Roland Dumas: "Nous n'avons plus de politique étrangère"

Propos recueillis par Sihem Souid

Ex: http://zejournal.mobi

L'ancien ministre de François Mitterrand et ex-président du Conseil constitutionnel livre à Sihem Souid sa vision de la France. Entretien:

Sihem Souid : Que pensez-vous de la politique étrangère menée par François Hollande depuis son élection ?

Roland Dumas : Le général de Gaulle tenait à ce que la France soit indépendante. Pompidou, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing (VGE) et Mitterrand ont été dans cette ligne de conduite qui donnait satisfaction à tout le monde, dire oui avec des réserves mais ne pas entrer dans le commandement intégré de l'Otan. Avec Chirac, des discussions ont eu lieu pour une réintégration, mais les contreparties qu'il voulait n'ont pas été acceptées (le commandement de la zone sud - la Méditerranée). Sarkozy a annoncé que la France réintégrait le commandement intégré de l'Otan. Avec l'arrivée de François Hollande au pouvoir, la politique étrangère a entériné ce changement de cap avec peu de débats internes et pas de débat public en réintégrant définitivement le commandement intégré de l'Otan, et cela, sans vraie contrepartie. En réalité, aujourd'hui, ceux qui commandent sont les États-Unis et Israël. Aujourd'hui, nous sommes dans une alliance où la France n'a plus rien à dire. Nous n'avons plus de politique étrangère indépendante.

Quel oeil portez-vous sur le travail mené par Laurent Fabius au Quai d'Orsay ?

Il a été mon Premier ministre, donc je ne peux pas en dire du mal (sourires). Vous connaissez le proverbe anglais "right or wrong, my country is my country". Il a été un très bon Premier ministre, mais il est un moins bon ministre des Affaires étrangères car il ne pousse pas les idées que je viens de vous exposer qui sont les idées traditionnelles de la France. La France a perdu son indépendance en matière de politique étrangère !

Croyez-vous en l'avenir du Parti socialiste ?

Je suis très frappé de voir avec quelle dextérité les partis de droite changent de label, contrairement au Parti socialiste qui n'a changé qu'une seule fois d'étiquette (SFIO). Il est le seul à incarner le socialisme et c'est une grande idée, ce n'est pas quelque chose que l'on change en lisant Marie Claire. C'est une philosophie politique. Le Parti socialiste a deux tendances et elles subsisteront. Une tendance conservatrice et une tendance progressiste. Manuel Valls représente tout ce qu'il y a de plus conservateur dans le Parti socialiste. Manuel Valls est un bon gestionnaire, mais ce n'est pas ma tasse de thé. François Hollande comme Manuel Valls représentent la tendance droitière. Je n'oublie pas qu'il y a 20 ans François Hollande était le précurseur de la droite du Parti socialiste. Il appelait ça l'intercourant. C'est la droite du Parti socialiste qui gouverne et qui trouve son aise et ses habitudes dans son alliance avec l'Amérique.

Selon vous, François Mitterrand a été le président de la République le plus à gauche ?

Le plus à gauche de tous les hommes politiques qui ont gouverné est le général de Gaulle. Sur le plan de la politique étrangère, il a créé avec la Russie l'escadrille de chasse Normandie-Niemen, il fallait du culot tout de même de sa part ! C'est quand même lui qui a fait la paix pour la guerre d'Algérie. On peut raconter ce que l'on veut, mais à l'époque, c'est lui qui a fait la paix et les socialistes qui ont fait la guerre. Il y a des moments où je me sens mal à l'aise !

Nous sommes à la mi-mandat de François Hollande. Quelle différence voyez-vous entre les deux premières années de François Mitterrand et celles de François Hollande ?

Elle est très grande ! François Mitterrand avait créé l'Union de la gauche, c'est moi-même qui avais négocié avec le Parti communiste. Le Front de gauche est un adversaire du gouvernement. Hollande ne sait pas rassembler les gauches et je considère qu'il a du courage, mais pour une mauvaise politique.

Que feriez-vous aujourd'hui si vous étiez encore ministre des Affaires étrangères ?

Je serais déjà toujours resté fidèle à la pensée socialiste. J'aurais rétabli une vraie politique française avec la Russie ! La France doit rétablir une relation privilégiée avec la Russie. Nous traitons mal les Russes, contrairement à ce qui peut se dire dans le monde ! Nous ne tenons compte d'aucun des engagements qui ont été pris, notamment avec Gorbatchev concernant la conférence de Moscou. L'alliance outre-Atlantique n'a pas tenu ses engagements envers Moscou. Je suis contre l'injustice même en politique internationale.

Pensez-vous que la montée des extrêmes est plutôt due à une crise du politique ou de la démocratie?

Les hommes politiques ont moins d'influence que l'on croit sur la politique, mais ils incarnent à un moment une situation. Le Front national surfe sur la crise économique concernant la politique intérieure et surfe sur la politique étrangère en prenant le relais du nationalisme.

Pourquoi faut-il reconnaître l'État palestinien ? Selon vous, la reconnaissance de l'État palestinien est-elle suffisante pour relancer un processus de paix ayant des chances d'aboutir?

C'est une question qui n'est pas neuve. La question se pose déjà depuis la fin de la guerre. Ce qui me navre, c'est qu'elle se pose avec répétition et un peu de naïveté, car tous les jours on entend dire où en est le processus de paix, mais tout le monde sait que le processus de paix est mort. Il ne faut pas demander des nouvelles d'un mort, mais ça amuse la communauté internationale. En réalité, les protagonistes de ce conflit ne souhaitent pas la paix, ils veulent le processus de paix, ce qui est différent. La reconnaissance de l'État palestinien n'est pas négligeable, mais tout cela finira dans le ridicule. La France vient de se prononcer avec courage sur cette question, mais un courage qui tape dans un édredon de plumes. Les jeux sont faits de telle façon que ça ne bouge pas, on voit bien que, dès qu'il y a une décision de prise qui condamne Israël, il y a le veto américain ou un autre veto. Les grandes puissances ne veulent pas que ça avance. Aujourd'hui, la Russie est quand même un peu affaiblie et n'a pas le pouvoir qu'elle pouvait avoir autrefois pour peser dans le conflit israélo-palestinien. On se dirige vers une situation qui n'est pas très originale.

- Source : Sihem Souid

Will France and Germany challenge NATO?

Christof Lehmann

Ex: http://www.geopolitica.ru

 

In an interview with l’Humanite.fr, former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas stressed that France had become the vanguard dog of NATO, criticizing the presidencies of Sarkozy and Hollande for selling out on French sovereignty. The statement came in response to NATO’s summit in Newport, Wales, September 4 – 5, 2014 and the decision to expand NATO’s ambitions in Ukraine. Dumas argues, NATO outlived its purpose and has become an instrument of aggression.

 

 

Roland Dumas, born in 1922, belongs to the last generation of great French Statesman who experienced the French – German war that prompted the creation of NATO. Can France and Germany overcome their grievances and lead a new, continental European diplomacy for peace and prosperity for Europe and beyond? The question is tabled by a German who belongs to the first generation of continental Europeans who have not experienced a major conflict on the continent; not yet. The article suggests problems and possible solutions for  a French – German initiated partnership for peace in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and beyond. It is a bold proposal that necessarily has to deal with “red herrings” and  touch keystones which would have to be put in place by a new diplomacy of fellow travelers for peace.

 

The Middle East – Ukraine and NATO. Two Key Statements by Dumas.

 

Roland Dumas is not without controversy, which is exactly what one would expect from a senior statesman who has escaped the pressures of running for and holding office; who has more time to reflect and reason. In June 2013, Dumas floated a message in a bottle when he “outed” British interests behind the war in Syria, and now Iraq. Appearing on the French TV channel LPC, Dumas said: 

 

“I am going to tell you something. I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business. I met with top British officials, who confessed to me, that they were preparing something in Syria. … This was in Britain not in America. Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria. They even asked me, although I was no longer Minister of Foreign Affairs, if I would like to participate. Naturally, I refused, I said I am French, that does not interest me. … This operation goes way back. It was prepared, preconceived and planned… in the region it is important to know that this Syrian regime has a very anti-Israeli stance. … Consequently, everything that moves in the region…- and I have this from a former Israeli Prime Minister who told me ?we will try to get on with our neighbors but those who don?t agree with us will be destroyed. It is a type of politics, a view of history, why not after all. But one should  know about it”.

 

Dumas’ decision was bold, even though he stopped short of naming the names of those “British officials”. Dumas wasn’t any longer holding office at that time but he is, understandably, subject to the limitations which are implied in politics and diplomacy. What would be more important, anyway, would be to identify those “stakeholders” behind the approach.

 

On September 5, during NATO’s summit in Newport, Wales, Dumas prompted controversy again, when he described France as having become “the vanguard dog of NATO”.  Speaking with a journalist from the French l’Humanite.fr, Dumas commented on the summit that focused on the current Ukrainian regime’s plans to accede into the Alliance. Dumas shared his concerns about the direction of the current NATO policy and its impact on French diplomacy. Asked whether NATO still has a purpose, he replied:

 

“It may, for those who manage it! Historically, the Atlantic Alliance was a military alliance which had very limited geographical jurisdiction, the North Atlantic, and one goal: to end the war against Germany”. 

 

After a peace with Germany had been reached, Dumas noted, we decided to expand the scope to include the removal of the two covenants: the Atlantic Alliance and the Warsaw Pact. Dumas stressed that NATO instead had expanded and evolved into an instrument for warfare instead, saying:

 

“The Warsaw Pact has been dissolved but NATO, no …it has even expanded and reinforced. Just listen to Mr. Rasmussen, the secretary-general, to realize that NATO has become an instrument for warfare”.

 

The Essence of a European and Global Peace vs. NATO’s obsessive eastward Expansion

 

Dumas commented on NATO’s interventionism and stressed a continental European perspective when he warned against using a politico-military instrument that was created to end a war with Germany and with jurisdiction over the Atlantic, for something as important as the situation in Ukraine. Dumas recalled disarmament negotiations with his former Soviet counterpart who insisted that NATO would not arm any of the countries which had formerly been part of the Warsaw Pact. He stressed that

 

“This was the essence of peace. Everyone was in agreement… Well, the Americans do not heed. They transported weapons to the Baltic countries and Poland. Hence the controversy when Putin came to power”.

 

Dumas quoted Putin as noting that NATO hadn’t kept its word and noted that there really is no point in waving a red flag in front of the nose of the Russians which will scare them or cause them to stall. He stressed that Russia didn’t pose any threat to Europe, and that this was no way to treat a great power, which was, alongside the Americans, one of the victors of WWII. Dumas added that the balance that had been established has been broken but noted that those who opposed this NATO policy had been diminished to dwarfs. It is necessary at this point, to interject that today’s U.S. and NATO policy is dominated by grand policy architects like Obama administration adviser Zbigniev Brzezinski. “Z-Big” as Brzezinski loves to be referred to, is literally, and in the opinion of several professional psychologists “clinically obsessed” with encircling Russia, dividing Russia into six or more, smaller states, to then force Moscow into a U.S/U.K.-dominated hegemony. Reading Z-Big’s latest book “Strategic Vision” will put Dumas’ warning that “this is no way to treat a great power” , his concern about “waving red flags”, and his warning that NATO is not the appropriate instrument for solving as important a problem into an appropriate context.

 

The book is essential literature for anyone who has not fully comprehended this new scope of NATO’s policy and the fact that it aims at establishing a U.S./U.K. hegemony over continental Europe,  Eurasia and the Middle East. This necessarily implies that continental European powers, including France, Germany and Russia have to be subjugated by this U.S./U.K.-dominated hegemony. It also implies that geopolitical instruments will be applied to achieve the objective.

 

Note that “geopolitics” suggests: If you are the second-largest power, for example, play the first and the third-largest powers against each other to be become the “tertius gaudens”. The laughing third, who will laugh with unalloyed joy. For the U.S./U.K or Atlantic Axis, this implies playing China against Russia as much as this implies playing France and Germany against each other in NATO, the EU, and so forth. Transnational, non-state and deep-state-actors are of course both mitigating and adding complexity.

 

In terms of “Realpolitik” note: The U.S./U.K . as well as largely U.K.-aligned E.U.-actors are the primary powers behind the engineering of the crisis in Ukraine. Note that there is a massive amount of evidence that suggests that NATO’s Gladio networks have been let loose on/in Ukraine. Note that a substantially weakened, economically unfeasible, IMF indebted Ukraine is loaded upon the European Union in a Faustian Pact, using NATO as politico-military instrument. Meanwhile, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron announces preparations for the U.K. to possibly leave the European Union. Cameron prepares the U.K. for its unalloyed joy while it continues to succeed at playing France, Germany and others in continental Europe, including Turkey, against each other.

 

On the point of the French re-entry into NATO as full member, Dumas noted that Chirac already wanted to re-enter NATO but he demanded compensations. “The Americans laughed at him” Dumas added, saying:

 

“Then Sarkozy followed suit, but this time without asking for compensation! As for Hollande, he has not challenged this decision, and to my dismay”.

 

Many key members of the French Socialist Party were dismayed about Hollande and not only about NATO, but also with regard to French Africa policy, for example with regard to the case of Ivory Coast and former Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo. In part the dismay was shared by key German power-brokers in Germany’s Conservative, Socialist, and Liberal parties alike as well as by German EU politicians. Dumas notes that the French voice, today, has been totally obscured. He added:

 

“We follow American diplomacy while trying to give the illusion that we exist in the international arena. …. France became the vanguard dog of the Alliance at the risk at appearing as a war-faring nation. We have totally turned our backs on the ?traditional`position adopted soon after the war (WWII). Whenever I went to NATO, President Mitterrand told me …??Especially Dumas, remember we are not part of the integrated command. Understand: Do not obey all decisions that will be taken! (Not) Before the voice of France has been heard, and she was often heard”.

 

Asked whether he thought that France still could get out of NATO, Dumas stressed that he though “yes, it can”. However, he added two necessary preconditions which are; a French leader of unquestionable world authority of the caliber like a Charles De Gaulle; Circumstances that would make everyone understand the decision. We will return to these “circumstances”  and the question of “leadership” below.

 

Developing a French – German Perspective a Question of Sovereignty, Survival, Peace and Prosperity. 

 

Considering the current crisis in the Middle East and Ukraine, let us explore the hypothesis that the development of a French – German and a continental European perspective is a prerequisite for maintaining national sovereignty and for preventing a third European war of global reach. This perspective necessarily implies considerations about the Middle East and Africa. Any French or German will realize that both France and Germany will table non-issues, red herrings and issues, which are tied to decades, in fact centuries of distrust and disaster.

 

A brief Assessment of the Middle East: As Dumas stated, top-British officials approached him in 2009, years before the first protests in Libya and Syria, asking him whether he wanted to subvert Syria with “rebels”. We know now that the “project” to subvert a number of nations with the help of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda and similar brigades was launched in 2007. The key factors behind the decision were:

 

The discovery of the largest-known natural gas reserves in the Persian Gulf, shared by Qatar and Iran, in 2007 and new surveys which revealed that the Eastern Mediterranean gas fields contained about 70% more gas than had been previously known. The completion of a pipeline from Iran, via Iraq and Syria alone could have secured Europe’s gas requirements for 100 – 110 years. Between 50% – 70 % of Europe’s gas requirements could be covered by Iranian and Russian gas, if not more. This development would be unacceptable for Israel, considering the arguably increased Iranian influence with regard to the EU’s Middle East policy in general and Palestine in particular. The development would not only render large U.S. and British energy projects like the Nabucco project unprofitable or obsolete, it threatens declared ambitions to establish the U.S./U.K.-hegemony in Europe with all what that implies.

 

The development would also threaten the position of the U.S. dollar, weaken it, and ultimately accelerate its collapse. Needless to say that the U.S. will do anything it needs to prevent the collapse as long as possible. The problem is that it does so by usurping others instead of adjusting a flawd system. The E.U. has, arguably, been co-opted or forced into playing along by e.g. importing oil from “rebel-held territories” in Syria. The primary actors behind the “Balkanization” of Syria, however, are the U.S/U.K. via e.g. the Atlantic Council. The far-reaching implications, and how “Realpolitik” coincides with e.g. Brzezinski’s “Strategic Vision” becomes evident when one reads the words Atlantic Council President Frederick Kempe said prior to the Atlantic Council’s Energy Summit in Turkey, in November 2013:

 

“We view the current period as a turning point, just like 1918 and 1945. Turkey is in every way a central country, as a creator of regional stability. However much the USA and Turkey can work in unison, that is how effective they will be.”

 

One should not forget that reaching the 1918 and 1945 turning points requires the beginning of the wars in 1914 and 1939 first. Understandably, this form of political thinking does not render many possibilities for making the French or the German, the Czech, the Slovakian, and other’s opinions count. Earlier this year a person from the inner circle around the former Lebanese PM Saad Hariri, who was seriously concerned about the threat of a wider war, noted that the final decision to launch the attack on Iraq via ISIL/ISIS/IS fell on the sidelines of the Atlantic Council’s Energy Summit in Istanbul, November 22-23, 2013. The “sovereignty” of the people of France, Germany, and other continental European nations with regard to Iraq has, in other words, been reduced to the possibility to respond to policy that is being implemented by rogue networks who are embedded within both foreign governments, their own governments, the E.U. and NATO. Note that this statement is consistent with the words of Dumas, who noted that the French voice is not heard any more and that it has been reduced to a dwarf.

 

A brief Assessment of the Situation in Africa and French – German Differences in Opinion.

 

Dumas noted that Sarkozy went along with NATO and that Hollande, much to his and many French Socialists dismay, followed suit. French – German differences in opinion with regard to French Africa policy may indeed have been part of Sarkozy’s deliberations. In 2010 France was instrumental in ousting the Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo. Gbagbo and the Libyan head of State Muammar Qaddafi were actively and successfully lobbying for the creation of a gold-backed, pan-African currency. The Sarkozy administration was also instrumental in the implementation of the “Arab Spring” in Libya in 2011. A compendium of articles which are a good starting point for further studies on French involvement is the book “The Illegal War on Libya”, edited by the former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. One can conclude that Sarkozy went along with Libya because he was a) given U.S./U.K cover for Ivory Coast, b) because France has Mediterranean ambitions which were compatible with ousting Qaddafi. What is interesting with regard to this discussion is the question “why” there are French – German differences in opinion, and why France, almost like a knee-jerk response felt that it “had to” get both Gbagbo and Qaddafi out of the equation.

 

French Africa Policy and French – German Differences in Opinion. Analyzing the situation from Ivory Coast over Libya to Syria and Iraq shows that France, in so many words, went along with a war on Syria and Iraq even though they could be potentially catastrophic for European energy-security. In exchange, France received the support of the U.S./U.K. in Ivory Coast and Libya. So far, the failed project in Syria caused the crisis in Ukraine. The following will demonstrate how a more functional French – African cooperation could have mitigated many of the risks which Europe currently faces. To understand why, it is necessary to understand French Africa policy, and the fact that it would not take much lobbying in Germany and at the European Council for them to go along with a radical and bold course change, – if only France dared.

 

France succeeded at maintaining virtually absolute control over the national economies of its former colonies in Africa when these colonies gained their “independence”. One touchy point in French – German discussions is that Charles De Gaulle, whom Dumas described as man with unquestionable world authority, literally copied the blueprint for usurpation that Germany used to usurp the economies of German occupied France and other German occupied nations during WWII.

 

The former French Africa colonies are Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Ivory Coast, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, the Republic of Congo, Senegal and Togo. Their money, the CFA Franc, is printed by the French National Bank in Chemalier, France.  The 15 former colonies, plus France formed the Monetary and Economic Union of West Africa (U.M.E.O.A.).

 

The Council of Presidents of the fifteen U.M.O.A. member states constitutes the highest authority of the union. Decisions of the Presidential Council are made unanimously. The Ministerial Council of the U.M.O.A. defines the monetary and credit policy of the union and it is responsible for the economic development of the region. According to the constitutions of all fifteen member states the creation of their currency, the regulation of its value, as well as the regulation of parities and modalities, is the exclusive privilege of the nation and its people and decisions about it are made by the parliament. That much to nominal independence. The placement of French commissars within the heart of the nations and the union’s banking system creates an obvious dichotomy between the nominal sovereignty of the union, its constituents, and the direct control of their national and regional economies by the former colonial power.

 

The region has three central banks. Three of the thirteen of the Directors of the B.E.A.C. are French and four of the eight Directors of the B.C.C. are French. The Board of Directors of the B.C.E.A.O. is constituted by sixteen Directors; two from each country plus two additional Directors from France who take part in the management of the bank under the same conditions and with the same privileges as the other Directors. The number and placement of the commissars gives them a Veto right at the board of each of the Central Banks. No decision can be made without their approval. France can enforce its policy by threatening to deadlock the economies unless decisions are made in compliance with French suggestions. The veto right also extends to the nomination of the Governor of the B.E.A.C.. The Governor is elected with the unanimous vote of the Board of Directors, on suggestion of the government of Gabon, and after the approval of the other member states as well as France. This Central Bank does not only have the privilege to create the currency. It also has the privilege to grant credit for the current accounts of the national treasuries at its discount rate. The Board of Directors is making the decisions about the temporalities and about the total amount that is granted for financing the economies of each of the member states.

 

Sixty-five percent of the U.M.E.O.A. members’ foreign currency reserves as well as all of their gold reserves have to be placed at the French National Bank at zero interest. In return, France guarantees the value of the CFA Franc, which it devalues at leisure. On 3 Mai 2010 the website of Jeune Afrique quotes the former French Minister of Finance and Commerce, now IMF Director Christine Lagarde: “The Bank of the States of Central Africa, for instance, places an almost 90 per cent of their reserves in the French National Bank”.  In an interview for Le Liberation in 1996 the late President of Gabon, Omar Bongo said:

 

“We are in the Franc Zone. Our operations accounts are managed by the French National Bank in Paris. Who profits from the interests that our money generates ? France.”

 

Large parts of the French national economy are literally based on this usurpation. French economists, generally agree that the French national economy would collapse without this “infusion” while many also are aware that the usurpation with the help of oppression is an extreme security gamble. France enforces its position with a destructive policy that has left the region shattered by coup d’etat, instability and war. To mention some; In January 1963 the President of Togo, the late Sylvanus Olympio was murdered three days before the issuing of a new currency. On 19. November 1968 the late President of Mali Modibo Keita was ousted in a coup and arrested. In 1977 Modibo Keita died in prison. Keita was poisoned. On 27. January 1996 the President of Mali was ousted in a military coup d?etat. On 15. March 2003 the late President of the Central African Republic Ange Felix Patasse was ousted by the “rebel leader” Francois Bozize. In 2010 the Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo was ousted in a coup d’etat. Gbagbo was imprisoned at the ICC. The UN still has all ballot boxes which could prove whether the alleged election fraud had taken place or not, but the UN has so far failed to investigate appropriately. In all cases the monetary union and France have played a role.

 

The result  is that one of the richest and most productive region is hopelessly impoverished, indebted and lagging behind in even basic development indexes. Naturally, the development of a stable middle class which could give the region a lift is impossible. It goes without saying; the development of the region as potential trading partner for a European market, a market that could yield far greater economic and humanitarian potential than the one that one could achieve by oppression and usurpation is made impossible too. Hence France is keeping on “fixing” Africa problems to barely hang on to a Nazi method of usurpation.

 

The French – German differences in opinion about Africa, German Sovereignty, and distrust between France and Germany can be reduced to this.

 

France has a knee jerk reaction every time the European Council or German lobbyists challenge France to redirect its Africa policy. A German analyst and Africa expert once said to the author that France reminds him of a man who stands at an abyss. He is so transfixed by staring into that abyss that he cannot even conceive of the idea that he could turn around to look whether there is terra firma behind him. When German lobbyists approach France, they are often trying to calmly call on France and to reach out with a helping hand so France could take a step back and reassess its situation. One must add to this, that France and Germany share the fate of literally centuries of wars against each other. One should note that Germany was the aggressor in the last two wars. In fairness and to understand the dynamics, one must admit that there often was a tertium gaudens, a laughing third who could laugh with unalloyed joy, who played a role in French – German confrontations.

 

French policy makers will recall French President Mitterrand’s knee jerk situation and united British – French lobbying against the reunification of Germany. The result is that: Germany may be nominally “reunited” but that the 2+4 treaty is no peace treaty; That Germany still is classified as enemy state to the United Nations; That Germany still has no constitution and cannot adopt a constitution before it has a peace treaty; That its basic law has no territory on which it is valid; That Germany according to the analysis of qualified historians like Peter Feist still is subject to a “letter of submission to Washington” signed by former German Chancellor Willy Brand; That Brandt only signed because Washington threatened to sabotage the inner-German dialog; And that Germany, politically, economically, as well as militarily remains under the direct control of the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Command Europe (SHAPE).

 

German governments and media attempt to suppress these facts for the simple reason that they are aware how “explosive” this information would become if a German government, a major opposition party, or the major German media ever would make “an issue” out of them. The consequences could be disastrous, if the people of Germany ever would realize how badly they have been deceived before there was established a secure way of turning this frustration into a positive development. Many analysts suggest that German governments, for their part, are in a similar situation to that of France.

 

They are standing at the abyss, fearing that the German populace discovers the deception. To compensate, German governments are pushing for a seat at the U.N. Security Council, trying to force the hands of those who still capture German sovereignty as enemy state to the U.N.. Germany’s problem is, that France so far only has whispered slight whispers which were insufficient to wake up Germany. Germany is waiting to see the hand of France, not pushing it into the abyss but to offer its hand for a partnership that aims at a new, continental European consensus for national sovereignty, peace and prosperity. Consequently, both the government of Hollande and the government of Merkel are staring into the abyss while a laughing third is about to unleash the terrors of yet another great war on the European continent.

 

Former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas stressed that a French break with NATO would not only require a statesman at the helm but a situation that would allow others to understand why – France needs a good explanation if you will. The same could be said about Germany. It would require a situation that could help Germany’s partners to understand that keeping Germany as a “colony” in a Brzezinskian hegemony is unacceptable. Considering that both France and Germany still are, at least nominally, and to some degree functional democracies, the operand question is whether Hollande and Merkel would dare to exercise the sovereignty of the French and German people. Arguably, it is more a question of  - good management – than a question about “one glorious statesman”. Dumas, and others in France and Germany who are lobbying for greater sovereignty, and in particular Socialists should recognize that a great statesman can only be born out of a political moment, which can be created by intense campaigning from the base. So, would Hollande and Merkel live up to their challenges? The answer is that nobody, probably not even Hollande nor Merkel know. What is certain is, that the political moment is possible, because the potential for it exists within the continental European, especially in the French and German populations.

 

Indicators in favor of a Continental European Consensus for Sovereignty, Prosperity and Peace.

 

A 2014 survey in Germany shows that the majority of Germans is against the presence of NATO troops in eastern Europe. The survey, conducted by Deutschlandpoll, also suggested that 49 percent of Germans would rather see Germany take a position of a bridge between the East and the West. Only 45 percent of those who were polled considered Germany as a solidly anchored part of the West. It is noteworthy that this poll was conducted in the presence of a relentless, anti-Russian campaign in most, if not all German mainstream media.

 

In May 2014, Hollande and Merkel held a joint press conference in Berlin. The two statesmen called for a prompt and full investigation into the massacre in Odessa, where some 150 protesters who had sought refuge in a Trade Union House were murdered in cold blood. A detailed photo study of the massacre shows that the massacre was pre-meditated mass murder, involving Ukraine’s Pravy Sector which is known for its ties to NATO’s Gladio network. Besides that, Hollande and Merkel jointly criticized Kiev’s unbridled use of military force against Ukrainian citizens, stressing that any use of military force in Ukraine is allowed exclusively for the protection of human lives and infrastructure. The two added that even then, it must be used with proportionality. They urged Kiev to begin a dialog with the rebelling regions before elections and to cease armed hostilities.

 

In respectively June and July 2014, the governments of the Czech Republic and Slovakia stressed that they did not want to accept NATO troops in their countries and saw no need for any NATO bases in their countries either. The rejection came in response to direct “proposals” from U.S. President Barack Obama. The proposals came after Poland, in April, called on the U.S. to deploy additional troops to Poland. It is noteworthy that historical research documents that Poland played the role of provocateur against Germany up to WWII, in collusion with the government of the U.K., the laughing third.

 

In September 2014, after U.K. PM David Cameron outed the possibility that the UK may reconsider its EU-membership, a French survey showed that over 50 percent of the polled Frenchmen opted for “letting them leave” and do what they want. Understandably, only a minority in France and Germany would want to be helpful with regard to the U.K.’s dilemma about Scottish independence. There are literally hundreds of other, political, social, and economic indicators which suggest that there is a growing continental European consensus against the Atlantic Alliance and against bellicose Atlantic Axis-launched wars from Africa over Syria and Iraq to Ukraine. It would be beyond the scope of this article to analyze them all. The one that tells most is that it was negotiations without the presence of the U.S. and U.K. that led to a dialog and a ceasefire in Ukraine.

 

In conclusion, the voice of France with regard to NATO can be heard and a break with NATO is possible; A Germany that regains its sovereignty and assumes a role as bridge between the East and the West, which it already has geographically, culturally and economically is possible; A continental European consensus for peace in Africa, the Middle East and in Europe, opposed to an Atlantic Axis fire starter policy is possible and would lead to greater prosperity on a global scale. None of the above, however, would be possible as long as France and Germany perceive each others hands as threats, fearing to be plunged into the abyss. Who is the tertuim gaudens, who laughs with unalloyed joy? What would it take for a Hollande or for a Merkel to take one step back from the abyss? The answer is: I don’t know. Merkel probably doesn’t know it either, and neither does Hollande. What is certain, is that they probably have more support for a continental European peace and partnership with Russia from the people of France and Germany than they would dare to hope for. It is the question whether or not one lives up to the moment that makes the difference between a politician and a statesman, between war and peace.

 

 

Roland Dumas : "La France, chien d’avant-garde de l’OTAN"

Auteur : Emilie Denètre

Ex: http://zejournal.mobi

Les 4 et 5 septembre, les membres de l’OTAN se sont réunis à Newport, au Royaume-Uni. Au menu des discussions : l’Ukraine. Alors que le pays en appelle à l’Alliance et envisage de relancer son processus d’adhésion, l’OTAN devra trancher sur l’envoi ou non d’une aide matérielle à Kiev. L’ancien ministre des Affaires étrangères, Roland Dumas, nous livre son inquiétude sur la dérive de l’OTAN et sur ses conséquences sur la diplomatie française.

Humanité Dimanche. Est-ce que l’OTAN a encore une raison d’être ?

Roland Dumas. Elle peut en avoir une, pour ceux qui la gèrent ! Historiquement, l’Alliance atlantique était une alliance militaire qui avait une compétence géographique très limitée, l’Atlantique Nord, et qui avait un objectif : finir la guerre contre l’Allemagne. Donc, si l’on regarde l’ensemble de ces éléments, on se rend compte qu’elle n’a plus aujourd’hui de raison d’être. On avait décidé, alors que j’étais aux Affaires, du démantèlement des pactes. On ferait disparaître les deux alliances : l’Alliance atlantique et le pacte de Varsovie. Le pacte de Varsovie a bien été dissous mais l’OTAN, non... elle s’est même élargie (avec la Pologne et les États baltes) et renforcée. Il suffit d’écouter M. Rasmussen, son secrétaire général, pour se rendre compte que l’OTAN est devenue un instrument guerrier.

HD. Justement, l’Ukraine appelle l’OTAN à l’aide et envisage d’intégrer l’Alliance...

R. D. L’OTAN intervient à tout propos. En quoi son secrétaire général peut prendre la parole pour dire comme il l’a fait : « Je somme les Russes de ne plus envoyer d’armements aux russophones d’Ukraine ! » Au nom de quoi cette Alliance, qui était faite pour finir la guerre contre l’Allemagne avec une compétence sur l’Atlantique Nord, peut se mêler de choses aussi importantes que l’Ukraine ? Lorsque nous discutions du désarmement (lors de la chute de l’URSS – NDLR), mon homologue russe insistait pour que l’OTAN ne dispose pas d’armements dans les pays qui avaient fait partie du pacte de Varsovie, c’est-à-dire à proximité de sa frontière. C’était l’essence même de la paix. Tout le monde était d’accord. Eh bien, les Américains n’en ont pas tenu compte. Ils ont acheminé des armes dans les pays Baltes et en Pologne. D’où la controverse lorsque Poutine arrive au pouvoir. Il dit : « Vous n’avez pas tenu votre parole. » On n’a vraiment aucun intérêt à agiter le chiffon rouge devant le nez des Russes pour les effrayer ou pour les faire caler. En réalité, en quoi la Russie nous menace-t-elle ? Ce n’est pas une façon de traiter une grande puissance, qui a eu, au même titre que les Américains, sa part dans la victoire de 1945. La situation est devenue explosive et elle va l’être de plus en plus. Il existait un équilibre du monde et c’est cet équilibre qui est rompu.

« SORTIR DE L’OTAN ? IL FAUDRAIT UNE AUTORITÉ MONDIALE INCONTESTABLE. CE N’EST PAS POUR DEMAIN, CAR AUJOURD’HUI, CE SONT DES NAINS. »

HD. Quelles ont été les conséquences, pour la France, de la réintégration du commandement intégré de l’OTAN ?

R. D. Chirac voulait déjà réintégrer le commandement mais avec des compensations. Les Américains lui ont ri au nez. Les choses sont restées en l’état. Puis Sarkozy lui a emboîté le pas, mais cette fois-ci sans demander la moindre compensation ! Quant à Hollande, il n’a pas remis en cause cette décision, et ce à mon grand désespoir. Il l’a dit quasiment au lendemain de son élection... c’était assez caractéristique. Je pensais qu’il n’aurait pas, au moins dans ce domaine, un réflexe de suivisme. Aujourd’hui, la voix de la France est totalement occultée. Nous suivons la diplomatie américaine tout en essayant de donner l’illusion que nous existons sur la scène internationale. Alors nous aboyons plus fort que les autres. La France est devenue le chien d’avant-garde de l’Alliance, au risque d’apparaître comme une nation « va-t-enguerre ». Nous avons complètement tourné le dos à la position « traditionnelle », adoptée dès l’aprèsguerre. À chaque fois que j’allais à l’OTAN, le président Mitterrand me disait : « Surtout Dumas, souvenezvous, nous ne sommes pas dans le commandement intégré. » Comprendre : n’obéissez pas à toutes les décisions qui seront prises ! Avant, la voix de la France comptait et elle était souvent écoutée.

HD. Peut-on encore sortir de l’OTAN ?

R. D. On peut, mais c’est une décision si importante qu’il faudrait le prestige de De Gaulle pour faire cela. Il faudrait quelqu’un avec une autorité mondiale incontestable et des circonstances qui feraient que tout le monde comprendrait cette décision. Ce n’est donc pas pour demain car aujourd’hui, ce sont des « nains ».

- Source : Emilie Denètre

« Sarkozy sous BHL » : une grenade dégoupillée dans la cour de l'Elysée !

« Sarkozy sous BHL » : une grenade dégoupillée dans la cour de l'Elysée !

Interview de Roland Dumas et Jacques Vergès

Propos recueillis par Gilles Munier

Il y a quelque chose de pourri au royaume de France ! On attendait les révélations de Saif al-islam sur le financement de la campagne présidentielle de Nicolas Sarkozy par la Libye... À la place, on a eu droit, sur le même sujet, à la relance de l'affaire Bettencourt, le scandale politico-fiscal de la principale actionnaire de la société L'Oréal, puis à un déluge de révélations sur la remise de valises de billets en provenance de présidents africains, par l'entremise de l'avocat de la Françafrique Robert Bourgi (l'un des dénonciateurs, qui reconnaît avoir porté des valises) à des hommes politiques français, toutes tendances confondues. Dans cette atmosphère de fin de règne, on lira avec délectation le pamphlet de Jacques Vergès et Roland Dumas qui connaissent bien les dessous crapuleux du renversement du colonel Kadhafi. Un pamphlet à lire d'une traite*. 

Afrique Asie : « Sarkozy sous BHL », le pamphlet que vous venez de publier, est une volée de bois vert contre le pouvoir de l'argent en politique. Pouvoir et argent ont toujours cohabité, sauf peut-être dans certains pays socialistes. Qu'apporte de nouveau la présidence Sarkozy dans ce domaine ? 

Roland Dumas : Le pouvoir de l'argent a toujours existé. Au travers des siècles. Dans tous les régimes. Il est triste de voir une grande démocratie ou « prétendue telle » comme la République française, être en proie à un phénomène aujourd'hui décuplé. 

Les révélations qui sortent chaque jour sont édifiantes à ce sujet mais la « France Afrique » n'est pas simplement un problème d'argent et de valises de billets. C'est aussi une méthode qui nous ramène des siècles en arrière et qui repose sur des actions militaires, en bref, sur le colonialisme : « Un régime vous déplaît, on le change, on en installe un autre ». Peut-on dire que c'est là le progrès ? 

Jacques Vergès : Ce que la présidence Sarkozy apporte de nouveau dans les relations entre pouvoir et argent est l'hypertrophie du rôle de l'argent sale et de la corruption qui s'ensuit, faisant de la République française une République bananière. Ses relations avec les pays africains et arabes ne se font plus à travers des diplomates mais à travers des affairistes douteux. 

Afrique Asie : Vous vous en prenez à « Lévy d'Arabie »... BHL. Est-ce la première fois, sous la République, qu'un intellectuel détient publiquement un tel pouvoir? Peut-on comparer son influence à celle de Jacques Attali sur François Mitterrand ou de Marie-France Garaud sur Georges Pompidou puis Jacques Chirac ? 

Jacques Vergès : On ne peut comparer les rôles discrets de M. Attali auprès du président Mitterrand ou de Madame Garaud auprès de Georges Pompidou avec le rôle de M. Lévy auprès de Sarkozy qui est un rôle de décideur. Le président Sarkozy entérine les conciliabules de M. Lévy avec des émissaires libyens dans les hôtels parisiens. 

Roland Dumas : C'est sans doute la première fois qu'un intellectuel aussi médiocre que M. Bernard-Henry Lévy joue un rôle aussi important dans la République. On ne peut le comparer ni à Jacques Attali qui était une institution dans la République ou à Marie-France Garaud qui disposait d'une relation personnelle avec Georges Pompidou. La situation insolite de M. BHL ne relève ni d'un cas ni d'un autre. Il n'est rien dans la République. Il s'impose. Il virevolte. Il joue les « mouches du coche ». 

Afrique Asie : En Libye, le CNT occupe Tripoli. Qu'en est-il de la plainte que vous comptiez déposer accusant Nicolas Sarkozy de crime de guerre ? 

Jacques Vergès : Cette plainte attend que M. Sarkozy ne soit plus à même d'empêcher cette plainte de suivre son cours. 

Afrique Asie : Après la Libye, Sarkozy menace la Syrie et l'Iran. Où s'arrêtera-t-il ? 

Jacques Vergès : M. Sarkozy est irresponsable, il est capable désormais de toutes les folies à moins que le peuple français ne lui passe une camisole de force auparavant. 

Roland Dumas : C'est cela qui nous inquiète. Les menaces contre la Syrie sont précises. Elles sont sérieuses. Les menaces contre l'Iran existent. On a l'impression que tout est fait pour embraser le Proche-Orient. A quoi cela correspond-il ? On peut se le demander. Je ne peux séparer la situation actuelle de ce qui se passe à l'ONU au sujet des Palestiniens. 

L'humanité se déshonore en laissant tomber le peuple palestinien qui est raisonnable, paisible et ne demande pour lui que ce que les israéliens ont obtenu pour eux-mêmes. 

Afrique Asie : Après le renversement de Saddam Hussein, de Laurent Gbagbo et du colonel Kadhafi, ne sommes-nous pas en définitive en train d'assister à un retour accéléré du colonialisme ? 

Roland Dumas : Tout à fait. Nous assistons à un retour, non seulement accéléré mais amplifié, démultiplié du colonialisme avec des moyens énormes. Saura-t-on un jour le coût des campagnes de l'Afghanistan et de la Libye ? Le peuple français a le droit de savoir. Au moment où tout le monde s'agite autour de la crise, n'est-il pas raisonnable de poser la question du coût de guerres inutiles et monstrueuses ? 

Jacques Vergès : C'est évident que la politique de M. Sarkozy marque un retour du colonialisme à un moment où la France et l'Occident en général n'en ont plus les moyens. Il peut renverser les gouvernements mais ne peut assurer l'ordre ensuite. 

Afrique Asie : Pensez-vous que l'Algérie soit sur la liste des « pays à casser » ? 

Roland Dumas : Pourquoi pas. Le contentieux entre la France et l'Algérie est durable. Quand vous imaginez que les Français n'ont pas encore souscrit à la proposition de négociations avec l'Algérie sur un contrat d'amitié, parce que trop de blessures sont encore saignantes... Tout est à craindre pour l'Algérie, mais ce sera pour M. Sarkozy un autre « morceau »...

Notes

* Lire « Bonnes feuilles » dans Afrique Asie d'octobre 2011 

** « Sarkozy sous BHL », par Roland Dumas et Jacques Vergès (Ed. Pierre-Guillaume de Roux) - 126 pages - 13,90 euros 

Source Afrique Asie via Vox NR cliquez ici et NDP Ile-de-France cliquez là