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

dimanche, 08 mars 2015

The Neoconservative Threat to International Order


The American Hegemony

The Neoconservative Threat to International Order

Ex: http://www.counterpunch.org

Last week I was invited to address an important conference of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow.  Scholars from Russia and from around the world, Russian government officials, and the Russian people seek an answer as to why Washington destroyed during the past year the friendly relations between America and Russia that President Reagan and President Gorbachev succeeded in establishing.  All of Russia is distressed that Washington alone has destroyed the trust between the two major nuclear powers that had been created during the Reagan-Gorbachev era, trust that had removed the threat of nuclear armageddon. Russians at every level are astonished at the virulent propaganda and lies constantly issuing from Washington and the Western media. Washington’s gratuitous demonization of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has rallied the Russian people behind him.  Putin has the highest approval rating ever achieved by any leader in my lifetime.

Washington’s reckless and irresponsible destruction of the trust achieved by Reagan and Gorbachev has resurrected the possibility of nuclear war from the grave in which Reagan and Gorbachev buried it.  Again, as during the Cold War the specter of nuclear armageddon stalks the earth.

Why did Washington revive the threat of world annihilation?  Why is this threat to all of humanity supported by the majority of the US Congress, by the entirety of the presstitute media, and by academics and think-tank inhabitants in the US, such as Motyl and Weiss, about whom I wrote recently?

It was my task to answer this question for the conference.  You can read my February 25 and February 26 addresses below.  But first you should understand what nuclear war means.  You can gain that understanding here.

The Threat Posed to International Relations By The Neoconservative Ideology of American Hegemony,

Address to the 70th Anniversary of the Yalta Conference, Hosted by Institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Moscow State Institute of International Relations, Moscow, February 25, 2015,  Hon. Paul Craig Roberts


What I propose to you is that the current difficulties in the international order are unrelated to Yalta and its consequences, but have their origin in the rise of the neoconservative ideology in the post-Soviet era and its influence on Washington’s foreign policy.

The collapse of the Soviet Union removed the only constraint on Washington’s power to act unilaterally abroad.  At that time China’s rise was estimated to require a half century. Suddenly the United States found itself to be the Uni-power, the “world’s only superpower.”  Neoconservatives proclaimed “the end of history.”

By the “end of history” neoconservatives mean that the competition between socio-economic-political systems is at an end.  History has chosen “American Democratic-Capitalism.” It is Washington’s responsibility to exercise the hegemony over the world given to Washington by History and to bring the world in line with History’s choice of American democratic-capitalism.

In other words, Marx has been proven wrong.  The future does not belong to the proletariat but to Washington.

The neoconservative ideology raises the United States to the unique status of being “the exceptional country,” and the American people acquire exalted status as “the indispensable people.”

If a country is “the exceptional country,” it means that all other countries are unexceptional.  If a people are “indispensable,” it means other peoples are dispensable. We have seen this attitude at work in Washington’s 14 years of wars of aggression in the Middle East. These wars have left countries destroyed and millions of people dead, maimed, and displaced. Yet Washington continues to speak of its commitment to protect smaller countries from the aggression of larger countries.  The explanation for this hypocrisy is that Washington does not regard Washington’s aggression as aggression, but as History’s purpose.

We have also seen this attitude at work in Washington’s disdain for Russia’s national interests and in Washington’s propagandistic response to Russian diplomacy.

The neoconservative ideology requires that Washington maintain its Uni-power status, because this status is necessary for Washington’s hegemony and History’s purpose.

PaulWolfowitz.jpgThe neoconservative doctrine of US world supremacy is most clearly and concisely stated by Paul Wolfowitz, a leading neoconservative who has held many high positions: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Director of Policy Planning US Department of State, Assistant Secretary of State, Ambassador to Indonesia, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Deputy Secretary of Defense, President of the World Bank.

In 1992 Paul Wolfowitz stated the neoconservative doctrine of American world supremacy:

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

For clarification, a “hostile power” is a country with an independent policy (Russia, China, Iran, and formerly Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad).

This bold statement struck the traditional American foreign policy establishment as a declaration of American Imperialism.  The document was rewritten in order to soften and disguise the blatant assertion of supremacy without changing the intent.  These documents are available online, and you can examine them at your convenience.

Softening the language allowed the neoconservatives to rise to foreign policy dominance. The neoconservatives are responsible for the Clinton regime’s attacks on Yugoslavia and Serbia. Neoconservatives, especially Paul Wolfowitz, are responsible for the George W. Bush regime’s invasion of Iraq. The neoconservatives are responsible for the overthrow and murder of Gaddafi in Libya, the assault on Syria, the propaganda against Iran, the drone attacks on Pakistan and Yemen, the color revolutions in former Soviet Republics, the attempted “Green Revolution” in Iran, the coup in Ukraine, and the demonization of Vladimir Putin.

A number of thoughtful Americans suspect that the neoconservatives are responsible for 9/11, as that event gave the neoconservatives the “New Pearl Harbor” that their position papers said was necessary in order to launch their wars for hegemony in the Middle East.  9/11 led directly and instantly to the invasion of Afghanistan, where Washington has been fighting since 2001. Neoconservatives controlled all the important government positions necessary for a “false flag” attack.

Neoconservative Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who is married to another neoconservative, Robert Kagan, implemented and oversaw Washington’s coup in Ukraine and chose the new government.

The neoconservatives are highly organized and networked, well-financed, supported by the print and TV media, and backed by the US military/security complex and the Israel Lobby.  There is no countervailing power to their influence on US foreign power.

The neoconservative doctrine goes beyond the Brzezinski doctrine, which dissented from Detente and provocatively supported dissidents inside the Soviet empire. Despite its provocative character, the Brzezinski doctrine remained a doctrine of Great Power politics and containment. It is not a doctrine of US world hegemony.

While the neoconservatives were preoccupied for a decade with their wars in the Middle East, creating a US Africa Command, organizing color revolutions, exiting disarmament treaties, surrounding Russia with military bases, and “pivoting to Asia” to surround China with new air and naval bases, Vladimir Putin led Russia back to economic and military competence and successfully asserted an independent Russian foreign policy.

When Russian diplomacy blocked Washington’s planned invasion of Syria and Washington’s planned bombing of Iran, the neoconservatives realized that they had failed the “first objective” of the Wolfowitz Doctrine and had allowed “the re-emergence of a new rival . . . on the territory of the former Soviet Union” with the power to block unilateral action by Washington.

The attack on Russia began. Washington had spent $5 billion over a decade creating non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Ukraine and cultivating Ukrainian politicians.  The NGOs were called into the streets. The extreme nationalists or nazi elements were used to introduce violence, and the elected democratic government was overthrown. The intercepted conversation between Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador in Kiev, in which the two Washington operatives choose the members of the new Ukrainian government, is well known.

If the information that has recently come to me from Armenia and Kyrgyzstan is correct, Washington has financed NGOs and is cultivating politicians in Armenia and the former Soviet Central Asian Republics.  If the information is correct, Russia can expect more “color revolutions” or coups in other former territories of the Soviet Union.  Perhaps China faces a similar threat in Uyghurstan.

The conflict in Ukraine is often called a “civil war.”  This is incorrect.  A civil war is when two sides fight for the control of the government.  The break-away republics in eastern and southern Ukraine are fighting a war of secession.

Washington would have been happy to use its coup in Ukraine to evict Russia from its Black Sea naval base as this would have been a strategic military achievement.  However, Washington is pleased that the “Ukraine crisis” that Washington orchestrated has resulted in the demonization of Vladimir Putin, thus permitting economic sanctions that have disrupted Russia’s economic and political relations with Europe. The sanctions have kept Europe in Washington’s orbit.

Washington has no interest in resolving the Ukrainian situation.  The situation can be resolved diplomatically only if Europe can achieve sufficient sovereignty over its foreign policy to act in Europe’s interest instead of Washington’s interest.

The neoconservative doctrine of US world hegemony is a threat to the sovereignty of every country.  The doctrine requires subservience to Washington’s leadership and to Washington’s purposes.  Independent governments are targeted for destabilization. The Obama regime overthrew the reformist government in Honduras and currently is at work destabilizing Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Argentina, and most likely also Armenia and the former Central Asian Soviet Republics.

Yalta and its consequences have to do with Great Power rivalries.  But in the neoconservative doctrine, there is only one Great Power–the Uni-power.  There are no others, and no others are to be permitted.

Therefore, unless a moderate foreign policy arises in Washington and displaces the neoconservatives, the future is one of conflict.

It would be a strategic error to dismiss the neoconservative ideology as unrealistic. The doctrine is unrealistic, but it is also the guiding force of US foreign policy and is capable of producing a world war.

In their conflict with Washington’s hegemony, Russia and China are disadvantaged. The success of American propaganda during the Cold War, the large differences between living standards in the US and those in communist lands, overt communist political oppression, at times brutal, and the Soviet collapse created in the minds of many people nonexistent virtues for the United States. As English is the world language and the Western media is cooperative, Washington is able to control explanations regardless of the facts. The ability of Washington to be the aggressor and to blame the victim encourages Washington’s march to more aggression.

This concludes my remarks.  Tomorrow I will address whether there are domestic political restraints or economic restraints on the neoconservative ideology.




Paul Craig Roberts, Address to the 70th Anniversary of the Yalta Conference, Moscow, February 26, 2015


At the plenary session yesterday I addressed the threat that the neoconservative ideology poses to international relations.  In this closing session I address whether there are any internal restraints on this policy from the US population and whether there are economic restraints.

Just as 9/11 served to launch Washington’s wars for hegemony in the Middle East, 9/11 served to create the American police state.  The  Constitution and the civil liberties it protects quickly fell to the accumulation of power in the executive branch that a state of war permitted.

New laws, some clearly pre-prepared such as the PATRIOT Act, executive orders, presidential directives, and Department of Justice memos created an executive authority unaccountable to the US Constitution and to domestic and international law.

Suddenly Americans could be detained indefinitely without cause presented to a court. Habeas corpus, a constitutional protection which prohibits any such detention, has been set aside.

Suddenly people could be tortured into confessions in violation of the right against self-incrimination and in violation of domestic and international laws against torture.

Suddenly Americans and Washington’s closest allies could be spied on indiscriminately without the need of warrants demonstrating cause.

The Obama regime added to the Bush regime’s transgressions the assertion of the right of the executive branch to assassinate US citizens without due process of law.

The police state was organized under a massive new Department of Homeland Security.  Almost immediately whistleblower protections, freedom of the press and speech, and protest rights were attacked and reduced.

It was not long before the director of Homeland Security declared that the department’s focus has shifted from Muslim terrorists to “domestic extremists,” an undefined category. Anyone can be swept into this category.  Homes of war protesters were raided and grand juries were convened to investigate the protesters. Americans of Arab descent who donated to charities–even charities on the State Department’s approved list–that aided Palestinian children were arrested and sentenced to prison for “providing material support to terrorism.”

All of this and more, including police brutality, has had a chilling effect on protests against the wars and the loss of civil liberty.   The rising protests from the American population and from soldiers themselves that eventually forced Washington to end the Vietnam War have been prevented in the 21st century by the erosion of rights, intimidation, loss of mobility (no-fly list), job dismissal, and other heavy-handed actions inconsistent with a government accountable to law and the people.

In an important sense, the US has emerged from the “war on terror” as an executive branch dictatorship unconstrained by the media and barely, if at all, constrained by Congress and the federal courts. The lawlessness of the executive branch has spread into governments of Washington’s vassal states and into the Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund, and the European Central Bank, all of which violate their charters and operate outside their legal powers.

Jobs offshoring destroyed the American industrial and manufacturing unions. Their demise and the current attack on the public employee unions has left the Democratic Party financially dependent on the same organized private interest groups as the Republicans.  Both parties now report to the same interest groups.    Wall Street, the military/security complex, the Israel Lobby, agribusiness, and the extractive industries (oil, mining, timber) control the government regardless of the party in power. These powerful interests all have a stake in American hegemony.

The message is that the constellation of forces preclude internal political change.

Hegemony’s Achilles heel is the US economy. The fairy tale of American economic recovery supports America’s image as the safe haven, an image that keeps the dollar’s value up, the stock market up, and interest rates down.  However, there is no economic information that supports this fairy tale.

Real median household income has not grown for years and is below the levels of the early 1970s. There has been no growth in real retail sales for six years. The labor force is shrinking. The labor force participation rate has declined since 2007 as has the civilian employment to population ratio. The 5.7 percent reported unemployment rate is achieved by not counting discouraged workers as part of the work force. (A discouraged worker is a person who is unable to find a job and has given up looking.)

A second official unemployment rate, which counts short-term (less than one year) discouraged workers and is seldom reported, stands at 11.2 percent.  The US government stopped including long-term discouraged workers (discouraged for more than one year) in 1994.  If the long-term discouraged are counted, the current unemployment rate in the US stands at 23.2 percent.

The offshoring of American manufacturing and professional service jobs such as software engineering and Information Technology has decimated the middle class. The middle class has not found jobs with incomes comparable to those moved abroad. The labor cost savings from offshoring the jobs to Asia has boosted corporate profits, the performance bonuses of executives and capital gains of shareholders. Thus all income and wealth gains are concentrated in a few hands at the top of the income distribution.  The number of billionaires grows as destitution reaches from the lower economic class into the middle class.  American university graduates unable to find jobs return to their childhood rooms in their parents’ homes and work as waitresses and bartenders in part-time jobs that will not support an independent existence.

With a large percentage of the young economically unable to form households, residential construction, home furnishings, and home appliances suffer economic weakness.  Cars can still be sold only because the purchaser can obtain 100 percent financing in a six-year loan.  The lenders sell the loans, which are securitized and sold to gullible investors, just as were the mortgage-backed financial instruments that precipitated the 2007 US financial crash.

None of the problems that created the 2008 recession, and that were created by the 2008 recession, have been addressed.  Instead, policymakers have used an expansion of debt and money to paper over the problems. Money and debt have grown much more than US GDP, which raises questions about the value of the US dollar and the credit worthiness of the US government.  On July 8, 2014, my colleagues and I pointed out that when correctly measured, US national debt stands at 185 percent of GDP.

This raises the question: Why was the credit rating of Russia, a country with an extremely low ratio of debt to GDP, downgraded and not that of the US?  The answer is that the downgrading of Russian credit worthiness was a political act directed against Russia in behalf of US hegemony.

How long can fairy tales and political acts keep the US house of cards standing?  A rigged stock market.  A rigged interest rate. A rigged dollar exchange value, a rigged and suppressed gold price.  The current Western financial system rests on world support for the US dollar and on nothing more.

The problem with neoliberal economics, which pervades all countries, even Russia and China, is that neoliberal economics is a tool of American economic imperialism, as is Globalism.  As long as countries targeted by Washington for destabilization support and cling to the American doctrines that enable the destabilization, the targets are defenseless.

If Russia, China, and the BRICS Bank were willing to finance Greece, Italy, and Spain, perhaps those countries could be separated from the EU and NATO.  The unraveling of Washington’s empire would begin.

Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Roberts’ How the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format. His latest book is How America Was Lost.

vendredi, 27 février 2015

Kagan + Nuland: Liberal Interventionists


Kagan + Nuland: Liberal Interventionists


Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com

Why is Victoria Nuland reliably confrontational and antagonistic toward Russia? Why does she push power, force, and military might to the forefront in Ukraine? Why does she risk war with Russia? Why does she even care about Russia’s relations with Ukraine enough to inject the U.S. government into their affairs and conflicts?

Her philosophy is the same as her husband’s, Robert Kagan. One article calls them “THE ULTIMATE AMERICAN POWER COUPLE“. It says “Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan fell in love ‘talking about democracy and the role of America in the world’ on one of their first dates. It’s a shared passion that hasn’t faded over time.” Presumably that inner quote is from one or both of them.

For a brief profile of Robert Kagan’s ideas, shared by Victoria Nuland, see here. That article contains some criticism of their positions coming from the academic side. It is enough to know that Kagan supports Hillary Clinton in foreign policy and that she appointed Nuland to see that in foreign policy Americans at the moment have no major party presidential choice except more of the same.

Kagan and Nuland advocate U.S. activism and intervention throughout the world. Kagan has always endorsed more and more and more U.S. commitments worldwide. In September, 2003, he endorsed “a ‘generational commitment’ to bringing political and economic reform to the long-neglected Middle East–a commitment not unlike that which we made to rebuild Europe after the Second World War.” (The phrase “generational commitment’ is Condoleezza Rice’s.) The article’s title is “Do what it takes in Iraq”, which is never enough to suit Kagan. This is one of his excuses for why the policies of war and might that he advocates have failed. The U.S. doesn’t try hard enough to suit him. The U.S. tried very, very hard in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, however. It still did not produce what Kagan and Kristol glowingly wanted in any of these countries and in Libya: “American ideals and American interests converge in such a project, that a more democratic Middle East will both improve the lives of long-suffering peoples and enhance America’s national security.” The very opposite has resulted!

The projection of American power and might into these lands has not produced what Kagan and Kristol forecasted would be the result.

The ideas and policies of Kagan and Nuland are influential in Washington and on Obama. They are always the most hawkish. In a Sept. 5, 2014 essay, Kagan wrote “The most hawkish members of Congress don’t think it safe to argue for a ground attack on the Islamic State or for a NATO troop presence in Ukraine.”

hqdefault.jpgKagan wants both an American ground attack on IS, which would mean attacks in three or more countries, and NATO in Ukraine. Nuland has constantly made provocative statements about Russia and she supports every move by Washington deeper and deeper into Ukraine’s politics and military campaigns. If Poroshenko is removed from office by another coup, Nuland will be there to influence and control the new leaders. She will anoint and bless them, even if they are neo-nazis.

The same article contains Kagan’s distorted interpretation of history. Kagan stands for the liberal values that came out of the Enlightenment and characterize the Western states. But he also believes that these states are pansies who need to be muscular in defense of these values. “Muscular” means interventionist and ever-willing to insert force and arms in foreign lands; not in classic self-defense but on a pro-active, preemptive basis. In other words, to maintain liberal values and promote liberalism worldwide, the liberal states have to behave illiberally. They have to attack other countries that they deem threatening. They have to be provocative toward any country that doesn’t meet their standards of liberality.

Kagan prefers the title “liberal interventionist” (Nuland presumably is the same.) This policy position is self-contradictory. A liberal position allows for self-defense, but it does not allow for remaking the world and attacking other countries. It is not necessarily the case that when the U.S. government provokes and confronts, or even invades, other nations that have different political setups, this benefits Americans.

Kagan’s idea is that there are military solutions to what he assumes are American problems in Syria and Ukraine. He bemoans “‘There is no military solution’ is the constant refrain of Western statesmen regarding conflicts from Syria to Ukraine…”, implying that there are such solutions. But are these lands actually problems for Americans in the first place? It’s hardly obvious that they are. They become problems only when the U.S. government follows the Kagan-Nuland philosophy of liberal interventionism and inserts itself into these conflicted lands. Kagan wants military solutions for problems that he has helped to create by his constant support and promotion of interventions.

Kagan’s justification of pro-active and preemptive military interventions and military solutions goes back to his interpretation of 20th century history, in particular, the role of Germany and Japan versus the western powers. He sees appeasement as a basic component of World War II. And he argues that Germany and Japan had grievances and resentments that could not be assuaged by concessions or accommodations from the West. He transfers this argument to the present and sees new enemies and threats in Russia, China and the Middle East.

Kagan’s ideas about Japan are oversimplified. The history of Japanese-American relations has to go back to armed U.S. naval expeditions in 1846, 1848 and 1852. It has to go back to friction over the Open Door Policy and U.S. immigration policy. China became an important bone of contention. Appeasement is hardly a consideration in any of this. Just the opposite. It is American resistance to Japan’s policies in China that is a nexus of frictions.

To engage in appeasement is to make a concession over what one owns or has a legitimate interest or obligation in. What concessions or legitimate interests did the U.S. sacrifice in order to avoid war with Japan and Germany? The U.S. did not have a treaty obligation to Czechoslovakia. The U.S. didn’t sign the Munich Agreement. The U.S. didn’t undertake to enforce Wilson’s idea of self-determination of nations when they came under threat from larger powers. It cannot be said that the U.S. appeased Germany. Furthermore, the U.S. participation in World War I, which would have been approved of by the Kagan-Nuland philosophy, had results that led to World War II. It cannot be argued that the U.S. appeased Germany in and before World War I.

With respect to the U.S. and NATO, it cannot be argued today that Ukraine is another Sudetenland or Czechoslovakia. The U.S. has no treaties with Ukraine to protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine or prevent it from breaking apart in a civil war. If it did have such a treaty, as it does with a good many other countries, it would only be asking for trouble.

Kagan’s understanding of the 19th century and appeasement is subject to serious questions. And when one considers how different the situations are today with respect to those states or countries that he seeks to replace Germany and Japan with, such as Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Islamic State, Russia and China, the Kagan-Nuland philosophy of American force projection is far more simply needless provocation and war-making than the non-appeasement that Kagan and Nuland envision it to be. Furthermore, the military intrusions of the U.S. can hardly be said to have appeased anyone; and they have done nothing to promote those liberal interventionist aims that Kagan and Nuland fell in love over.

jeudi, 02 janvier 2014

Neocons Push Israeli-Saudi Alliance

Neocons Push Israeli-Saudi Alliance

by Robert PARRY

Ex: http://www.a-w-i-p.com

Exclusive: Early U.S. presidents warned against the dangers of “entangling alliances,” prescient advice that the neocons want President Obama to ignore amid demands from Israel and Saudi Arabia that America tie itself up in the endless and bloody sectarian conflicts of the Middle East, reports Robert Parry.

American neocons are rallying to the new Israeli-Saudi alliance by demanding that President Barack Obama engage more aggressively against the two countries’ foes in the Middle East, thus “bolstering Israeli and Saudi confidence,” as the Washington Post’s deputy editorial-page editor Jackson Diehl declared.

For years, the Washington Post has served as Official Washington’s neocon flagship, bristling in support of every hawkish demand for U.S. intervention in the Mideast, most notably assembling a flotilla of misguided consensus in support of President George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq and then pounding any American skeptics who dared emerge over the horizon.

Diehl’s column on Monday [10/28/13] represented an extension of the neocons’ knee-jerk support of Israeli interests to those of the Saudi monarchy, Israel’s new secret friend. Diehl hoisted the banner of this odd-couple alliance in excoriating President Obama for letting down these two “allies” as they maneuver to crush what’s known as the Shiite crescent extending from Iran through Iraq and Syria to the Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanon.

In sync with the regional interests of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Diehl argued that the United States should toughen up its military posture in the Middle East with the goal of “reshaping conditions on the ground,” specifically going after Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria and damaging the new Iranian government of President Hassan Rouhani, or in Diehl’s words, “weakening Assad [and] degrading Iranian strength.”

Diehl added, “That work could be done without deploying U.S. troops, but it would be hard, expensive and require a lot of presidential attention.” Presumably, Diehl wants the U.S. military to launch those cruise missiles that were poised to “degrade” Assad’s regime in late August, and he hopes the U.S. diplomatic corps will rebuff Iran’s overtures for a diplomatic settlement over its nuclear program.

Like other neocons, Diehl takes Obama to task for giving peace a chance – by accepting Assad’s surrender of Syria’s chemical weapons, by seeking a negotiated settlement to the Syrian civil war (with Assad agreeing to send representatives to Geneva although the fractious Saudi-backed Syrian rebels and their jihadist allies still balk), by working with Iran on a deal that would swap tighter international controls over Iran’s nuclear program for sanctions relief, and by pressing for meaningful talks between Israel and Palestine toward a two-state solution.

Diehl deems this diplomatic offensive a series of “foreign policy fantasies,” the title of his Washington Post op-ed. By pushing diplomacy over confrontation, Obama has, in Diehl’s view, “driven a wedge between the United States and some of its closest allies [leaving] U.S. allies in the region – Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey – marooned in a scary new world where their vital interests are no longer under U.S. protection.

“Israel and Saudi Arabia worry that Obama will strike a deal with Iran that frees it from sanctions without entirely extirpating its capacity to enrich uranium — leaving it with the potential to produce nuclear weapons. But more fundamentally, they and their neighbors are dismayed that the United States appears to have opted out of the regional power struggle between Iran and its proxies and Israel and the Arab states aligned with the United States.

“It is the prospect of waging this regional version of the Cold War without significant U.S. support that has prompted Saudi leaders to hint at a rupture with Washington — and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to talk more publicly than ever about Israel’s willingness to act alone.”

Fighting for Others

Diehl — like virtually all his compatriots in the mainstream U.S. news media — leaves out the detail that Israeli already possesses one of the most sophisticated though undeclared nuclear arsenals in the world, while U.S. intelligence agencies still conclude that Iran is not working on even a single nuclear bomb.

Diehl also doesn’t bother to explain exactly why the American people should continue to expend vast amounts of money, prestige and blood to take sides in these interminable and often incomprehensible conflicts in the Middle East. The neocons simply behave as if every American should understand why a Shiite-dominated regime is so much more objectionable than a Sunni one; why an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia is preferable to a limited democracy like Iran; and why Israel has some fundamental right to possess East Jerusalem and other Palestinian lands.

For many Americans, it’s perhaps even harder to understand why the likes of Jackson Diehl and his boss, editorial-page editor Fred Hiatt, continue to reign over the Washington Post’s editorial section more than a decade after they helped guide the American people into the disastrous war in Iraq.

Not only has there been no accountability for their journalistic errors, including reporting Saddam Hussein’s alleged possession of WMDs as “flat fact” when it was no fact at all, but also none for the ugly character assassination against war critics, such as former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson whose wife, CIA officer Valerie Plame, saw her career destroyed when the Bush administration exposed her identity on the Post’s op-ed pages and Hiatt then kept up a years-long campaign to destroy Wilson’s reputation. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Why WPost’s Hiatt Should Be Fired.”]

Beyond no accountability at the Post, there appear to have been no lessons learned. Hiatt, Diehl and the other neocons simply continue to place the policy desires of Israel, in particular, and now its new buddy, Saudi Arabia, above the foreign policy of the U.S. government and above the interests of the American people.

In the early years of the Republic, Presidents George Washington and John Adams warned against the dangers of “entangling alliances” that could draw the United States into faraway and expensive conflicts that would drain the Treasury and create unnecessary enemies. In his Farewell Address, Washington saw the risk of foreign influence coming not only from adversaries but from allies who would seek to twist American domestic opinion in their favor.

Washington warned: “The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”

Those early warnings seem particularly prescient today regarding the Middle East, given the extensive and expensive efforts by Israel and Saudi Arabia to win favor in Official Washington through lobbying, propaganda and financial favors doled out to many influential Americans.

While Israel’s skills at lobbying and propaganda are renowned, Saudi Arabia also can throw its weight around through its ownership of American debt, its ability to manipulate oil prices and its stakes in major U.S. corporations, including in the powerful Wall Street financial sector.

Now that these two longtime rivals, Israel and Saudi Arabia, have formed a behind-the-scenes alliance – joining together on key regional issues such as countering Iranian influence, subverting the Assad regime in Syria, and backing the military coup in Egypt – the Obama administration finds itself confronting an imposing phalanx of political and economic clout.

The ease with which neocons like Jackson Diehl lift up the banner of this new combination of Israeli-Saudi interests is a telling sign of the two countries’ impressive geopolitical muscle. [For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Israeli-Saudi Alliance Slips into View.”]

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com

Article published here: Consortiumnews.com. Image: © N/A
URL: http://www.a-w-i-p.com/index.php/2013/11/18/neocons-push-israeli-saudi-alliance

lundi, 19 avril 2010

De la société secrète "Skull & Bones" au nouvel ordre mondial


De la Société secrète “Skull and Bones” au nouvel ordre mondial

Entretien avec Maurizio BLONDET

Propos recueillis par Giuseppe COSCO


illconfsnb322.jpgCOSCO: Docteur Blondet, vous vous êtes penché sur l’histoire de la “Société Skull and Bones”. Que pouvez-vous nous en dire, outre qu’elle est une société secrète mystérieuse, mais à nulle autre pareille?


BLONDET: C’est une société secrète, au départ réservée aux étudiants.Elle a  été fondée en 1832, quand quelques étudiants de l’Université de Yale, l’une des principales universités américaines, ont été choisis par, disons, le patriciat américain. Ils  étaient au nombre de douze par an. Il est notoire que Georges Bush Senior, l’ancien président des Etats-Unis, en a fait partie, et, avant lui, son père, et, après lui, tout naturellement, son fils, pour autant que l’on puisse admettre que ce fiston soit capable de suivre des cours à Yale, ce que l’on peut mettre en doute. Le candidat républicain à la présidence n’en a pas la capacité, à mon sens [l’interview date d’avant l’élection  de Bush Junior, ndlr]. Mais on peut affirmer avec quelque certitude qu’il fait partie de cette secte, non au sens strict; indubitablement , il est issu de ce milieu. La famille Bush est ensuite très proche des banquiers Harriman, qui constituent l’un des groupes les plus puissants de l’établissement américain.


COSCO: Peut-on dire que la Skull and Bones a investi aussi la CIA, car Bush-le-Père, c’est bien connu, a été le directeur de cette institution?


BLONDET: Il n’y a évidemment pas d’identité entre la Skull and Bones et la CIA. Les choses ne sont pas aussi simples. Mais il est vrai que plusieurs directeurs de  la CIA ont été membres de la Skull and Bones. En général, l’objectif d’une société de ce type est de constituer des groupes d’hommes du même âge, mais aussi des groupes intergénérationnels qui s’aident selon les circonstances. C’est l’évidence! Il faut aussi savoir que l’idéologie de la confraternité se place au-delà de la gauche et de la droite. La “droite” et la “gauche” sont, pour eux, des éléments d’une dialectique, qu’ils entendent surplombercar ils s’estiment supérieurs. La Skull and Bones représente un groupe de gnostiques qui veulent, très spécifiquement, s’adonner à toutes les manœuvres politiques, tant et si bien qu’ils utilisent tantôt l’idéologie attribuée à la “droite”, tantôt celle attribuée à la “gauche” comme  de simples étiquettes. Ces personnes se placent de toute façon au-dessus de ces distinctions. Ce n’est pas un hasard, par exemple, que Harriman fut le banquier que l’on nomma ambassadeur des Etats-Unis en Union Soviétique, afin qu’il puisse offrir une aide très importante à Staline et à son régime, alors qu’ils s’est toujours proclamé anti-communiste. Il faisait partie de cette brochette de banquiers, dont on ne se souvient plus aujourd’hui, qui ont toujours soutenu le système soviétique, jusque et y compris sous Gorbatchev.


COSCO: Pour être admis dans la Société Skull and Bones, faut-il être citoyen américain ou bien des personnalités issues d’autres nations y sont-elles admises aussi?


BLONDET: Je ne sais pas. L’unique source sûre sur cette société secrète est un livre paru il y a quelques années. Je n’ai pas connaissance d’autres travaux ou ouvrages. C’est l’historien Anthony C. Sutton qui a abordé l’histoire de cette fraternité si puissante : cf. Anthony C. Sutton, America’s Secret Establishment – An Introduction to The Order of Skull & Bones, by Anthony Sutton" (Liberty House Press, Billings, Montana - 1986). Il me paraît toutefois improbable que des non Américains en fassent partie. Peut-être que quelques Britanniques en sont membres,  mais certainement pas des Mexicains ou des Italiens, par exemple.


COSCO: L’histoire de la secte des “British Israelites” a-t-elle quelque chose à voir avec la Société Skull and Bones?


BLONDET: Pour autant que je le sache, les British Israelites ne sont pas directement liés à la Skull and Bones.


COSCO: La Skull and Bones est suspectée, depuis la  fin du 19ième siècle, de pratiquer le satanisme. Est-ce vraisemblable selon vous?


BLONDET: On peut, sans plus, le  suspecter. On sait simplement qu’il existe un rituel utilisant des ossements, ceux, dit-on, du chef amérindien Geronimo, que possèderait le groupe. Ces ossements serait conservés dans une salle à Yale, inaccessible au commun des mortels, où se déroule chaque année le rituel de l’initiation. Le rite est incontestablement d’origine maçonnique, comme l’atteste son style, où le postulant se retrouve dans un cercueil, afin de perpétrer un rituel de mort et de renaissance symboliques. Ensuite, le postulant doit révéler des choses dont il a honte et en parler normalement; il s’agit pour l’essentiel de choses concernant son mode de vivre sa sexualité. Le rituel doit le conduire à une sorte de purification, ce qui fait aussi de ce rituel une parodie de la confession catholique.


COSCO: Ils célèbrent donc un rite ésotérique?


BLONDET: Indubitablement. Il est cependant difficile d’affirmer qu’il soit satanique au sens strict du terme. On se doute également qu’à un certain moment du rituel, intervient une prêtresse, alors que le groupe est composé exclusivement d’hommes. Cette femme a donc un rôle dans cette liturgie, mais on ne peut pas le définir avec certitude.


COSCO: Peut-on dire que l’ex-Président Clinton  en a fait ou en fait partie?


BLONDET: Non, certainement pas Clinton. L’histoire de Clinton est différente. Il a reçu une formation typiquement anglo-saxonne. Il est parti étudié en Angleterre et y a acquis, semble-t-il, une répugnance profonde pour l’univers britannique.Al Gore, en revanche, est un homme d’un tout autre type. La famille d’Al Gore est puissante depuis toujours dans l’établissement américain, exactement comme celle de Bush, mais elle fait plutôt partie de l’établissement considéré comme “rouge”. Le père d’Al Gore a toujours été très proche, sur le plan des affaires, de ce fameux Hammer, de confession israélite, qui fut le premier à aider Lénine. Il est mort à plus de 90 ans, il y a quelques années, laissant une fortune colossale. Pendant toute sa vie, comme il s’en vantait lui-même, il a été un agent soviétique. Hammer était très célèbre : c’était lui qui faisait les “affaires sales” avec l’Union Soviétique et entendait soutenir cette monstruosité politique, même si, sans aide occidentale, elle se serait écroulée rapidement. Ce n’est donc pas un hasard si Al Gore a commis récemment une “erreur”. Il y a quelques petites années, le FMI a prêté à fonds perdus et à des conditions extrêmement favorables 7 milliards de dollars à la  Russie d’Eltsine à la demande et sous la caution d’Al Gore. Ces 7 milliards de dollars ont immédiatement été investis à l’étranger, pas  un centime n’est entré en Russie ou n’y a été investi. Cet argent a abouti sur le compte des “oligarques”, ou sur ceux d’anciens agents du KGB ou d’autres personnalités, devenues “entrepreneurs” dans la nouvelle Russie.


COSCO : La société “Skull and Bones” a été un jour définie comme une résurgence américaine des “Illuminés de Bavière” de Weisshaupt. Qu’ne pensez-vous?  


BLONDET: C’est possible, mais  je ne crois pas que l’on puisse avancer des preuves irréfutables en la matière. Nous nous  trouvons plus probablement face à quelque chose de plus général et de plus vaste, parce que le profil de la “Skull and Bones” n’est pas à proprement parler “révolutionnaires”.  Certes, elle est internationaliste, globaliste à la manière de Bush, mais nullement révolutionnaire.


COSCO: Peut-on dire que cette secte tend à réaliser le “nouvel ordre mondial”?


BLONDET: C’est le sens que lui a donné Bush. Le Président Bush (père), au temps de la guerre contre l’Irak, fut le premier à parler ouvertement de “nouvel ordre mondial”, lequel devait émerger à la suite de cette guerre. Mais, par la suite, les vicissitudes qui ont animé l’échiquier planétaire ne se sont pas exactement déroulées comme il l’avait pensé. Nous  avons en effet affaire à un “nouvel ordre mondial” en acte, mais on ne peut pas dire, avec exactitude quelles en seront les conséquences à long terme. Le pouvoir mondial ne se dissimule plus derrière le masque de l’ONU, mais avance directement sous la bannière étoilée. L’Amérique demeure l’unique superpuissance; elle n’a plus besoin de se caché derrière l’artifice de l’ONU.


COSCO: Quel est le véritable visage du “nouvel ordre mondial”, que beaucoup de gens considèrent comme le “bien suprême”?


BLONDET: Essentiellement, le “nouvel ordre mondial”, c’est la libre circulation des capitaux, avant même d’être la libre circulation des marchés, car ceux-ci ne se situent qu’à la deuxième place; vient ensuite la libre circulation des hommes, qui se placent en troisième position.La libre circulation des hommes est limitée au territoire américain. En effet, à la frontière mexicaine, les capitaux sont bien acceptés, mais non les hommes. Dans ce “nouvel ordre mondial”, divers phénomènes actuels s’expliquent; tous ne doivent pas être condamnés a priori. Nous devons révisés quelques-unes de nos positions idéologiques habituelles, surtout quand elles sont négatives. Le capitalisme, même globalisé, fonctionne, et pas toujours mal. Les pays qui en tirent avantage ne sont pas toujours des pays du “premier monde”, celui qui “compte”, mais aussi des pays qui connaissent un regain de vitalité et qui réaniment leurs particularités culturelles profondes. Ce regain culturel n’était sans doute pas prévu. Exemple : l’Inde est devenue un exportateur majeur de logiciels, parce que tous les géants du logiciel indiens appartiennent à la caste brahmanique, compsée de familles où l’on connaît le sanscrit, c’est-à-dire une langue classique, de même où l’on connaît encore une mathématique traditionnelle abstraite.  Les représentants de cette caste parlent anglais, produisent des logiciel en anglais, qui coûtent moins cher sur le marché mondial. Autre pays avantagé par la globalisation   —et plus qu’on ne l’imagine: l’Espagne.  Cet avantage est dû à un fait culturel précis. L’Espagne a possédé un empire pendant cinq cents ans. Aujourd’hui, 400 millions de personnes parlent espagnol dans le monde. L’Espagne est en train de devenir la puissance économique dominante sur les marchés sud-américains. Les banques espagnoles sont en train d’acquérir les banques d’Argentine, du Venezuela, etc. L’Espagne acquiert de plus en plus le visage d’une mère patrie impériale. Je me suis rendu en Espagne récemment et j’ai constaté, fait singulier, qu’il n’y avait pas, là-bas, un affect culturel anti-globaliste, comme il en existe un en France, en Italie et également en Allemagne. Ce n’est pas un hasard car l’anti-globnalisme prend le visage de la gauche, celle qui a généré des gouvernements inefficaces. Nous sommes contre la globalisation parce que nous sommes en faveur de la tradition et, pendant ce temps-là, la gauche improvise et redécouvre les traditions nationales, pour ne pas continuer à perdre du terrain.


COSCO: Et quels sont les aspects négatifs du “nouvel ordre mondial”?


BLONDET: Les aspects négatifs, à l’évidence, se concentrent dans l’excès de libre circulation de capitaux purement spéculatifs. Au moindre mouvement de panique, ces capitaux s’en vont, en quelques minutes, parce que, désormais, la monnaie électronique se meut à la vitesse des télécommunications, laissant brusquement des pays entiers  à sec, plongés dans de graves crises économiques, parce qu’ils s’étaient endettés, non  pas par pauvreté intrinsèque, mais parce qu’ils venaient de vivre un moment de croissance. Tout d’un coup, ils se rtrouvaient privés de liquidités. Les éléments négatifs du “nouvel ordre mondial” relèvent donc de phénomènes liés à la finance spéculative et révèlent d’énormes bulles de dettes impayables, comptabilisées par personne. Certains pays d’Amérique latine subissent de tels effets de manière particulièrement dramatique.  Je pense à la Colombie. Ces pays devraient se spécialiser dans les domaines où ils sont compétitifs. Ceux qui savent bien faire des cravattes, comme les italiens, et bien qu’ils produisent et vendent des cravattes et non pas des avions ou d’autres appareils dont ils ne pourront de toutes façons pas développer le secteur industriel. La Colombie produit la coca. Un tiers de  son territoire est d’ores et déjà contrôlé par des bandes guerrières, qui ont existé, là-bas, de tous temps. Elles se donnent bien entendu une étiquette de “gauche”. Elles sont en réalité constituées de narco-trafiquants, étiquettés de “gauche”, et, en juillet dernier, le directeur de la Bourse de New York, un certain Richard Grasso, est allé rendre visite à ces terroristes de fait, qui terrorisent la population, tuent des enfants, se livrent à des voies de fait dignes du Cambodge de Pol Pot, mais cela n’a pas dérangé outre mesure ce monsieur Grasso. Il a offert à cette bande d’”investir” leur argent sdale dans la Bourse de New York. Si le monde financier américain s’intéresse à l’argent des narco-trafiquants colombiens, cela signifie, en clair, que l’on va bientôt légaliser les drogues dures.


COSCO: Certains catholiques ont peur, car la mise en œuvre d’une globalisation totale provoquera la disparition de la religion catholique.  Pensez-vous que cette crainte se justifie?


BLONDET: Les milieux, qui veulent l’avènement du “nouvel ordre mondial” sont hostiles au catholicisme. Je pense surtout à Bush. Et aussi à Al Gore. La lutte contre le catholicisme est dure, elle relève de divers phénomènes autonomes, mais je pense toutefois qu’il est difficile d’agir directement  sur la religion catholique, c’est-à-dire sur le Vatican. Le vrai problème réside à mon sens dans une sorte de ressac final du catholicisme clérical. Le haut clergé du Vatican lui-même semble adopter une sorte de nihilisme souriant, qui l’induit à minimiser les contenus forts de l’orthodoxie, afin de provoquer de grands événements médiatiques, qui ne sont finalement que pures apparences, sans substance. Les choses sont allés si loin que l’an dernier, à la Noël, D’Alema, chef du gouvernement de gauche en Italie, a amené sa femme et ses enfants à la messe de minuit à Bethléem. Cela paraît anodin mais c’est proprement renversant : nous avons affaire à un homme politique qui ne croit en rien et qui amène sa famille pour assister, au fond, à un spectacle, de nature spirituelle, fort suggestif. En uncertain sens, cette visite constitue, pour moi, un événement symbolique fort, tout comme ce jubilée de la jeunesse [catholique] où, le dernier jour, dans les fauteuils réservés au VIP, on a pu voir se prélasser, invitées ou non, pratiquement toutes les personnalités du centre gauche...


COSCO: D’après vous, l’Eglise n’est plus rien d’autre qu’un vaste spectacle suggestif, destinés à impressionner les masses?


BLONDET: Effectivement, nous n’avons plus affaire  qu’à une Eglise-spectacle, patronné par cette espèce de cléricalisme institutionnel athée, car il est un clergé fourbe, aujourd’hui, qui est de gauche et qui est athée. Certains comportements de l’Eglise, comme les demandes continuelles de “pardon”, laissent les vrais catholiques perplexes et, à l’inverse, récoltent les oreilles attentives du consensus institutionnel de la gauche qui ne croit pas, mais qui prend les masses en considération, que nous ne sommes pas capables de mobiliser, alors qu’eux le peuvent. La CGIL est encore capable de s’organiser et d’organiser de vasgfes activités  sociales, ce que les paroisses ne peuvent plus faire. Mais, quoi que l’on fasse, ces jeunes ne seront véritablement chrétiens,comme l’a rappelé le Pape, que s’ils sont prêts à payer leur foi de leur sang. Et moi, je n’y crois pas!


Giuseppe Cosco

[ linus.tre@iol.it ]