Ok

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

jeudi, 22 février 2018

Diriger dans l’ombre: comment l’unipolarité s’adapte à la multipolarité

MULTIPOLCHESS.jpg

Diriger dans l’ombre: comment l’unipolarité s’adapte à la multipolarité

Auteur : Andrew Korybko

Ex: http://zejournal.mobi

Les États-Unis sont en train de construire un système mondial d’alliances bilatérales et multilatérales pour les aider à projeter plus efficacement leur pouvoir tout au long de ce XXIe siècle. Alors que le monde se dirige vers la multipolarité, les États-Unis sont prêts à exploiter cette tendance à leur avantage géopolitique.

Au lieu de « faire cavalier seul » comme Bush était enclin à le faire, les États-Unis trouvent maintenant des moyens d’amener les autres à faire leur sale boulot en convainquant leurs « partenaires » qu’ils ont un intérêt commun à le faire. Au cours de la guerre de Libye de 2011, la France et le Royaume-Uni ont pris l’initiative tandis que les États-Unis, comme il a été décrit, « dirigeait dans l’ombre ». Un éditorial du New York Times de l’époque définissait cela comme « une assistance militaire américaine discrète avec [les autres] sonnant du clairon ». Quatre ans plus tard, ce concept s’est développé à partir du tube à essai libyen et il est devenu mondial, les États-Unis mettant en place des systèmes d’alliance similaires dans le monde entier afin de projeter indirectement leur volonté de puissance dans des régions clés. Comme le dit le dicton cynique, « Pourquoi faire par vous-même ce que les autres peuvent faire pour vous ? ».

« Amis » à travers le monde

Jetons un coup d’œil aux partenaires américains « dirigés dans l’ombre » (DDO), en commençant par l’hémisphère occidental et en allant vers l’Est :

Amérique latine

Les États-Unis travaillent en étroite collaboration avec l’Alliance du Pacifique, un groupe de négociation économique néolibéral composé de proches alliés comme le Mexique, le Costa Rica, Panama, la Colombie, le Pérou et le Chili. Leur objectif commun est de contrer la vision économique de gauche émanant du Venezuela et de démanteler son réseau de résistance géopolitique au Nicaragua, à Cuba, en Équateur et en Bolivie. Le résultat final est de cerner et de contenir le Brésil au cas où il déciderait de contrer sérieusement l’influence des États-Unis.

Europe

L’Allemagne, moteur économique de l’UE, est le principal État DDO pour les affaires inter-européennes, mais les États-Unis ont également désigné des partenaires secondaires DDO pour trois régions stratégiques.

Les pays baltes : La Suède est tout sauf un membre officiel de l’OTAN mais elle est occupée à une militarisation croissante basée sur une menace sous-marine russe fantôme. Son objectif est d’amener formellement la Finlande, neutre, avec sa frontière longue et exposée avec la Russie, à provoquer une nouvelle crise dans les relations Est-Ouest.

Europe de l’Est : La Pologne a toujours nourri l’ambition de restaurer son ancien Commonwealth polono-lituanien sur la version moderne de la Biélorussie et de l’Ukraine, et elle s’est associée aux États-Unis pour déstabiliser l’Ukraine et fortifier les forces de Kiev afin d’étendre sa sphère d’influence convoitée.

Croisée des chemins entre les Balkans et le Moyen-Orient : La Turquie, membre de l’OTAN, était censée « tenir le fort » pour les États-Unis à ce moment géopolitique crucial, mais après que Washington eut commencé à utiliser l’outil du nationalisme kurde comme moyen de pression sur Ankara, la Turquie a rapidement redirigé une partie de sa loyauté vers le monde multipolaire.

Afrique

En général, la France est le bras armé des États-Unis pour le continent, vu qu’elle compte quelques milliers de soldats disséminés dans une douzaine de pays, mais comme en Europe, les États-Unis ont aussi quelques partenaires secondaires DDO en Afrique :

Afrique de l’Ouest/Afrique centrale : L’organisation d’intégration régionale de la CEDEAO a dernièrement déployé ses forces militaires au Mali (quelle que soit la durée de son déploiement), tandis que l’armée tchadienne au centre du continent a projeté son pouvoir là-bas, au Cameroun et en République centrafricaine. Bien que le Nigeria fasse partie de la CEDEAO, les États-Unis ne lui font pas confiance en tant que proxy unipolaire loyal et cherchent donc à renforcer les États qui l’entourent (en fermant les yeux sur Boko Haram) en tant qu’influence tampon.

Afrique de l’Est : L’Ouganda et le Rwanda avaient précédemment fait équipe sous la direction des États-Unis pour occuper la plus grande partie de l’est de la République démocratique du Congo (RDC) et piller les vastes ressources minérales du pays. Après avoir connu quelques turbulences au cours de la dernière décennie, l’Ouganda tient maintenant la barre et a suivi les « suggestions » américaines en envoyant ses troupes en République centrafricaine, au Soudan du Sud et en Somalie, tout en continuant à administrer une grande partie de la RDC.

Golfe Persique

L’Arabie saoudite est l’évident DDO désigné ici, et à travers le CCG, elle contrôle une moindre constellation de proxy qui ont tous été armés jusqu’aux dents par des expéditions d’armes américaines et occidentales dirigées contre l’Iran.

Asie du sud

Les États-Unis n’ont encore couronné officiellement aucun État en tant que partenaire DDO, mais si le récent voyage d’Obama en Inde s’avère être une indication, alors il a certainement jeté son dévolu sur l’Inde pour ce rôle important. La question est : l’Inde va-t-elle mordre l’appât et risquer la confrontation avec la Chine ? [Depuis 2015, cette idée s’est renforcée même si l’Inde continue de souffler le chaud et le froid, NdT].

Asie du sud-est

Les choses sont un peu plus délicates dans cette région, mais les États-Unis aimeraient que le Vietnam et les Philippines s’associent dans une alliance politico-militaire pour contrer les revendications de la Chine dans la mer de Chine méridionale. Le Vietnam, une puissance terrestre, servirait de complément aux Philippines, qui pourraient devenir un « porte-avions insubmersible ». Les États-Unis encouragent également une coopération indo-japonaise plus profonde dans cette région, en particulier sur le front naval, en tant que forme de confinement chinois. Plus au sud, l’économie énorme de l’Indonésie pourrait devenir un hybride sino-occidental, formant ainsi un rempart partiel contre une région entièrement influencée par la Chine. [La situation s’est ici renversée avec un président philippin atypique qui a plutôt fait pivoter son pays vers la Chine, NdT].

Asie de l’Est

Le Japon est la pierre angulaire de la stratégie des États-Unis en Asie de l’Est, mais il y a une tentative d’intégrer la Corée du Sud (traditionnellement pragmatique et économiquement proche de la Chine) dans un cadre de sécurité pro-américain plus large. La première étape a déjà été franchie, puisque les trois États partagent désormais des renseignements sur la Corée du Nord, créant ainsi des mécanismes stratégiques qui pourraient être rapidement redirigés vers la Chine dans le futur.

Tromperie par la diplomatie

Les États-Unis ont récemment tenté de « renverser » certains États multipolaires et de les inclure dans leur giron, leur offrant des accords et de la « diplomatie » pour leur faire baisser la garde (comme ce fut le cas pour la Libye avant la guerre de 2011). Les deux exemples actuels sont Cuba et l’Iran, le premier ayant dangereusement accepté la carotte alors que le second semble bien comprendre le bâton qui l’accompagne silencieusement. Les intentions des États-Unis dans ces manifestations «pacifiques » hautement médiatisées doivent être remises en question, car le rejet immédiat de l’offre de la Corée du Nord d’arrêter son programme nucléaire en échange de la cessation des exercices militaires conjoints américano-sud-coréens montre qu’il s’agit d’« accords » unilatéraux en faveur d’un seul camp. En définitive, si les États-Unis ne peuvent pas indirectement contrôler un État par le biais du DDO ou l’amener à réduire ses défenses stratégiques, la tromperie cède la place à la destruction, comme le savent malheureusement trop bien les habitants de Syrie et d’Ukraine orientale.

Traduit par Hervé, relu par Cat pour le Saker Francophone

L'auteur, Andrew Korybko, est le commentateur politique américain qui travaille actuellement pour l’agence Sputnik. Il est en troisième cycle de l’Université MGIMO et auteur de la monographie « Guerres hybrides : l’approche adaptative indirecte pour un changement de régime » (2015). Ce texte sera inclus dans son prochain livre sur la théorie de la guerre hybride. Le livre est disponible en PDF gratuitement et à télécharger ici.

mercredi, 17 mai 2017

Major Developments Strongly Suggest the End of Unipolar World Order

Polarity-International-Relations-Pmfias.com_.jpeg

Major Developments Strongly Suggest the End of Unipolar World Order

With Moon Jae-In’s victory in South Korea, the period of tension on the Korean Peninsula is likely to end. With the rise to power of the new president, South Korea can expect a sharp decline in hostilities with North Korea as well as a resumption of dialogue with China.

An expected and highly anticipated victory was confirmed in South Korea on May 9, with candidate Moon winning South Korea’s presidential race over his rivals Hong Joon-pyo (Liberty Korea Party) and Ahn Cheol-soo (People’s Party). After the resignation and arrest of former President Park Geun-hye over an immense corruption scandal, public opinion turned away from her party in favour of the main opposition representative, a center-left lawyer specializing in humanitarian issues.

Moon spent several years in the opposition party advocating for greater cooperation in the region and dialogue with Pyongyang as well as with Beijing, representing quite a contrast to Guen-Hye’s pro-Americanism. Along the lines of Duterte in the Philippines, Moon intends to resume dialogue with all partners in order not to limit his options in the international arena. Such an approach reflects the essence of the multipolar world order: cooperation and dialogue with all partners in order to achieve a win-win outcome.

Looking at the situation in the region, the victory of a politician who seems to have every intention of negotiating an agreement rather than supporting military escalation seems to provide for a hopeful future for China and her neighbors. The level of cooperation and trade between South Korea and China is fundamental to the economy of both countries, so a return to the negotiating table over the issues surrounding the deployment of THAAD are a hopeful sign that the business communities of China and South Korea value deeply.

Duterte Strategy

The United States is again faced with a Filipino-like scenario. Historically, South Korea and the Philippines have always been two fundamental US allies, more concerned with Washington’s interests than their own national political agendas. Over the last few decades, both countries have been governed by politicians careful not to upset the sensibilities of US policy makers. South Korea and the Philippines are at the heart of the political strategy Obama called the Asian Pivot, more explicitly, a policy aimed at containing China and its expansion as a regional hegemon in Asia.

Following the Trump administration’s focus and threats against North Korea in recent weeks, war has seemed more likely on the peninsula. But with Moon’s victory, it has probably been permanently excluded as a possibility. In several interviews weeks prior to the election, Moon stated that a war between the US and the North Korea would constitute an impossible burden for South Korea to sustain. Moon is very realistic about the conventional deterrence that North Korea possesses, maybe even more so than the nuclear development.

Even though Trump has said he is willing to meet with Kim Jong-un, most of his decisions seem to depend on the hawks surrounding him. Looking at the first hundred days of the Trump administration shows a remarkable departure from electoral promises, with the influence of generals he nominated, leading to various escalations in the hot regions of the world. Bottom line is, Trump’s intentions and words matter to a certain extent as US posture in the region seems to be guided by military generals and inner circle family members. Fortunately for the world, the tentative moves in Syria and Afghanistan have not amounted to much, such as with the bombing of the Shayrat airbase or the show in Afghanistan involving the MOAB.

THAAD to Divide

The deployment of the THAAD system continues as part of a belligerent attitude towards North Korea. The strong and firm rhetoric of Pyongyang is justified and not surprising given the context and the threats facing the country in wake of US provocations. The deployment of THAAD has had consequences, such as increasing tensions between South Korea and China. Moon’s victory goes contrary to the goal of the US policy-makers in Washington to isolate China. In this light, the hurried deployment of THAAD before the South Korean election obliged the probable winner, Moon, to be faced with an accomplished fact. This first step makes it clear what Washington’s attitude towards the new South Korean president will be.

The THAAD has also been deployed to antagonize the most frustrating point between Seoul and Beijing: North Korea. The measure was intentionally taken by Washington to pressure Seoul. THAAD has all the characteristics of a Trojan horse. Placed to reassure an ally (Seoul) against a fake-threat (Pyongyang), it becomes a weapon against China that puts in place a system, only a few hundred miles from its border, potentially able to affect China’s strategic nuclear forces. The US military accelerated the deployment of THAAD in the knowledge that this would immediately place the future president in a difficult situation, in that removing THAAD would not be easy in the face of huge American pressure. This may perhaps be Moon’s first challenge; to use the dismantling of THAAD as a means of exchange with Beijing to return to a normal relationship of co-operation. If Beijing wants to believe Moon’s goodwill in eliminating the THAAD system, it may begin to loosen some of the measures imposed on Seoul as retaliation for the deployment of the US system.

Multipolar world to the rescue

In this scenario, one must not make the mistake of believing that Moon’s victory means that a major US ally will cease its support for Washington. As always, in this era of transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world, the pressure that Washington will decide to apply to South Korea will affect the nature of the US-ROK alliance. The United States will have to abandon the warlike posture so dear to Mattis, McMaster and Admiral Harris (the commander of the US Pacific Fleet). In this Tillerson as a realist might be the right man at the right place to negotiate with Moon. Potentially it could be possible to solve the problem in whole by dealing with North Korea, although that seems unlikely given the pressures the deep state will put on the administration to continue using North Korea to create instability in the region.

This is why much of the region’s future will remain subordinated to potential negotiations between Beijing, Pyongyang and Seoul on the Korean peninsula, especially after Moon’s victory. If these three nations succeed in finding common ground on which to set upon a path of reconciliation, the region will benefit greatly. Of course, in this context, the one most likely to lose influence is the United States. If Washington wants to remain relevant, it should abandon the Chinese containment plan through the Korean peninsula by exploiting North Korean problems. If they instead decide to try to sabotage any peace agreement in the peninsula, this will only push Seoul and Pyongyang even closer together, to Beijing’s great pleasure.

Recent years have seen a mounting showdown between the old world order configuration based on chaos and destruction and led by Washington, and the new multipolar order that focuses on win-win opportunities, dialogue and sincere cooperation. If Washington decides not to accept the new rules of the game, where it can no longer dictate the law, it will end up producing more damage against itself than any foreign country could actually do, in actual fact accelerating the formation of the multipolar world and putting to bed the unipolar world order for good. 

dimanche, 30 mars 2014

West’s antiquated unipolar world collides with the East’s vision of a mulipolar future

politique internationale, occidentalisme, atlantisme, russie, états-unis, occident, multipolarité, unipolarité,

Tony Cartalucci

West’s antiquated unipolar world collides with the East’s vision of a mulipolar future

Ex: http://journal-neo.org

In Reuters’ 2007 article, “Putin says Russia threatened by ‘Unipolar World’,” Russian President Vladimir Putin stated: 

Some people are constantly insisting on the necessity to divide up our country and are trying to spread this theory.”

Reuters would also quote President Putin as saying: 

“There are those who would like to build a unipolar world, who would themselves like to rule all of humanity.” 

While Reuters then attempted to spin the comments as Russian paranoia, in the wake of recent events in Ukraine, the timelessness and accuracy of President Putin’s assessment years ago are apparent. 

 Setting the Board 

For years the West has been cultivating a proxy political machine inside of Ukraine for the purpose of peeling the nation away from its historical and socioeconomic ties to Russia. The deep relationship between Western corporate-financier interests on Wall Street and in London and the opposition in Ukraine are best summarized in PR Weeks “Analysis: PR gets trodden underfoot as sands shift in Ukraine.” In the article, the involvement of some of the most notorious corporate lobbying firms on Earth, including Bell Pottinger and the Podesta Group, are revealed to have been involved in Ukraine’s internal affairs since the so-called “Orange Revolution” in 2004 – a coup admittedly orchestrated by the West and in particular the US government

The article chronicles (and defends) the continuing, unabated meddling of the West up to and including the most recent turmoil consuming Ukraine.   

PR Week’s article revealed that heavily funded networks propping up the proxy regime in Kiev are sponsored by “individuals and private companies who support stronger EU-Ukraine relations.” It is these Western corporate-financier interests, not Ukrainian aspirations for “democracy” and “freedom,” that kicked off the “Euromaidan” mobs in the first place – and will be the driving force that misshapes and deforms the regions of western Ukraine now overrun by the West’s proxies. 

To the east in Ukraine, people are prominently pro-Russian, sharing closer cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic ties to Russia as well as long historical parallels. They have welcomed moves by Russia to counter the coup in Kiev and protect eastern Ukraine from the corrosive influence that will grow as the West further entrenches itself.  

A democratic referendum held on the Crimea peninsula overwhelmingly chose independence from the fascist regime in Kiev, separating from the now dysfunctional and downward spiraling western region and beginning the process of formally joining the Russia Federation. This resulting lay of Ukraine will be a proving ground where in the West, Wall Street and London’s unipolar order, will face off against the East and Russia’s vision of a multipolar order. The predictable outcome of financial and social ruination in the West, versus a stable status quo in the East will vindicate the growing perceptions held regarding both. 

The Predictable Fate of Western Ukraine Already Unfolding 

With the vacant chair of deposed Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych still warm, the tentacles of Western corporate-financier interests have already wound themselves around Kiev and have begun to squeeze. 

Chevron, which had signed a multi-billion dollar deal with Ukraine in November, 2013, was operating in the west of Ukraine, and alongside other Western energy giants such as ExxonMobil and Shell. The deals were part of President Yanukovych’s apparent gravitation toward the West and impending integration with the EU which was then suddenly overturned in favor with re-cementing ties with Russia. Western oil giants clearly saw the benefit of backing a putsch that would leave the western half firmly in the orbit of the US, UK, and EU. They can not only continue their business on the western edge of Ukraine, but expand their interests unabated across the country now that a capitulating, puppet regime sits in Kiev.  

While Western big-oil plans to move in and siphon billions, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is already planning deep cuts in social benefits as part of a staggering austerity regime to restructure financially the seized western region of Ukraine, and if possible, all of Ukraine proper.

RT reported in its article, “Pensions in Ukraine to be halved – sequestration draft,” that:

The self-proclaimed government in Kiev is reportedly planning to cut pensions by 50 percent as part of unprecedented austerity measures to save Ukraine from default. With an “empty treasury”, reduction of payments might take place in March. 

According to the draft document obtained by Kommersant-Ukraine, social payments will be the first to be reduced.

The proxy regime set up in Kiev has already indicated its eager acceptance to all IMF conditions. The fate of western Ukraine will be no different than other members of the European Union preyed upon by the corporate-financier interests that created the supranational consolidation in the first place. The reduction of a multipolar Europe into a unipolar, supranational consolidation which can be easily and collectively looted is a microcosm of what the West’s Fortune 500 plan as part of their global unipolar order.  

The natural resources, human capital, and geopolitical advantages found within the borders of Ukraine, will now become the natural resources, human capital, and geopolitical advantages of Chevron, BP, Monsanto, a myriad of defense contractors, telecom corporations, and other familiar brands seen marauding across the planet leaving in its wake destitution, socioeconomic disparity, and perpetual division they intentionally sow in order to protect their holdings from any form of unified or organized opposition.   

No matter how obvious the West’s game may be to some, had Ukraine fallen entirely under the control of Western interests, a multitude of excuses could and would have been peddled to explain the unraveling of Ukrainian society in terms that would exonerate the corporate-financier interests truly driving the crisis. But Ukraine has not entirely fallen to the West, and because of that, the planned decimation of western Ukraine, its economy, and its sovereignty will stand out in stark contrast to the eastern region that has remained beyond the West’s reach and within the orbit of Russia’s multipolar vision of the future.  

 The East’s Chance to Showcase a Multipolar Future

The West has made an entire industry out of “democracy promoting,” or in other words, the facade and insidious geopolitical mechanics behind it, it spreads its hegemony across the globe with. It has ingrained its superficial and ultimately disingenuous definitions of “elections,” “democracy,” and “freedom” into the minds of millions through political movements, mass media, and entertainment. However, this facade in recent years has suffered many setbacks as its opponents poke holes through it and reveals what lies beneath more clearly. 

What must be done next is the introduction of a new set of principles by which the global population can embrace – that of a multipolar world order where power is balanced, national sovereignty reigns, and international institutions mediate, not dictate, the interactions and conduct between nation-states. 

Unlike the West’s unipolar order which depends on the massive and perpetual manipulation of public perception to maintain itself, a multipolar world must be promoted through transparent, demonstrated examples. Russia’s evolving relationship with Ukraine, particularly in the midst of the recent turmoil in Kiev, will help demonstrate both the folly of dealing with the West and its global supranational consolidation and the benefits of maintaining traditional, sovereign bi-lateral relations with other states.

Already, Russia has exhibited crucial differences in its foreign policy – its stationing of troops in Ukraine already covered under long-standing treaties and their mission clearly provoked by documented extremists admitted even across the Western press as being armed and promoting universally unacceptable and dangerous ideologies rooted in racism, bigotry, and genocide. 

While the West eagerly traverses the globe thousands of miles from its borders, under patently false, fabricated pretenses (such as in Iraq) to execute military force against nations that posed it no conceivable threat and in hindsight its motives being clearly self-serving, Russia has waited perhaps too long to act directly along its own borders against clear and present dangers being fomented overtly by foreign interests openly seeking to encircle and overrun Russia itself

This difference in foreign policy and indeed in the vision the West and East hold for the future – one of unipolar global domination and the other of multipolar coexistence – will be tested in Ukraine in front of the world. While the West has little choice but to continue along its long-established trajectory toward confrontation and exploitation, Russia and its growing list of allies has an opportunity to offer an alternative, not only to solve its own problems along its border – but for other nations as well chaffing under the growing disparity created by the West’s antiquated paradigm.

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