è universale, posseggono un’evidente superiorità. Il finanziamento accordato all’espansione di questa lingua ritorna centuplicato alla sua fonte”17.

langues1.jpg

Quale lingua per l’Europa?

Nei secoli XVI e XVII, dopo che la pace di Cateau Cambrésis (1559) ebbe sancito la dominazione spagnola in Italia, la lingua castigliana, oltre ad essere usata dalle cancellerie di Milano e di Napoli, si diffuse nel mondo della politica e delle lettere. Il numero delle voci italiane (e dialettali) nate in quel periodo per effetto dell’influsso spagnolo è elevatissimo18. Tra tutti questi ispanismi, però, alcuni furono usati solo in maniera occasionale e non si possono considerare come entrati nell’uso generale; altri ebbero vita effimera e scomparvero senza lasciar traccia; solo una minoranza entrò stabilmente a far parte del vocabolario italiano. In seguito alla pace di Utrecht (1713), che segnò la fine dell’egemonia spagnola nella penisola, l’influenza del castigliano sulla lingua italiana “è stata di gran lunga inferiore a quello dei secoli precedenti”19.

È lecito supporre che nemmeno il colonialismo culturale d’espressione angloamericana debba durare per l’eternità; anzi, alcuni linguisti già prevedono che all’odierna fase di predominio anglofono seguirà una fase di decadenza20. Essendo legato all’egemonia imperialistica statunitense, il predominio dell’inglese è destinato a risentire in maniera decisiva della transizione dallo stadio unipolare a quello multipolare, per cui lo scenario che la geopolitica delle lingue può ragionevolmente prefigurare è quello di un mondo articolato secondo il multipolarismo delle aree linguistiche.

Diversamente dal continente americano, che presenta una netta ripartizione tra il blocco anglofono del nord e quello ispanofono e lusofono della parte centrale e meridionale, l’Eurasia è il continente della frammentazione linguistica. Accanto ai grandi spazi rappresentati dalla Russia, dalla Cina o dall’India, relativamente omogenei sotto il profilo linguistico, abbiamo uno spazio europeo caratterizzato da una situazione di accentuato multilinguismo.

Perciò sarebbe stato logico che i fondatori della Comunità Economica Europea, se proprio volevano rifiutare una soluzione monolinguistica, adottassero come lingue ufficiali, tra quelle dei Paesi aderenti, le due o tre più parlate nell’area; magari scegliendo, in previsione dei successivi allargamenti della CEE, una terna di lingue che rappresentassero le tre principali famiglie presenti in Europa: la germanica, la romanza e la slava. Invece l’art. 1 del regolamento emanato nel 1958 indicò ben quattro lingue (francese, italiano, tedesco e olandese) come “lingue ufficiali e lingue di lavoro delle istituzioni della Comunità”, col risultato che le “lingue di lavoro” sono oggi praticamente tre: francese, tedesco e inglese.

Il fallimento dell’Unione Europea impone di sottoporre a radicale revisione il progetto europeista e di rifondare su nuove basi l’edificio politico europeo. La nuova classe politica che sarà chiamata ad affrontare questo compito storico non potrà più eludere un problema fondamentale come quello della lingua.

1. Jordis von Lohausen, Les empires et la puissance, Editions du Labyrinthe, Arpajon 1996, p. 49.

2. Jordis von Lohausen, ibidem.

3. De vulgari eloquentia, VIII, 3-6.

4. Dante, Inf. XXXIII, 80.

5. Dante, Purg. VI, 105.

6. Dante, Convivio, I, 5.

7. Luigi Alfonsi, La letteratura latina medievale, Accademia, Milano 1988, p. 11.

8. Carlo Tagliavini, Le origini delle lingue neolatine, Pàtron, Bologna 1982, p. 202.

9. “Voprosy Filozofij”, 2, 1949, cit. in: Lucien Laurat, Stalin, la linguistica e l’imperialismo russo, Graphos, Genova 1995, p. 52.

10. Roland Breton, Atlante mondiale delle lingue, Vallardi, Milano 2010, p. 34.

11. Michel ‘Aflaq, La resurrezione degli Arabi, Edizioni all’insegna del Veltro, Parma 2011, p. 54.

12. I. Baldelli, in Bruno Migliorini – Ignazio Baldelli, Breve storia della lingua italiana, Sansoni, Firenze 1972, p. 331.

13. Andrew Sullivan, Come on in: The Anglosphere is freedom’s new home, “The Sunday Times”, 2 febbraio 2003.

14. John Laughland, L’Anglosfera non esiste, “I quaderni speciali di Limes”, a. 2, n. 3, p. 178.

15. Alain de Benoist, Non à l’hégémonie de l’anglais d’aéroport!, voxnr.com, 27 maggio 2013.

16. Sergio Romano, Funzione mondiale dell’inglese. Troppo utile per combatterla, “Corriere della Sera”, 28 ottobre 2012.

17. Jordis von Lohausen, ibidem.

18. Gian Luigi Beccaria, Spagnolo e Spagnoli in Italia. Riflessi ispanici sulla lingua italiana del Cinque e del Seicento, Giappichelli, Torino 1968.

19. Paolo Zolli, Le parole straniere, Zanichelli, Bologna 1976, p. 76.

20. Nicholas Ostler, The Last Lingua Franca: English Until the Return of Babel, Allen Lane, London 2010.

 


 

Article printed from eurasia-rivista.org: http://www.eurasia-rivista.org

 

URL to article: http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/la-geopolitica-delle-lingue-2/20017/

mercredi, 04 septembre 2013

Verso l’Eurasia da Dostoevskij a Limonov passando per i Cccp

Verso l’Eurasia da Dostoevskij a Limonov passando per i Cccp

di Luca Negri - Alfonso Piscitelli

Fonte: Barbadillo

limonov.jpgNell’ambito del progetto Eu-Rus vogliamo incontrare intellettuali italiani che si pongono il problema di un nuovo modello di civiltà europea, al di là del vecchio steccato tra Est ed Ovest. Il primo dialogo è con Luca Negri, firma della pagina culturale de Il Giornale, che nel suo ultimo libro (“Il ritorno del Guerin Meschino. Appunti per comprendere il nuovo Medio Evo”, Lindau) si impegna nella ricerca di quel modello. Come se fosse una post-moderna e cosciente “ricerca del Graal”.

Luca, in passato  hai scritto un libro sulla curiosa vicenda di un gruppo musicale filo-sovietico. Cosa ti ha portato a interessarti alla band CCCP?

Ho scritto un libro su Giovanni Lindo Ferretti, cantante, scrittore, leader del  gruppo punk chiamato  CCCP – Fedeli alla linea.

Anche comico “comunista” della banda di Arbore …

No quello era Ferrini.

Ah!

Sono cresciuto con le canzoni di Ferretti ed ho affrontato un percorso simile al suo: dall’estrema sinistra al cristianesimo. La sua parabola ben illustra le interazioni tra le due grandi chiese italiane: quella cattolica e quella comunista.

In effetti anche i Brigatisti Rossi nascevano come chierichetti.

I CCCP erano interessanti perché nei primi anni ’80, quando  tutti si ispiravano agli anglosassoni,  preferirono guardare ad Est: un gruppo di “punk filosovietico”  anche al di là del riferimento alla ideologia. Sentivano molto il fascino dell’Islam, della Cina, della Mongolia.

Cioè erano eurasiatisti  ante litteram?

 Sì. Il retro copertina del loro secondo album mostrava una carta geografica con al centro la Russia, a destra l’Asia e a sinistra l’appendice europea. Aggiungerei che erano affascinati dal mondo sovietico perché vedevano nella monumentalità del realismo socialista una residua traccia del Sacro ormai perso in Occidente.

Di lì a poco il sistema sovietico sarebbe crollato e sarebbe rinata la Russia delle sacre icone ortodosse.

 Quella Russia non era mai morta, perché  i semi gettati dai grandi pensatori russi come Dostoevskij continuavano a mettere radici  sotto la terra e a influenzare la grande cultura europea.

Tu approfondisci questi autori nel tuo libro “Il ritorno del Guerin Meschino. Appunti per comprendere il nuovo medio evo”.  Proprio Dostoevsky è un pensatore che affronta il problema tipicamente europeo del nichilismo. Quali le analogie e le differenze con Nietzsche?

Della questione si  occupò ampiamente Julius Evola.

Certo, in Cavalcare la Tigre.

In effetti, alcuni eroi “negativi” del romanziere russo sembrano anticipare il nichilismo di Nietzsche. I “demoni” o gli  “ossessi” di Dostoevskij  sono, in fondo, individualità con una grossa tensione spirituale, che però si muovono in un mondo in cui Dio è morto, in un’epoca in cui l’antica concezione del Dio posto al di fuori degli uomini e non nell’interiorità, sta tramontando. Ecco perché cercano disperatamente risposte che non arrivano  né dalla storia,  né dalla politica. Sono martiri inconsapevoli di un nuovo cristianesimo a venire. Finiscono tragicamente, come lo stesso pensatore tedesco, perché la loro carica spirituale non riesce a risolvere le contraddizioni. Uniche soluzioni sembrano il suicidio, l’idiozia,il terrorismo, la follia.

Le tendenze più tragiche della modernità sarebbero dunque episodi di un “interregno” tra la vecchia concezione religiosa e una nuova manifestazione del Sacro?

Il nichilismo è appunto come una notte oscura dell’anima, o come un’opera al nero alchemica. Bisogna guardarlo in faccia. Non può essere eluso, come pretendono le anime belle con appelli  sentimentali. Ma appunto, deve essere una, un passaggio, una verifica.

L’altro grande russo Tolstoj sembra più appartenere al mondo  delle ideologie sociali ed è stato considerato per certi aspetti un precursore del comunismo.

Tolstoj ha delle responsabilità nella riduzione del cristianesimo  a mera  etica umanitaria. Tolstoj comprese che il Vangelo di Cristo non può essere  ingabbiato dentro l’istituzione ecclesiastica (nel suo caso ortodossa) e deve diventare qualcosa di ancor più universale. Però non riuscì ad immaginare altro che una declinazione umanitaria, una vocazione  sociale a stare dalla parte degli ultimi. Cosa giusta di per sé, ma c’è tutto l’aspetto mistico, oserei dire magico, che rischia di perdersi in questo discorso . Quello che servirebbe è un punto d’equilibrio fra la tensione metafisica di Dostoevskij e quella  terrestre, di Tolstoj.

Un equilibrio tra vocazione celeste e terrestre. Mi viene in mente Florensky, che fu un grande mistico russo e uno dei principali scienziati del Novecento.

Pavel Florensky … anche detto il “Leonardo da Vinci” russo!  La  sua opera fu una sintesi di  teologia, filosofia, critica d’arte, matematica, scienza applicata. È come se fosse riuscito  a vedere tutto da una prospettiva superiore e unitaria. Fu sacerdote ortodosso e  martire del comunismo. Avrebbe potuto scappare in Francia, come molti altri, ma preferì sopportare le stesse sofferenze del suo popolo. I comunisti si servirono di lui e gli concessero un poco di libertà proprio perché non potevano fare a meno delle sue conoscenze ed abilità tecniche. Ma alla fine lo spedirono in un Gulag e lo fucilarono.

Un pensatore europeo che intravede un grande compito per lo Spirito Russo è Rudolf Steiner, il fondatore dell’antroposofia.

Steiner vedeva ad Est, in Russia il futuro della civiltà europea  e del cristianesimo. Dopo il cristianesimo romano nato con Pietro, quello luterano ispirato da Paolo, secondo Steiner arriverà il turno di quello slavo: il Cristianesimo di Giovanni …

 … di Giovanni che vede in Cristo il Logos che illumina il Cosmo.

Un cristianesimo  non troppo legato alle chiese, neppure a  quelle ortodosse, ma vivo nelle individualità. Ecco che i nomi fatti precedentemente, Dostoevskij, Tolstoj, Florenskij  ed altri come Soloviev Berdjaev, Merezkovski  ci appaiono veramente come precursori di questo cristianesimo futuro.

Nel tuo libro parli anche di Drieu La Rochelle, che alla fine della seconda guerra mondiale guardava alla Russia come il  polo di aggregazione di tutta l’Europa.

 Drieu La Rochelle, come Berdjaev e Florenskij, auspicava un nuovo Medioevo in alternativa all’individualismo dell’Occidente illuminista. Affidò prima le sue speranze all’ideologia fascista, poi assistendo alla disfatta militare, guardò, nei suoi ultimi giorni di vita, alla Russia di Stalin.

Vi è  però una grande differenza con i pensatori russi, che peraltro avevano sperimentato sulla loro pelle il bolscevismo: per loro la rinascita spirituale si sarebbe realizzata con il risveglio delle facoltà mistiche nell’umanità, a partire dai popoli slavi; Drieu invece era affascinato da  un potere autoritario  che imponesse dall’alto una nuova società. In questo senso, Berdjaev e Florenskij appaiono molto più moderni, maggiormente proiettati verso il futuro rispetto a Drieu  che rimane legate alle soluzioni di tipo giacobino. E fa riflettere il fatto che il francese abbia alla fine scelto la strada del suicidio, come un disperato personaggio di Dostoevskij …

Per finire, mi dai un parere su Limonov?

 Personaggio interessante con un trascorso a suo modo “punk” (e qui chiudiamo il cerchio aperto con Ferretti)  e con una  tensione metafisica che si sviluppa col passare degli anni. Può sembrare l’altra faccia di Putin: opposto e complementare. Se Putin incarna l’orgoglio nazionale, la  realpolitik e il sentimento di rispetto per la tradizione religiosa, Limonov mi sembra un uomo nuovo. O quantomeno un buon punto di partenza!

 


Tante altre notizie su www.ariannaeditrice.it

00:05 Publié dans Entretiens, Eurasisme | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : entretien, eurasisme, italie | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

dimanche, 01 septembre 2013

The Social “Big Bang” of the 21st Century Turkey: from Atlantic to Eurasia

turkey riot taksim.jpg

The Social “Big Bang” of the 21st Century Turkey: from Atlantic to Eurasia

Ex: http://www.geopolitica.ru
 

There are two important aspects of the nation-wide uprising in Turkey centered at the Taksim Square in İstanbul that deserve emphasis. First and foremost, it is an unprecetented social “big bang” of the 21st century Turkey. Secondly, the extreme hostility of the stance of the Erdoğan regime against this protest movement is equally unseen.  

The Taksim Square represents the uprising of the Turkish Nation against the Erdoğan Administration, who arrogantly attempted to trample on the Turkish Nation and the values of the Atatürk Republic. The main symbol that unites millions of people who have been filling the squares all over Turkey for about three weeks now and facing police violence everywhere is the Turkish flag. The nation-wide common slogan  these masses are chanting everywhere is “Tayyip resign! Government resign! Dictator resign!”. If this movement is to be connected to something in the past, its roots clearly lie in the Kemalist Revolution.

                                                               How it began?

            Protests were started by a small group of activists as a reaction to the demolition of the Gezi Park in Taksim, to rebuild the “historic” Taksim Military Barracks, which was also planned to house a shopping mall. The construction company had started to demolish the wall of Gezi Park and cut down the trees, when the protestors stood up to prevent any further demolition. Then the police intervened with tear gas. More people joined the activists to start a sit-in act and a night watch in the Gezi Park. The police attacked once more and more violently with tear gas and water cannons to drive the protestors out of the Park. The outcome of this sequence of  “more protestors-more police violence” was that the resistance grew very quickly and spread over the whole country covering millions of people in hundreds of protest rallies. All the demonstrations were met with police violence, tear gas, water cannons, plastic bullets. The target of the demonstrators went far beyond stopping the project of the government concerning the Gezi Park. They started to unanimously demand the resignation of Erdogan and the government. By now, there are four people killed, thousands injured, including many who are heavily injured by tear gas shells and plastic bullets.

            Before analyzing the background and reasons that led to the mobilization of masses to such an unseen extent, it might be telling to shortly look into the reasons of  Erdoğan's insistence on the project concerning the Gezi Park. This project is two-legged. One leg is concerned with the history of the Military Barracks that are to be rebuilt. After the 1908 Revolution led to the establishment of the Constitutional Monarchy in the Ottoman State, a reactionary rising was staged on the 31st of March in 1909 in Istanbul demanding to go back to an absolutist regime based on religious principles again. The rising was started in the Taksim Barracks, which was then turned into the  headquarters of this reactionary rebellion. The rising was suppressed by the Movement Army which came from Thessaloniki to İstanbul and whose staff officer was Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk).  It is thus only natural that those who desparately wish to take the revenge of the Kemalist Revolution today insist on rebuilding these Barracks as a symbol of their own stance.

            The second leg of the project is that the rebuilt Barracks are planned to house a shopping mall. I think it will be no exaggeration to regard “shopping malls” as symbols of a lifestyle imposed by the global capitalist system to the entire world. Thus the project itself is nothing but a synthesis of Ottomanism and global capitalism, reflecting the current alliance between the imperialistic system and the medieval forces in Turkey.

                                        The background of the Taksim Resistance     

            If the question is whether the social outburst in Turkey triggered by the resistance against Erdoğan's Gezi Park project was something expected or not, the answer is both yes and no. The first thing to be noted in that regard is that, for the last decade, the political and social tensions in Turkey have been growing since Erdoğan came into power, along with this process being especially accelerated within the last few years. Prior to the Taksim Resistance, the potential energy accumulated within the society had already started to turn into kinetic energy in the form of big mass demonstrations within the last one year.  Large numbers of demonstrators became familiar with tear gas, water cannons and police violence during these struggles. It was this militant rise of the people's movement, which paved the way to the current resistance. That is what underlies the answer “yes”. Due to the stochastic nature of social phenomena, however, it usually is not possible to precisely forecast the time, place and scale of social outbursts, as was also the case with the Taksim Resistance. 

            The bans and limitations introduced by the Erdoğan government last year concerning the celebration of national holidays was met with  big anger among the citizens. The Youth Union of Turkey (Türkiye Gençlik Birliği) made a call for a demonstration in İstanbul on May 19, 2012, in which more than 200 thousand citizens took part. The 19th of May is the date when Mustafa Kemal landed in Samsun in 1919 to start the National Liberation Movement and is celebrated as a national holiday dedicated to the youth in Turkey. 19 May 2012 witnessed the first big mass demonstration in Turkey in the aftermath of the Republic Meetings in 2007, which had been held in Ankara, İstanbul, İzmir and several other cities with the participation of millions of citizens. On 29 October 2012 - the Anniversary of the Foundation of the Turkish Republic – hundreds of thousands of people gathered in Ulus (Ankara) in front of the First Turkish Grand National Assembly Building under the leadership of Workers' Party (Turkey) (İşçi Partisi – Türkiye) and the Youth Union of Turkey. The police tried to prevent the gathering by attacking the crowd with tear gas and water cannons and by setting up barricades between groups that were coming to the square from different directions. Neither the police raids nor the barricades could prevent the people from gathering at the Ulus Square, from where they marched several kilometers to reach Atatürk's Mausoleum. 19 May 2012 acted as the sparkler, and 29 October 2012 was the turning point in the rising wave of the people's movement in Turkey.

            Hatay is one of the Southern provinces of Turkey bordering with Syria, where several “refugee camps” are located. As most of these are acting as “mercenary camps” from where terror is being “exported” to Syria under the patronage of the Erdoğan administration, several big mass demonstrations were held in Hatay starting as of September 2012, demanding the shutdown of these terror camps and calling for solidarity and friendship with the Syrian people. It seems also worthwhile to emphasize that these demands united people of different ethnic origins and religious beliefs in Hatay and neigboring provinces along the border with Syria.

            The trials of the so-called Ergenekon Case are being held in a prison compound near Silivri. The very fact that Silivri is a town about 100 km distant from İstanbul , while the natural location of the court in charge of this case is in Beşiktaş – a central district of İstanbul –, may give everyone some idea about how “open” these trials are to the public. The summary accusation is that the suspects of this trial (including leaders of political parties, former rectors and several academicians, journalists, retired generals and officers) have formed a secret organization called Ergenekon to overthrow the government, although many of them got to know each other well only in prison. Dr. Doğu Perinçek who is still the chairman of Workers' Party (Turkey) is among the suspects and has now been under arrest for more than five years. The common feature that unites almost all the suspects is that they are all patriotic figures who have struggled against the US plans concerning Turkey and the Middle East and have defended the Kemalist Revolution. The “Ergenekon Case” itself is a US plot implemented by the Erdogan Administration not only against the suspects, but against Turkey as a whole. Thus, it comprises along with other similar “cases” one of the most important sources of political and social tension underlying the current social outburst. There have been two big mass demonstrations (along with several other smaller ones) in Silivri in front of the court within the last year, one on December 13, 2012, and the other on April 8, 2013, both including about 100 000 participants, who had to face barricades, tear gas and water cannons. The citizens, however, insisted on staying in front of the court until the trial was over, thereby also defending the principle of the “openness of the trials to the public”.

            These are just some chosen incidences to exemplify the background of the current nation-wide resistance. It should thus be no wonder any more to anyone who sees this picture how come these young people of all ages, these women and men of Turkey have been struggling day and night all over the country for so long.

            Having gone through the source of human energy of the Taksim uprising, let us turn to the architecture of the political and social tensions in Turkey and the factors behind them. This is quite important as the people's movement in Turkey will continue to rise in waves with outcomes that will not stay confined only to Turkey itself, but will have an impact upon the entire region.

                        Erdoğan's foreign policy is tightly bound to the US and NATO

            It might be best to start with the foreign policy that the Erdoğan Administration has been following since it came into power in 2002 with a focus on the Syrian issue.

            Tayyip Erdoğan – the Prime Minister of Turkey- is known to have himself publicly declared more than 30 times that he is acting as one of the Co-Chairs of the Great Middle East Project of the USA. Abdullah Gül – the President of Turkey- is known to have admitted himself that he signed a secret “two-page, nine-item” agreement with Colin Powell in 2003, when he was the Foreign Minister of Turkey. Ahmet Davutoğlu – the present Foreign Minister of Turkey – is known to have written a book entitled “Strategic Depth” whose main message can be summarized as “Align your policies with those of big powers, if you wish to become a regional leader.” This provides a clear picture of the framework that has been shaping the foreign policy of the Erdoğan Administration.

            Erdoğan is known to be the world champion of hostility against Bashar Assad in Syria. He is   supporting the so-called “Syrian Free Army” and other terror groups against Esad logistically by all means, which include the provision of safe bases behind the front to these mercenaries in Turkey under the guise of “refugee camps”. As a consequence of this policy, the control of Turkish security forces on the border with Syria was practically lifted so that the mercenaries could cross the border freely in either direction. The displeasure aroused thereby among the inhabitants in cities and towns near the border was made visible by mass demonstrations in Hatay and other places as mentioned above.

            The terror that was exported to Syria under the patronage of the Erdoğan regime struck back Turkey itself violently. On 11 February 2013, a car bomb exploded at Cilvegözü Bordergate killing 13 people including both Syrians and Turks. The second and more tragic incidence of terror took place on 11 May 2013 in Reyhanlı, a town in Turkey very near to Cilvegözü Bordergate, when two car bombs exploded in the town center killing more than 50 people and injuring hundreds of them. Erdoğan could go to Reyhanlı only one week after the  incidence and made a speech to a crowd supposedly collected together from other regions  because he was afraid of the fury of the people from Reyhanlı. These two tragic events only added to the great fury of the Turkish people who demand peace with the neighbor and peace at neighbor's home.

            The Taksim Resistance in Turkey and the opposition of the Turkish people to Erdoğan's hostile stance against Syria combined with the inevitable tightening of the control on the Syrian border by Turkish security forces after the Reyhanlı bombs seem to have recently contributed to the Syrian Administarion headed by Beshar Esad in combatting terror at home.

            The relationship between Obama's and Erdoğan's stances concerning the Syrian issue might look puzzling at first glance, as Erdoğan seems to be the one who is ready to do everything to overthrow Esad, while Obama looks as if he were dragging his feet in this regard. It is, however, doubtless that the patent of Erdoğan's policy concerning Syria belongs to the US. Initially, he was driven against Beshar Esad by the US in an unbridled way in expectation of an easy and quick victory. When this plan failed, however, Erdoğan found himself in the midst of a mined ground, while Obama still could use the relative maneuvre space he had secured for himself by having let someone else jump to the mined ground on his behalf. It should be noted here that the “good times” between Erdoğan and Assad, the climax of which was reached by holding joint government meetings very shortly before Erdoğan's sharp turn from “extreme friendship” to “extreme hostility”, were not a product of Turkey either.

            After Obama came into office in the US, Davutoğlu became the Foreign Minister in Turkey.

In the first term (2002-2007) of AKP (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi - Justice and Development Party), “membership to the European Union” had been the major keyword of Turkish foreign policy.  The rationale behind this policy, whose patent again belongs to the US, was to keep Turkey bound to the door of the EU in order to prevent it from seeking other alternatives and forming closer ties with Eurasia. In AKP's second term (2007-2011), however, the keyword “EU” entirely disappeared from the scene, and Davutoğlu replaced it first by “zero-problem-with-the neighbors” and then by “New Ottomanism”.

            In order to understand the rationale behind this change, let us remember the main components of the Obama doctrine, which can be summarized as (i) making more effective use of diplomatic, political and cultural channels, (ii) letting the “allies” share the burden by getting them do some of the jobs on behalf of the US rather than the US itself directly, and (iii) shifting the center of weight from regular warfare to special warfare in reshaping the world. It is the implementation of the second and third items that we presently witness in Syria.

            As for the first item, the USA was lacking direct diplomatic, political and cultural channels with the Islamic World whose effective use would help the creation of political and social footholds 

that would internalize the US plans and thus be useful in implementing them. So, the need was for a country which owned such channels and was ready to use them on behalf of the US. This country was not only to look socially and culturally Islamic, but also should introduce a reinterpretation of Islam that would get rid of all obstacles in Islam to integration with the global capitalistic market. Finally, for such a country to be influential in the Islamic World, it should not act like a proxy of the US. All this is actually nothing but what is meant by “Moderate Islam”, represented by the AKP Administration in Turkey.

            Davutoğlu's formula of “zero-problem-with-the neighbors” as well as Erdoğan's “one-minute-show” in Davos against Israel followed by his stance in the Mavi Marmara Incidence are to be evaluated within this framework. The “golden times” with Syria were not an indication of a shift of axis of the Erdoğan Administration from the West to the East, but were part of a scenario aiming at softening and weakening Syria from inside. But the difficulty that USA and the West have been facing in producing an effective opposition to Bashar Assad in the Syrian issue now nclearly shows that the task of creating an effective political and social foothold on behalf of the US was not succeeded.

            The firm resistance of Syria under Esad's leadership against the dirty war initiated by the US using the Erdoğan Administration as an instrument gained the sound support of a “Eurasian hinterland”. Assad's resistance, the international support it gained and the strong opposition of the Turkish people to Erdoğan's stance concerning Syria left Erdoğan in a cumbersome position. When the inability of the US and the West due to the big difficulties they are going through because of the global economic crisis was added to that, the claim to regional leadership or equivalently “New Ottomanism” collapsed before it even started. We can hardly deny the importance of the role this collapse played in the rise of the people's movement in Turkey and thus in the Taksim Uprising. Conversely, the strength of the nation's opposition now renders Erdoğan more inable than ever concerning Syria as well as in other major issues.

      The Second Israel = “Free Kurdistan” is an invariant of the Great Middle East Project

            One of the invariants of the US policy concerning the Middle East is to turn Northern Iraq into a permanent base of its own, or equivalently into a second Israel. This target can be reached by founding a “Free Kurdistan”. The territory of the Kurdistan Regional Government is by itself not adequate for the sustainability of such a state. Sustainability requires expansion of the territory to the North into Turkey and an opening to the Mediterranean via a “Kurdish Corridor” in Northern Syria. A possible expansion to the East into Iran is also desirable. The competence and accumulation needed for founding and running such a state is owned by the PKK. This collection of statements depicts the framework within which the USA considers the “Kurdish factor” in the Middle East.

            Turkey is now going through a so-called “peace process” with the PKK, the roadmap of which has been drawn by the US. The US authorities had been advocating for quite some time that the PKK should be taken as a negotiation partner by the Turkish Government. To cope with circumstances under which the acceptance of the PKK as a formal negotiation partner would be politically untenable for a government, the advice was that the parliamentary deputies of the BDP (Barış ve Demokrasi Partisi – Peace and Democracy Party) serve as interlocutor in negotiations. The Erdoğan Administration has followed this advice to such an extent that the current position of Öcalan and the PKK is factually far beyond that of a negotiation partner. A description that would fit the present situation best is to refer to them as “coalition partners” of the Erdoğan Administration. The process was carried out under the pretense that this was the only feasible way of liquidating the PKK. The consequence was, however, the legitimization of the PKK, rendering this separatist force stronger than ever.

            “Peace at home” is naturally the common demand of all Turkish citizens irrespective of their ethnic origins. As now the continuation of “cease fire” is made dependent upon the well-treatment of the PKK so that it continues to comply with cease fire, the social engineering behind the “peace process” is the utilization of this common demand of the people for peace by blackmailing them with the PKK terror. The success of this blackmail naturally requires a strong PKK, rather than one that has entered a liquidation process.

            The next stop of the roadmap is the change of the Constitution accordingly, the essence of which can be summarized as to remove the “Turkish Nation” along with all values of the Atatürk Republic from the Constitution. The estimation that has been rendered vacuous by the uprising of the nation was that the same blackmailing by the PKK would be useful in making these changes acceptable  to the nation and carrying it to the brink of fragmentation.

            Having noted that a “Free Kurdistan” lies at the core of the Great Middle East Project and the PKK is indispensable for the US in that regard, it would be an illusion to even think that the USA would allow the Erdoğan Administration to liquidate the PKK. The US plan is, in fact, to let the PKK and the Turkish Army to fight together in Syria and Iraq against the territorial integrities of these two countries when the time ripens for that

                        Turkey is drowning in the Atlantic System: Back to the route of the Kemalist Revolution in Eurasia

            The conquest of the state apparatus by the counter-revolutionary forces was mainly completed in 2007, when Abdullah Gül became the President. It was then that they started the operation against the members of the Turkish Army and the leaders of the patriotic forces in Turkey, who had been opposing Turkey getting turned into an instrument of the USA, under the guise of legal cases as Ergenekon, Balyoz and several others. In the meantime, they also were able to tighten their control on the judiciary. The next item on their agenda was to start the liquidation of the Kemalist Revolution from within the social life.

            The Kemalist Revolution had replaced “religion” by “nation” as the source of power. What naturally accompanied that process was the substitution of “reason and science” for “dogma”. In an attempt tor reverse this process, the AKP Administration is now trying to replace “nation” by “religion” again and substitute “dogma” for “reason and science”. This revival of the medieval approach is in compliance with the attempt of the imperialistic system to dissolve the national states of the Oppressed and Developing World.

            The reversal attempted by the Erdoğan Regime, however, required  on its part to intervene more and more not only into social life, but also into individual lives. It is precisely this increasing intervention what is now especially being met with fury by broad masses. Thus, it is no wonder that the youth and women formed the overwhelming majority in the Taksim Uprising so far.

            There is another very important process going on in Turkey, in parallel with the rise of the people's movement, one of whose main slogans is “we will win by uniting”. Namely, it is the construction of a united national front with the Workers' Party (Turkey) in its center, with the aim of carrying a national government to power. To indicate how successful this movement is proceeding, it might suffice to quote Erdoğan who said about a month ago that “the Chair of Workers' Party (Dr. Doğu Perinçek) is giving direction from prison to CHP (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi - Republican People's Party) with his left finger and to MHP (Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi – Nationalist Movement Party) with his right finger”.

            The summary conclusion that from now on everyone has to take into account is that the rising movement of the nation has invalidated all equations concerning Turkey that do not contain the nation itself as the biggest source of power.

            Everything said in this article points at the fact that Turkey is drowning in the Atlantic System. The unique framework that will allow Turkey to live and develop embracing all its people as equal citizens irrespective of their etnic origins or religious beliefs is the Atatürk Republic. The only geography in which Turkey can set itself back to the route of the Kemalist Revolution and complete it in order to go beyond is nothing but Eurasia.

Published in Journal of Eurasian Affairs No.1, Vol. 1, 2013

jeudi, 29 août 2013

Euramérique, Eurorussie ou Eurasie?

carte-ukraine-bielorussie-moldavie.jpg

Euramérique, Eurorussie ou Eurasie?

Récemment, le site Atlantico a publié un échange de réflexions fort intéressant entre Alexandre Del Valle et Alexandre Melnik sur les perspectives viables pour l’Occident. Les deux Alexandre, qui n’ont de commun que leurs prénoms, prônent deux voies différentes et opposées pour la réaffirmation de l'Occident puissance: l’Alliance continentale Europe-Russie ou l’alliance transatlantique Europe-Amérique.

Cette thématique semble prendre une importance croissante au fur et à mesure que les relations Russie-USA se détériorent, que l’Europe s’enfonce dans la crise et que la Russie regagne stratégiquement des positions, réaffirmant ainsi peu à peu sa position de grande puissance. La même semaine, le site Europe-Israël publiait lui un article intitulé: La morale change de camp, article très élogieux envers Vladimir Poutine et envers la politique russe dans le monde musulman, présentant une Russie devenue la protectrice des minorités, notamment chrétiennes. Le site prenait en exemple les manifestants de la place Tahrir qui dénonçaient l’alliance entre Etats-Unis et Frères musulmans et appelaient la Russie à s’impliquer dans la révolution égyptienne.

L’occident a été historiquement lié à l’Europe, la Méditerranée puis l’Europe du nord et de l’ouest, avant de ne se juxtaposer sur le monde anglo-saxon dès le 17ième siècle via l'empire colonial de l'Angleterre et sa puissance maritime. Ce règne de la rose n’a réellement pris fin qu’après la première guerre mondiale, qui a historiquement marqué la fin des empires européens, y compris l'empire britannique, supplantés par la puissance la plus occidentale et la plus maritime d’Occident: les Etats-Unis d’Amérique.

Ceux-ci achèveront la déseuropéanisation de l’Occident en confirmant leur leadership planétaire en 1991, lors de la mort de l’Union Soviétique. La fin de l’Union Soviétique scellera aussi le destin eurasien de la Russie et donc le déplacement du centre d’attraction du continent vers l’Est et l’Eurasie. La disparition de cet empire permettra donc paradoxalement à l’Europe réelle d’entamer une tentative historique de raccord entre son Ouest et son Est et ainsi de tenter d’affirmer son unité territoriale, continentale et politique. Cela entrainera une rupture sans doute désormais totale et fondamentale entre le monde continental et le monde occidental.

Ce leadership américain qui a été baptisé par le président Bush "le nouvel ordre mondial" s'est développé et affirmé grâce à une formidable domination militaire et économique. Ce dispositif hyperpuissant a mis l'Europe sous contrôle, logiquement étendu sa zone d'influence vers l’Eurasie et l'Asie centrale tout en multipliant les interventions militaires dans le monde musulman. Pourtant, cette domination américaine sera aussi brève, d’un point de vue historique, que ne seront rapides le redressement russe et l’émergence de la Chine, dont on voit mal aujourd’hui ce qui pourrait l’empêcher de devenir la première puissance mondiale dans la décennie qui vient. Si le monde se désoccidentalise rapidement, le centre de gravité des puissances se déplace inexorablement vers l'Asie.

L’Europe de Bruxelles n’a pas transformé l’essai et il est peu probable qu’elle le fasse. L’Union s’est transformée en un "machin" que le Général de Gaulle n’aurait pas pu imaginer même dans ses pires cauchemars: Une entité sans aucune souveraineté politique, comme le souhaitent les donneurs d’ordres de Washington, et gouvernée par une bureaucratie de petits fonctionnaires sans horizons politiques qui espèrent tout en la craignant l’adhésion à l'UE d’une Turquie conquérante et par ailleurs seconde puissance de l’Otan. Pour les plus pessimistes, la crise économique, l’absence de souveraineté, l’échec du modèle multiculturel dans tous les pays d'Europe et l’absence d’élites ne devraient vraisemblablement laisser à Bruxelles que quelques années avant un démembrement volontaire et une sortie de l’histoire par la petite porte. Les nations européennes pourraient-elles y survivre? Sauront-elles le cas échéant renouer avec un nouveau destin continental?

Dans ces conditions, un rapprochement UE-Russie est-il imaginable? La puissance russe n'est pas d'origine maritime, la Russie n’a pas connu la renaissance après le moyen âge, et sa révolution industrielle a été tardive. En outre la démocratie à l’occidentale est encore au banc d'essai en Russie et il semble de plus en plus évident que ce modèle ne soit pas adapté pour gouverner le plus grand territoire de la planète ni de maintenir unis un si grand nombre de peuples si divers. Fait remarquable également, la Russie est le seul empire continental qui ait survécu en maintenant relativement en vie sa sphère d’influence linguistique, culturelle et politique au cœur de l’Eurasie: en Asie centrale et dans le Caucase.

Peut-être à cause de ce parcours historique bien spécifique, la Russie ne fait aujourd’hui encore que peu confiance à un "Ouest" (Zapad en russe désigne l’Occident, ce qui inclut encore aujourd’hui tant l’Amérique que l’Europe de Bruxelles) contre lequel elle a historiquement presque toujours été en guerre ouverte ou larvée. En outre, les modèles de sociétés proposés par l’Occident ne sont pas perçus comme viables ni compatibles avec les souhaits et aspirations de la population russe et encore moins avec le projet global des élites russes pour leur pays. On peut facilement comprendre, au vu des difficultés qu’à connu la Russie pour se redresser et créer un embryon de modèle propre de société (l’État-Civilisation), son souhait de ne pas s’associer ni essayer de s’assimiler à des ensembles politiques et civilisationnels visiblement en crise profonde.

En outre, le basculement lourd et historique du monde vers l’Asie, dans laquelle se trouve 75% du territoire russe ne devrait pas particulièrement inciter Moscou à se tourner à l’Ouest vers la zone euro-atlantique mais plutôt à l’Est, vers la zone Asie-Pacifique pour tenter de profiter du formidable potentiel de la Chine, avec lequel la Russie est d’ailleurs en train de nouer un partenariat historique.

Le 21ème siècle verra-t-il l’émergence d’un tandem gagnant composé des deux ex-géants communistes et de leurs sphères respectives d’influence?

Il semble par conséquent que l’existence d’un Occident-puissance qui, il faut le rappeler reste à ce jour son adversaire stratégique principal, ne soit sans doute pas l’intérêt primordial d’une Russie qui, si elle encore majoritairement slave et chrétienne, n’en reste pas moins aujourd’hui  une puissance eurasiatique et orthodoxe d’abord et européenne ensuite. Le renouveau de la Russie semble du reste à ce jour être inspiré par deux idées ou directions stratégique essentielles, l'une post-byzantine et l'autre postsoviétique (vers l’Eurasie) traduisant sans doute très clairement que la Russie ne se destine pas du tout à devenir un membre du club occidental.

La Russie n'est-elle pas, après tout, l’héritière historique, religieuse et spirituelle de Byzance et donc de l’empire romain d’Orient, et non de l'empire romain d’Occident?

L’opinion exprimée dans cet article ne coïncide pas forcément avec la position de la rédaction, l'auteur étant extérieur à RIA Novosti.

Alexandre Latsa est un journaliste français qui vit en Russie et anime le site DISSONANCE, destiné à donner un "autre regard sur la Russie".