Forum

President Putin Interviewed by Journalists from G8 Countries

Global Research, June 11, 2007

Text of report (English) published by the Russian presidential website, 4 June 2007.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good evening ladies and gentlemen!

I would like to warmly welcome you.

I would just like to say a few words at the beginning of our discussion. We believe that the G8 forum is a useful and interesting event that allows us to synchronise our approaches to key issues linked with the development of the global economy and on the international agenda. And not simply to, shall we say, synchronise our watches but also to coordinate our positions, positions that can then be formalised in G8 documents and, later on, in the documents of other international organizations, including the UN. And this has occurred in the past.

I am very pleased to see that the agreements that were reached in St Petersburg last year have not been forgotten. Many of our agreements are being implemented. Moreover, the German G8 presidency has not forgotten about the major themes of our discussions in St Petersburg. We see clear evidence of what we discussed in Russia in the documents that are now being drafted by experts and sherpas. Of course, this first and foremost refers to energy. But not only that. This also includes development aid and especially aid to African countries. This includes the fight against infectious diseases. Naturally, this also includes our joint efforts concerning climate change.

Of course we will address all of this and, as I have already said, other serious international issues for Europe, such as the Balkans, and other problems. And I am confident that an open, honest discussion between partners on all of these problems - no matter how difficult they are to resolve - will be a useful discussion.

I would like to thank you for the interest you have shown in our work. And I certainly do not have the audacity or the responsibility of speaking for all my G8 colleagues. But I am ready to explain in more detail Russia’s position on issues that you think are of interest to the public.

That was everything I wanted to say at the outset and I will not waste time in a monologue. I am listening to you. Let’s start working.

DER SPIEGEL: Mr President, it seems like Russia is not very fond of the West. Our relations have somewhat deteriorated. And we can also mention the deterioration of your relations with America. Are we once again approaching a Cold War?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: One can hardly use the same terminology in international relations, in relations between countries, that would apply to relationships between people - especially during their honeymoon or as they prepare to go to the Civil Registry Office.

Throughout history, interests have always been the main organizing principle for relations between states and on the international arena. And the more civilised these relations become, the clearer it is that one’s own interests must be balanced against the interests of other countries. And one must be able to find compromises to resolve the most difficult problems and issues.

One of the major difficulties today is that certain members of the international community are absolutely convinced that their opinion is the correct one. And of course this is hardly conducive to creating the trusting atmosphere that I believe is crucial for finding more than simply mutually acceptable solutions, for finding optimal solutions. However, we also think that we should not dramatise anything unduly. If we express our opinions openly, honestly and forthrightly, then this does not imply that we are looking for confrontation. Moreover, I am deeply convinced that if we were able to reinstate honest discussion and the capacity to find compromises in the international arena then everyone would benefit. And I am convinced that certain crises that face the international community today would not exist and would not have had such a dire impact on the internal political situation in certain countries. For example, events in Iraq would not be such a headache for the United States. This is the most vivid, sharpest example but, nevertheless, I want you to understand me. And as you recall, we were opposed to military action in Iraq. We now consider that had we confronted the problems that faced us at the time with other means then the result would have been - in my opinion - still better than what we have today.

It is for that reason that we do not want confrontation; we want to engage in dialogue. However, we want a dialogue that acknowledges the equality of both parties’ interests.

WALL STREET JOURNAL: A follow-up to the previous question. One of the most acute recent problems between Washington and Moscow has been American plans to install elements of a missile defence system in Europe. Since Russia is very radically opposed to this system and the White House confirms that it will go ahead regardless, the confrontation becomes more pronounced…

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Incidentally, that it is the answer to the previous question. I am sorry - please continue.

WALL STREET JOURNAL: ... and the more countries there are that want to participate in this system. What does Russia gain by being so fiercely opposed to this system? Are you hoping that Washington will eventually abandon its plans to install an anti-missile defence system or do you have other goals, since Washington has already said that it will not allow Russia to veto this programme?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I would start with the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces Treaty in Europe (ACAF). We have not just stated that we are ready to comply with the treaty, like certain others have done. We really are implementing it: we have removed all of our heavy weapons from the European part of Russia and put them behind the Urals. We have reduced our Armed Forces by 300,000. We have taken several other steps required by the ACAF. But what have we seen in response? Eastern Europe is receiving new weapons, two new military bases are being set up in Romania and in Bulgaria, and there are two new missile launch areas - a radar in Czech republic and missile systems in Poland. And we are asking ourselves the question: what is going on? Russia is disarming unilaterally. But if we disarm unilaterally then we would like to see our partners be willing to do the same thing in Europe. On the contrary, Europe is being pumped full of new weapons systems. And of course we cannot help but be concerned.

What should we do in these circumstances? Of course we have declared a moratorium.

This applies to the missile defence system. But not just the missile defence system itself. Since if this missile system is put in place, it will work automatically with the entire nuclear capability of the United States. It will be an integral part of the US nuclear capability.

I draw your attention and that of your readers to the fact that, for the first time in history - and I want to emphasize this - there are elements of the US nuclear capability on the European continent. It simply changes the whole configuration of international security. That is the second thing.

Finally, thirdly, how do they justify this? By the need to defend themselves against Iranian missiles. But there are no such missiles. Iran has no missiles with a range of 5,000 to 8,000 kilometres. In other words, we are being told that this missile defence system is there to defend against something that doesn’t exist. Do you not think that this is even a little bit funny? But it would only be funny if it were not so said. We are not satisfied with the explanations that we are hearing. There is no justification whatsoever for installing a missile defence system in Europe. Our military experts certainly believe that this system affects the territory of the Russian Federation in front of the Ural mountains. And of course we have to respond to that.

And now I would like to give a definite answer to your question: what do we want? First of all, we want to be heard. We want our position to be understood. We do not exclude that our American partners might reconsider their decision. We are not imposing anything on anyone. But we are proceeding from common sense and think that everyone else could also use their common s ense. But if this does not take place then we will absolve ourselves from the responsibility of our retaliatory steps because we are not initiating what is certainly growing into a new arms race in Europe. And we want everybody to understand very clearly that we are not going to bear responsibility for this arms race. For example, when they try to shift this responsibility to us in connection with our efforts to improve our strategic nuclear weapons. We did not initiate the withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. But what response did we give when we discussed this issue with our American partners? We said that we do not have the resources and desire to establish such a system. But as professionals we both understand that a missile defence system for one side and no such a system for the other creates an illusion of security and increases the possibility of a nuclear conflict.

I am speaking purely theoretically - this has no personal dimension. It is destroying the strategic equilibrium in the world. In order to restore that balance without setting up a missile defence system we will have to create a system to overcome missile defence, and this is what we are doing now.

At that point our partners said: “there’s nothing wrong, we are not enemies, we are not going to work against one another”. We would point out that we are simply answering them: “we warned you, we talked about this, you answered us a certain way. So we are going to do what we said we would”. And if they put a missile defence system in Europe - and we are warning this today - there will be retaliatory measures. We need to ensure our security. And we are not the proponents of this process.

And, finally, the last thing. Again I would not want you to suffer from the illusion that we have fallen out of love with anyone. But I sometimes think to myself: why are they doing all this? Why are our American partners trying so obstinately to deploy a missile defence system in Europe when - and this is perfectly obvious - it is not needed to defend against Iranian or - even more obvious - North Korean missiles? (We all know where North Korea is and the kind of range these missiles would need to have to be able to reach Europe.) So it is clearly not against them and it is clearly not against us because it is obvious to everyone that Russia is not preparing to attack anybody. Then why? Is it perhaps to ensure that we carry out these retaliatory measures? And to prevent a further rapprochement between Russian and Europe? If this is the case (and I am not claiming so, but it is a possibility), then I believe that this would be yet another mistake because that is not the way to improve international peace and security.

DER SPIEGEL: A short additional question: would you be prepared to consider the possibility of deploying a similar, Russian missile defence system somewhere near the United States, for example in Cuba?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, I should have talked about this, but you brought it up before me. We are not planning any such thing and, as is well-known, we just recently dismantled our bases in Cuba. At the same time that the Americans are building new ones in Europe, in Romania and in Bulgaria. We dismantled them because after the fall of the Soviet Union our foreign policy changed a great deal because Russian society itself changed. We do not want a confrontation, we want cooperation. And we do not need bases close to anyone and we are not planning anything of the kind. That is the first thing.

The second. Basically, as a rule, modern weapons systems don’t need such bases. These are generally political decisions.

NIKKEI: I am the only representative here from Asia. I would like to ask about your Asian policy. What is your general position towards Asian countries?

It is possible that you will not like the question but I must nevertheless ask about the Northern Territories and the dispute between Japan and Russia. I just heard from colleagues from Tokyo that Japan and Russia are going to hold a summit on 7 June 200 7. And Prime Minister Abe will evidently raise the issue of the Northern Territories. He has already said very clearly that he wants to make a final decision on this issue with you, Mr Putin. And this means that before the end of your term you will somehow need to address this issue. What is your response to his political intentions?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: As you know, a significant portion of Russian territory is in Asia. The Asian continent is developing extremely quickly and holds great interest for us, especially in economic terms. It is not only interesting because we have a great deal of energy resources, something that Asian countries lack, and therefore the possibility to cooperate in the energy sector. There are also broader possibilities for cooperation. We believe that we have things to talk about and room to cooperate in the high-tech sector. We very much expect that this cooperation will help us develop the Asian part of Russia. Over the past 15 years we have witnessed difficulties in this region, including the depopulation of these territories. We are now adopting programmes to develop these Russian regions and intend to pay the closest possible attention to them. This is all associated with our interest in our Asian partners.

You probably know that our trade with both China and Japan is growing. I think that last year it grew by almost 60 per cent. Japanese investors are coming to the Russian market and not only in the Far East - also to the European part of Russia. We welcome this interest in developing cooperation between our countries.

As to the so-called disputed islands that you mentioned. We do not consider them disputed because this situation was a result of the Second World War and was confirmed in international law and international documents. But we understand our Japanese partners’ motives. We want to dispose of all the arguments from the past and look for a way forward on this issue together with Japan.

I would like to point out that my own impression is that recently there has been less rhetoric on this issue and the discussion has become more business-like and profound. We welcome this. And I would like to say once again that even the Soviet Union showed a great deal of flexibility on this issue in its time and in 1956 signed a declaration according to which two islands were to remain within the Soviet Union and two would go to Japan. The Supreme Council ratified this declaration as did Japan. And as a matter of fact, this document should have come into force. But our Japanese partners suddenly renounced the document even though they had already ratified it. It goes without saying that in such conditions it is difficult to find a mutually acceptable solution. However, we are determined to work with you towards finding one. And I am looking forward to meeting with my Japanese colleague in Heiligendamm. I hope that we will be able to talk about this issue especially since consultations at the working, expert level have not stopped. On the contrary, they have intensified recently.

THE TIMES: Today the British media are mainly interested in two issues concerning Russia. The first is the Litvinenko case. And the second is BP and Shell’s experience in Russia.

I would like to ask you two questions. First, are there circumstances in which Russia would agree to Britain’s request to extradite Lugovoi?

And the second question. In light of BP and Shell’s experience in Russia, should British companies invest in Russia?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Are there circumstances in which Russia would extradite Lugovoi? There are. The Constitution of the Russian Federation would have to change. That is the first thing.

Second. Even if the Constitution were to be amended, one would need, of course, valid reasons to do so. Based on the information I received from the Prosecutor General the British party has not yet provided us with sufficient grounds to do so. There is a request for the extradition of Mr Lugovoi but no materials documenting the grounds on which we should do so. As diplomats say, this request has no substance: it is not supported by the materials that constitute the grounds on which our British colleagues asked us to extradite Lugovoi.

Finally, the third thing. As you know a criminal investigation into Litvinenko’s death is proceeding in Britain. And if our law enforcement agencies gather enough evidence to take anyone to court, if there is enough material in connection with any citizen of the Russian Federation to bring this evidence to court, this will certainly be done. And I very much hope that our British colleagues will assist us effectively. Not simply by demanding the extradition of Lugovoi but also by sending enough evidence so that we could put the case before a court. We will do this in Russia and convict any person found guilty of Litvinenko’s murder.

And now about the request itself. I have very mixed feelings about this request. If the people who sent this request did not know that the Russian Constitution prohibits the extradition of Russian citizens to foreign countries then their level of competency must certainly be questioned. In general the heads of such high-ranking law enforcement agencies should know this. And if they do not know this then their place is not in law enforcement agencies but somewhere else. In parliament, for example, or in journalism. But on the other hand, if they did know this but made the request anyways, then it is just a publicity stunt. In other words, you can look at the problem from any way but in all cases you see stupidity. I do not see any positive aspects to what was done. If they did not know then they are incompetent and we have doubts about what they have been doing there. And if they did know and did it anyway then that is pure politics. Both options are bad.

One last point. I think that after the British government allowed a significant number of criminals, thieves and terrorists to gather in Britain they created an environment which endangers the lives and health of British citizens. And all responsibility for this lies with the British side.

Shell. I would like to clarify the issue. What are you interested in with respect to Shell and BP? Shell in Sakhalin, is that right?

THE TIMES: Yes, it is a question about Sakhalin, about BP’s permit. Will it be necessary to renounce the permit or they may still expect to keep it?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Have you seen the original agreement? Have you ever read it?

THE TIMES: Yes.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Did you like what was written? You know, that is a colonial treaty that has absolutely nothing to do with the interests of the Russian Federation. I can only regret that in the early 1990s the Russian officials allowed such incidents to take place, incidents for which they should have been put in prison. Implementing this treaty resulted in a situation in which, for a long period of time, Russia allowed its natural resources to be exploited and received nothing in return. Almost nothing at all. But if our partners had been fulfilling their obligations correctly then we certainly would have had no chance to rectify the situation. But they are guilty of violating environmental laws and this is a generally accepted fact that is supported with objective data. And I must say that our partners do not even deny it. Environmental experts have corroborated this evidence. Incidentally, Gazprom has received various proposals from its partners to join the project even earlier, before any environmental scandal, but refused to do so. But after the environmental problems arose and there was the threat of fines, I believe that Gazprom’s entry quite simply saved the project.

And, finally, one last point. Gazprom did not simply act as a result of our pressure and take something away, Gazprom paid a huge sum of money to enter the project - 8 billion USD. That is a market price. And, as far as I understood, the partners working on the project were satisfied because all the terms and conditions of the treaty are being met and no one is questioning this treaty’s purpose. Our foreign partners are r eceiving all the resources that they had planned to receive from this project. And I think that this is a good example of cooperation and our responsibility even in the face of situations that arose in the early 1990s, situations that were clearly beyond the pale of law.

As to BP, you know that every country has certain rules about working in the subsoil. These rules exist in Russia as well. If anyone believes that they do not need to observe such rules in Russia, they are mistaken. And this does not only concern BP. If you are referring to the Kovyktinskoye deposit - and you evidently have this in mind - in addition to BP there are also Russian companies participating in the project. And this does not only affect BP but also about Mr Wechselberg’s company and Mr Potanin’s company. They are all Russian economic residents. And for that reason the affair is not limited to BP, to a foreign partner, but to all shareholders that have committed to developing this deposit and, unfortunately, have failed to comply with the terms of their permit. They have not yet started to develop it. According to the permit’s conditions they should have already begun extraction last year. And not simply begun but also extracted a certain amount of gas. Unfortunately, they have not done so.

And one can find a huge number of reasons for this, including that it was necessary to be part of a pipeline system. But they already knew this when they applied for a permit. They knew about these problems and potential limitations. And they nevertheless went ahead and got a permit. I am not even going to talk about how they obtained this permit. We will let it rest in the conscience of those who did this at the beginning of the 1990s.

But I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the gas reserves in the field amount to some 3 trillion cubic metres. To understand the volume and importance for Russia, one might say that this is equivalent to almost all of Canada’s reserves. But if the participants in this consortium are not doing anything to use their permit, how long should we wait?

Obviously the Ministry of Natural Resources raised the issue of withdrawing the permit. Even though, as you can see, negotiations are going on and I don’t know what they will end with. I don’t know what decision the Natural Resources Ministry and the company shareholders will make. I deliberately say company shareholders because if you talk about the company BP, and not simply about the Russian part of the corporation that was preparing to develop the Kovyktinskoye deposit, then to a large or a significant degree its deposits in the world are increasing at Russia’s expense. And if you talk with the past or present BP leadership they will confirm this.

Moreover, 25 per cent of BP’s revenues come from its activities in the Russian Federation. We welcome the company’s participation in the Russian economy and will continue to support and help companies but we want their activities to be executed within existing legislation.

KOMMERSANT: Vladimir Vladimirovich, in my opinion, recently Russia’s relations with the West are developing at a catastrophic speed. If you examine them then you see that everything is very bad and going from bad to worse: the energy dialogue is frozen, no one is even talking about the Energy Charter, the arms race is proceeding. And you acknowledge it yourself. Yesterday you said that, yes, there is an arms race - you used precisely those words. And there is a new word in your vocabulary that was not there before, the word imperialism. That is a word from Soviet times. American imperialism and Israeli militarism were both terms that you must remember. And they were countered only by Soviet peace initiatives, as they are now countered by Russian peace initiatives. I would like to ask: do you not think it is possible to talk about certain compromises, to engage in compromises, to look even occasionally, even for show, at public opinion in Europe, in America and, finally, in Russia? Do you not think that this present course is leading nowhere? It is becoming, even gaining new strength with, this arms race, with these missiles of ours. To what purpose?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Frankly, I find this question quite strange and unexpected. An arms race really is unfolding. Well, was it we who withdrew from the ABM Treaty? We must react to what our partners do. We already told them two years ago, “don’t do this, you don’t need to do this. What are you doing? You are destroying the system of international security. You must understand that you are forcing us to take retaliatory steps.” They said: “okay, no problem, go ahead. We are not enemies. Do what you want to.” I think that this was based on the illusion that Russia would have nothing to answer with. But we warned them. No, they did not listen to us. Then we heard about them developing low-yield nuclear weapons and they are continuing to develop these charges. We understand in the rocks where bin Laden is hiding it might be necessary to, shall we say, destroy some of his asylum. Yes, such an objective probably exists.

But perhaps it would be better to look for other ways and means to resolve the problem rather than create low-yield nuclear weapons, lower the threshold for using nuclear weapons, and thereby put humankind on the brink of nuclear catastrophe. But they are not listening to us. We are saying: do not deploy weapons in space. We don’t want to do that. No, it continues: “whoever is not with us is against us”. What is that? Is it a dialogue or a search for compromise? The entire dialogue can be summed up by: whoever is not with us is against us.

I talked about how we implemented the ACAF, the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty. We really have implemented it; I wasn’t inventing anything. And there are inspection groups that come, they go onsite, our western partners check and see everything. We implemented it. And in response we get bases and a missile defence system in Europe. So what should we do?

You talked about public opinion. Public opinion in Russia is in favour of us ensuring our security. Where can you find a public in favour of the idea that we must completely disarm, and then perhaps, according to theorists such as Zbignew Brzezinski, that we must divide our territory into three or four parts.

If such a public did exist, I would argue with it. I was not elected President of the Russian Federation to put my country on the brink of disaster. And if this equilibrium in the world is finally broken then it will be a catastrophe not only for Russia but also for the whole world.

Some people have the illusion that you can do everything just as you want, irregardless of the interests of other people. Of course it is for precisely this reason that the international situation gets worse and eventually results in an arms race as you pointed out. But we are not the instigators. We do not want it. Why would we want to divert resources to this? And we are not jeopardising our relations with anyone. But we must respond.

Name even one step that we have taken or one action of ours designed to worsen the situation. There are none. We are not interested in that. We are interested in having a good atmosphere, environment and energy dialogue around Russia.

We already talked about how we subsidized countries, the former republics of the Soviet Union, by providing them with cheap energy for 15 years. Why did we need to do that, where is the logic, what is the justification for this? We subsidised Ukraine for 15 years, by three to five billion dollars a year. Just think about it! Who else in the world does this? And our actions are not politicized. They are not political actions.

The very best example and proof of this - and I talked about this recently at a press conference - is the Baltic countries that we also subsidised for all these years. When we realised that the Baltic states were engaging in honest economic relations with us and that they were ready to transfer to world, to European pricing, then we met them half way. We said: “fine. We are g oing to continue to deliver energy to you at discounted prices. Let’s agree on a timetable for a transition to European prices”. We agreed with them and signed the relevant documents. Within three years they had gently overcome the transition to European pricing. Even considering the fact that we did not have a border treaty with Latvia and there was a serious political disagreement on this issue, until last year Latvia received cheap Russian gas and, as a whole, the gas Latvia received in 2006 was about a third cheaper then what it was for, for example, Germany. Ask the Latvian Prime Minister and he will confirm this.

When the Ukrainian question arose then we were told that this was a political decision and they accused us of supporting Lukashenko’s regime, a regime that western countries are not very fond of. We said : “listen, first of all, we cannot simply declare war on all fronts. Secondly, we are planning to transfer to market pricing with all of our partners. The time will come when we do this with Belarus as well”. We did this. Yet once we had done so the noise began, including in the western media: what are we doing there, why are we harming small Belarus? Is this a fair and admirable attitude towards Russia? We switched to one pricing regime with all the countries of the Caucasus: with Georgia - with whom we do not have very good political relations - and with Armenia, with whom we have excellent relations and a strategic alliance. Yes, we have heard a lot of criticism including from our Armenian partners but at the end of the day we were able to understand one another and find a way forward. They could not pay the entire price with liquid and therefore are paying in physical assets. With live, real assets and all of this is formalised on paper. No one can accuse us of politicizing these issues. We are not preparing to spend huge amounts of money subsidising other countries’ economies. We are ready to develop integration on the territory of the former Soviet Union, but it must be integration on an equal footing. But you know, they are coming closer and closer to our interests and everyone is increasingly expecting that we are not going to defend these interests. If we want order and international law to prevail in the international arena then we must respect this law and the interests of all members of the international community. That is all.

KOMMERSANT: When I mentioned public opinion in Russia I was referring to the fact that, as I understand it, public opinion in Russia would be strongly opposed to a new arms race after the one the Soviet Union lost.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: And I am also against an arms race. I am opposed to any kind of arms race but I would like to quickly draw your attention to something I said in last year’s Address [to the Federal Assembly]. We have learned from the Soviet Union’s experience and we will not be drawn into an arms race that anyone imposes on us. We will not respond symmetrically, we will respond with other methods and means that are no less effective. This is called an asymmetrical response.

The United States are building a huge and costly missile defence system which will cost dozens and dozens of billions of dollars. We said: “no, we are not going to be pulled into this race. We will construct systems that will be much cheaper yet effective enough to overcome the missile defence system and therefore maintain the balance of power in the world.” And we are going to proceed this way in the future.

Moreover, I want to draw your attention to the fact that, despite our retaliatory measures, the volume of our defence expenditures as a percentage of GDP is not growing. They were 2,7 per cent of GDP and will remain so. We are planning the same amount of defence spending for the next 5 to 10 years. This is fully in line with the average expenditures of NATO countries. This amount is not more than their average defence expenditures and in some cases it is even lower than that of NATO member countries. And we can use our competitive advantages which include quit e advanced military-industrial capabilities and the intellectual capacities of those who work in our military complex. There are good results and good people. In any case, much of this has been preserved, and we will do everything possible in order not only to maintain but also to develop this potential.

CORRERE DELLA SERA: Mr President, two more points about the strategic balance in Europe. I would like to ask you whether you think that the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) is presently at risk and if it could lose force judging by what happened to the ACAF?

And the second point. You said that you do not want to participate in an arms race. But if the United States continues building a strategic shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, will we not return to the situation and times in which the former Soviet Union’s nuclear forces were focused on European cities, on European targets?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Certainly. Of course we will return to those times. And it is clear that if part of the United States’ nuclear capability is situated in Europe and that our military experts consider that they represent a potential threat then we will have to take appropriate retaliatory steps. What steps? Of course we must have new targets in Europe. And determining precisely which means will be used to destroy the installations that our experts believe represent a potential threat for the Russian Federation is a matter of technology. Ballistic or cruise missiles or a completely new system. I repeat that it is a matter of technology.

CORRIERE DELLA SERA: And what about the INF Treaty?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The Treaty on intermediate-range nuclear forces is a broader problem and not directly related to the United States’ missile defence system.

The issue at hand is that only the US and Russia are prevented from developing intermediate-range missiles and, meanwhile, a lot of other countries are doing so. I already talked about this. They include Israel, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea. If this were a comprehensive agreement then it would be clear that all must abide by it. But when almost all countries in the world are developing or planning to develop these missiles, I do not quite understand why there should be limits for either the United States or Russia.

We have non-proliferation agreements. That is clear. These agreements are comprehensive. We find it difficult but until now we have kept the world from taking any steps that might exacerbate the situation or, God forbid, result in disaster.

And I repeat that these agreements are not comprehensive with respect to intermediate-range missiles, so we certainly do think about what we need to do to ensure our safety. I repeat that many countries are doing this, including our neighbours.

And I want to emphasise again that this has nothing to do with the United States’ plans to deploy a missile defence system in Europe. But we will find answers to both threats.

LE FIGARO: Mr President, at the G8 summit you will meet with the newly elected President Sarkozy. You had a close working relationship with President Chirac, the former President of France. How do you imagine relations between Russia and France developing during the Sarkozy presidency, since Mr Sarkozy is regarded as a friend of America’s and expected to focus his foreign policy on human rights?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, I would be very happy if someone were to focus on the problem of human rights. I just read Amnesty International’s report and there are many issues that apply not only to Russia but also to our partners, including within the G8. The criticism is very harsh: issues such as violations of the rights of the media, torture, police that mistreat detainees, migration legislation. I think that we should all pay attention to these issues.

And I can only be happy if someone is a friend of the United States because we also think of ourselves as friends of the United States. I say that without exaggeration even though you could perhaps find a contradiction in light of the fact that we are now discussing problems such as missile defence, the ACAF and others so heatedly. It may not seem convincing but it is the case. Our relations are very different then, shall we say, 20 or even 15 years ago. And when the US President says that we are no longer enemies I not only believe him but I feel the same way myself. Because the issue is not limited to who is whose friend and which friendship is stronger. The issue at hand is how to strengthen the present system of international security, what we need to do to attain this, and what is preventing us from doing so. And in this respect we have different positions and different opinions. We have one point of view, our American partners have another.

As far as I was able to tell when Mr Sarkozy made one of his first public statements, he stressed that he was indeed a friend of the United States. But along with this he said that that did not mean that we must agree on everything, and our friends have to admit that on a range of questions we can have our own views. I can only welcome this because I personally have taken exactly the same approach. And I do not see anything unusual here if we express our views and defend a position on a given issue. How is that unusual?

On the question of our relations with France, they run deep, there are mutual political interests, common interests. We have similar positions on many international issues. There is a large amount of economic cooperation and, most importantly, very high potential further cooperation. All this creates a good basis for the development of future relations. I very much hope that this will take place. In any case, during the conversation I had with the newly elected President of France on the phone, we spoke of how the French leadership intended to embark on similar positive work. We have scheduled a meeting with the President of France in Germany during the G8, we shall get to know each other. I think that we will establish good working and personal relations. In any case, I would very much like to do so and we will work hard to achieve this.

LE FIGARO: Let me ask you a question about gas. It concerns developing the Shtokman deposit with Gazprom. Gazprom has decided to develop the Shtokman deposit on its own, without the consortium. And, as you know, this is a test of the investment climate in Russia. Do you think that there is any possibility that Western oil companies will be involved in this project?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Gazprom did not say that there will be no consortium. Gazprom did announce that it will develop the deposit by itself. These are still things we have to separate. Gazprom will be the sole developer and have sole ownership, but this does not mean that Gazprom does not intend to try to work with foreign partners in fields such as mining. And if we do engage in gas liquification then Gazprom will be ready to continue to engage in broad cooperation with foreign partners, including in the design and construction of a plant to liquefy gas, in distri bution and in se lling gas.

THE GLOBE AND MAIL: Rumours suggesting that Russia should no longer be a member of the G8 continue to circulate. They say that your country is moving away from the values of liberal democracy, has been unable to improve its record in terms of political freedom, transparency, the development of human rights, and so forth. People are saying that part of the Russian economy has moved away from the principles of free economy and is now back in the hands of the state. According to this point of view, your country might no longer be considered as belonging to the ranks of industrialised countries that make up the G8.

How do you respond to such assertions?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I would say that this is the usual stupidity and perhaps motivated by a desire to draw attention to oneself, perhaps to gain some political goals, aggravate problems, or to attract special attention to these issues. We ourselves did not ask to join the G8. It was offered to us and we are delighted to be there.

Russia, as you know, is changing and changing very rapidly. Measured in economic terms we are now ninth in the world and by some indicators have already overtaken certain G8 countries. If we consider the magnitude of the economy in a certain way then we have already overtaken some of the G8 countries.

Russia has enormous gold and currency reserves, the third largest in the world. Russia has very sound macroeconomic policies and thereby influences the global financial market. Maybe this is not very significant degree today, but nevertheless important.

Russia is one of the leading players in international energy policy. I said last year that we had moved into first place as an oil producer, ahead of everybody. And we have already been ranked as the largest producer of natural gas for a long time. Russia’s role and significance in the energy sector are increasing and will continue to grow.

After all, Russia is one of the biggest nuclear powers. Let us not forget that Russia is one of the founding members of the United Nations and a permanent member of the Security Council.

If someone wants to turn the G8 into an exclusive club for a few members who will try to resolve humanity’s problems among themselves, I think that no good will come of it.

On the contrary, we are presently examining the idea of extending the G8 club with a view to involving other countries more systematically in the G8: China, India, Brazil, Mexico and the Republic of South Africa.

Let us not be hypocritical about democratic freedoms and human rights. I already said that I have a copy of Amnesty International’s report including on the United States. There is probably no need to repeat this so as not to offend anyone. If you wish, I shall now report how the United States does in all this. We have an expression that is perhaps difficult to translate but it means that one can always have plenty to say about others. Amnesty International has concluded that the United States is now the principal violator of human rights and freedoms worldwide. I have the quote here, I can show you. And there is argumentation behind it.

There are similar claims about Great Britain, France or the Federal Republic of Germany. The same could be said of Russia. But let us not forget that other countries in the G8 have not experienced the dramatic transformations that the Russian Federation has undergone. They have not experienced a civil war, which we, in fact, had in the Caucasus.

And yet we have preserved many of the so-called common values even better than some other G8 countries. Despite serious conflicts in the Caucasus, we have not abandoned our moratorium on the death penalty. And, as we know, in some G8 countries this penalty is applied quite consistently and strictly enforced.

So I think that such discussions are certainly possible, but I am sure they have no serious justification.

Let me say again that, as far as I know, the German presidency of the G8 wants to formulate rules for dealing with some of the major economies of the world on an ongoing basis. I have already listed these countries and we certainly support our German partners. I think this initiative is absolutely valid.

THE GLOBE AND MAIL: A follow-up question. You talked about the problems of a unipolar world. Have you considered the possibility of creating some kind of alliance, some formal relations between countries, which could be seen as an alternative pole in the system of international relations?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I think it would be a dead end, the wrong way to go about development. We advocate a multipolar world. We believe that it should be diverse and respect the interests of the overwhelming majority of the international community. We must create these rules and learn to respect these rules.

DER SPIEGEL: Mr President, former Federal Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder called you a ‘pure democrat’. Do you consider yourself such?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: (laughs) Am I a ‘pure democrat’? Of course I am, absolutely. But do you know what the problem is? Not even a problem but a real tragedy? The problem is that I’m all alone, the only one of my kind in the whole wide world. Just look at what’s happening in North America, it’s simply awful: torture, homeless people, Guantanamo, people detained without trial and investigation. Just look at what’s happening in Europe: harsh treatment of demonstrators, rubber bullets and tear gas used first in one capital then in another, demonstrators killed on the streets. That’s not even to mention the post-Soviet area. Only the guys in Ukraine still gave hope, but they’ve completely discredited themselves now and things are moving towards total tyranny there; complete violation of the Constitution and the law and so on. There is no one to talk to since Mahatma Gandhi died.

DER SPIEGEL: And your country is not moving at all back towards a totalitarian regime?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: There is no truth in that. Do not believe what you hear.

DER SPIEGEL: You had very close relations with Gerhard Schroeder. Do you think that Angela Merkel, the new chancellor, is more inclined to seek contact with the United States rather than with Russia?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Every person and every politician chooses their own style of behaviour and sets their own priorities. I do not have the impression that there has been any worsening of our relations with Germany. For all my good relations with Gerhard Schroeder, I can say that I have also established very good and businesslike relations with Ms Merkel. Yes, she shows more persistence in some areas. She is very happy to fight for Polish meat, for example. As I have already said, she does not want to eat it herself: we all know that a delivery of Polish meat was seized in Berlin. But when it comes to the key issues, the questions of principle, there are no problems between us that could get in the way of developing the ties between our countries. We have very pragmatic and consistent relations and we see that there is continuity with regard to the previous government’s policy when it comes to relations with Russia.

KOMMERSANT: Vladimir Vladimirovich, this is perhaps more of a local, specific matter, but I think the issue is nevertheless important. Our newspaper has been writing over the last few days about the fact that, two days ago, the Federal Customs Service banned biological materials from being taken out of the country. It is quite simply not letting them out of the country.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: What are these biological materials?

KOMMERSANT: Samples of biological materials, things such as blood samples, pieces of human tissue, material that is needed for carrying out quality analysis in the West where there are large-scale data bases. This is needed in order to establish the most accurate diagnosis for people in Russia who have cancer, for example, and in order, ultimately, to be able to operate on them and help them. But the customs service is not letting these samples out of the country. Various explanati ons are being circulated as to why this is so, but facts remains facts. The Federal Customs Service even issued a statement today saying that some rules would soon be drawn up on this matter. But the samples are already not being allowed out of the country. What is your view on this matter?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: It is hard for me to say exactly because I do not know very much about this. I think that rules should be drawn up, and the Health Ministry should take part in this work. You say that these samples are sent abroad in order to help people, but my question in this case is: who has been helped through this and what help have they actually received? Are there any statistics? I do not have any such statistics and, overall, I have my doubts as to whether anyone has been specifically helped through these biological samples being sent abroad.

KOMMERSANT: Getting a correct diagnosis is already a form of help, and it is these international data bases abroad that are used to establish the correct diagnosis.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: And where is this diagnosis? Show me statistics proving that someone has received the correct diagnosis as a result of this work?

KOMMERSANT: We can show you these statistics.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Send them to me then. But one should be working with the Health Ministry on all of this. All countries have rules on issues such as organs, tissues and so on being taken out of the country. This is a sensitive issue and any civilised country should have some rules in this area, Russia too. I do not know all the details of this issue, but rules will be put in place and we will all work within their framework.

KOMMERSANT: But perhaps the border could be opened again while the rules are being drafted? Perhaps the previous rules could continue to be applied over this period?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: There are no previous rules. If there had been a set of rules, it would be possible to say whether or not violations have taken place, but there simply was no previous set of rules. Now we need to take steps to bring order to this situation and the Health Ministry’s specialists need to get involved in this work and set out their position.

NIKKEI: Asian people see Russia through the prism of relations with the United States and Europe. I think that we need to look at Russia directly as an Asian country because Russia is a big country and a substantial part of its territory lies in Asia. Now, we are seeing economic growth in Asia taking place at a pace that would have been hard to imagine in the past.

The Asian countries are all growing very fast. Japan has entered a new period of growth and China, of course, is one of the fastest-growing countries. Various bilateral agreements on trade preferences and so on have been signed in Asia alongside the multilateral agreements. Russia is also showing rapid economic growth. How do you plan to take part in the Asian region’s dynamic development and how do you plan to work within the six-party group? Why not make use of the possibilities investment cooperation offers as a form of cooperation?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Could you specify which six-party group you are referring to?

NIKKEI: The six-party talks on resolving the situation in North Korea. Russia is one of the parties in these negotiations, the aim of which is to resolve the North Korean issue. How do you plan to play a more active part in this process?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We are actively involved in the six-party negotiations on the North Korean nuclear issue. You have probably been able to see for yourself that our position on this complex issue is very productive, and our position has indeed helped to achieve positive results in this area. We have always taken the view that we need to avoid anything that could drive the negotiations into deadlock, and that we need to take North Korea’s interests into account and work towards agreements that all sides can accept. China has worked very hard, of course, to help achieve a positive outcome. I think that all the parties in this process have shown goodwill and have demonstrated that, despite the seriousness of the problem, they all seek an agreement and are willing to look for compromise solutions that can always be found. We will continue our work in this area.

Regarding Asia as a whole, I have already said that Asia is one of our priorities. We will work together within the international organizations and we already take part in many Asian forums and will continue to participate in their work.

As for economic matters, if we take the energy issue, one of the most pressing problems, you know that we are already building an oil pipeline to the Pacific coast and we are looking at building a gas pipeline as well. Active work is underway on plans to build a gas pipeline to China and also to the Pacific coast.

We will also continue to work together in other sectors, in the high-technology sector and in military-technical cooperation. We will develop multilateral cooperation with Asia.

THE TIMES: Tony Blair has finally decided to give his support to Gordon Brown to become the new prime minister. Do you think this is the right choice? For your part, who would you like to see as the next President of Russia?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: If you are hinting at Gordon Brown, for all the respect I have for him, he is not likely to become President of Russia. (Laughter).

The Labour Party’s choice is not our affair. We know Gordon Brown to be a top-class specialist and I hope that if he does indeed become prime minister the positive results obtained over recent years will be taken into account and we will be able to develop further our relations with the United Kingdom. We have many common interests in a wide variety of areas. Tony and I have discussed this on many occasions. We have discussed our cooperation and the prospects for work together between the Russian and British governments.

I remember what a warm welcome I received when I made a state visit to the United Kingdom. All of these things have so many positive elements that can help us to continue moving forward. As for the decisions taken within the Labour Party, we will of course agree with its decision and will work with our new partners whoever they may be.

As for Russia, unlike in the United Kingdom, where the prime minister is chosen within a political party, the President here is elected by Russian voters through direct secret ballot.

THE TIMES: But even so, what kind of person would you like to see, and what kind of qualities should they have?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I would like to see above all someone who is decent and honest, someone with a high level of professionalism and experience who has already proven themselves and achieved positive results at regional or federal level. In other words, I would like to see someone who can inspire confidence in the great majority of Russian voters through the election campaign and the election process.

SPIEGEL: Could this person be someone who has already been president?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: There has been only one previous President of Russia -Boris Yeltsin. Today is a day of memory for Boris Yeltsin -the fortieth day since his passing. There have been no other presidents of the Russian Federation. My term in office is coming to an end. I do not even understand what you are talking about.

WALL STREET JOURNAL: Now that your term in office is coming to an end, how would you like history to remember your presidency? What are the main achievements of your presidency you would like to see remembered? In this respect, which Russian or world leader’s rule would you like your presidency to be compared to?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Starting from the end, why make comparisons? The situation in each historical period and in each country is always unique in its way and I do not see the need to make comparisons. Time will pass and the specialists, the public and the experts will objectively assess what I was able to achieve during these eight years as President of the Russian Federation.

I think there are things of which I and the people who have worked with me can feel deservedly proud. They include restoring Russia’s territorial integrity, strengthening the state, progress towards establishing a multiparty system, strengthening the parliamentary system, restoring the Armed Forces’ potential and, of course, developing the economy. As you know, our economy has been growing by 6.9 per cent a year on average over this time, and our GDP increased by 7.7 per cent over the first four months of this year alone.

When I began my work in 2000, 30 per cent of our population was living below the poverty line. There has been a two-fold drop in the number of people living below the poverty line since then and the figure today is around 15 per cent. By 2009-2010, we will bring this figure down to 10 per cent, and this will bring us in line with the European average.

We had enormous debts, simply catastrophic for our economy, but we have paid them off in full now. Not only have we paid our debts, but we now have the best foreign debt to GDP ratio in Europe. Our gold and currency reserve figures are well known: in 2000, they stood at just $12 billion and we had a debt of more than 100 per cent of GDP, but now we have the third-biggest gold and currency reserves in the world and they increased by $90 billion over the first four months of this year alone.

During the 1990s and even in 2000-2001, we had massive capital flight from Russia with $15 billion, $20 billion or $25 billion leaving the country every year. Last year we reversed this situation for the first time and had capital inflow of $41 billion. We have already had capital inflow of $40 billion over the first four months of this year. Russia’s stock market capitalisation showed immense growth last year and increased by more than 50 per cent. This is one of the best results in the world, perhaps even the best. Our economy was near the bottom of the list of world economies in terms of size but today it has climbed to ninth place and in some areas has even overtaken some of the other G8 countries’ economies. This means that today we are able to tackle social problems. Real incomes are growing by around 12 per cent a year. Real income growth over the first four months of this year came to just over 18 per cent, while wages rose by 11-12 per cent.

Looking at the problems we have yet to resolve, one of the biggest is the huge income gap between the people at the top and the bottom of the scale. Combating poverty is obviously one of our top priorities in the immediate term and we still have to do a lot to improve our pension system too because the correlation between pensions and the average wage is still lower here than in Europe. The gap between incomes at the top and bottom end of the scale is still high here -a 15.6-15.7-fold difference. This is less than in the United States today (they have a figure of 15.9) but more than in the UK or Italy (where they have 13.6-13.7). But this remains a big gap for us and fighting poverty is one of our biggest priorities.

The demographic situation is another priority. We need to do all we can to change the demographic situation. We have adopted a special programme in this area. I will not repeat all the programme’s details now but we are allocating major resources to its implementation and I am sure that it will achieve results.

On the issue of state-building, we are often criticised for centralising state power, but few pay attention to the fact that we have made a whole number of decisions to decentralise state power and have transferred considerable powers to the regional and, most importantly, to the municipal authorities.

It was with amazement that I followed the debate in Germany on what powers to give to the lands. I followed this whole debate with amazement and saw that we have long since already done all of this. It would be simply comical in Russia today to hear a debate on giving the municipal or regional authorities the power to decide , for example, on the opening and closing of shops and so on. Russian municipalities have much broader powers than in many European countries, and we think that this is the right policy. Unfortunately, we had a situation in which the financial resources were not available to back these powers, but we are gradually changing this situation. That is as concerns the general situation in this area now in Russia, though we still have much work to do.

CORRIERE DELLA SERA: Mr President, I promised my colleagues that I would keep silent, but I have one more very brief question for you. I realise that it is Russia’s voters who will elect the next president, but could you perhaps say something about what you, Vladimir Putin, will do after your term in office ends?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I will work, that is for sure, but where and in what capacity I cannot say at this point. I do have some ideas on this point but it is early as yet to talk about them. Even under current Russian law I am still a long way away from retirement age and it would make no sense to just sit at home and twiddle my thumbs.

But I do not want to talk about my possible future plans at this point. To be honest, I just do not think it right to get public opinion all excited over this matter right now. We have to wait and see how the situation shapes up, how the political process in Russia progresses over this year and the beginning of next year. There are a number of different possibilities.

CORRIERE DELLA SERA: I have a second question on Russian foreign policy. It seems to me that Russian foreign policy does not offer any real alternative to say US or European foreign policy.

One example is Iran. Of course, Russia does not want Iran to become a nuclear state, after all, Iran is very close to Russia’s borders. But what alternative is there to the West’s policy of sanctions, to the policy the West has pursued, including with Russia’s participation, in the UN? Do you see any alternative that Russia could put forward?

Kosovo is another example. I know your position on Kosovo, your position regarding direct negotiations between the Serbs and the Kosovars. But do you not think that the position you have taken against Mr Ahtisaari and the UN could actually encourage Kosovo to unilaterally declare independence?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Regarding what Russia can propose by way of solutions to complex or at first glance irresolvable problems, I just spoke about the North Korean issue with your colleague, Mr Ota. We all know that despite this problem’s complexity, a solution has been found, and it is possible to settle issues when, rather than dramatising the situation and driving things into a dead end, the parties decide to look for ways out of the deadlock and accept a compromise. Problems can be solved without having to use threats and armed force, and we support this method of settling issues.

Regarding Kosovo, you mentioned that we support the idea of dialogue between Kosovo’s Albanian population and the Serbs. But that does not fully sum up our position. I would like to say a bit more on this point.

First, our position is based on the principles of international law, and one of these main principles is that of a state’s territorial integrity.

Second, our position is also based on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, which, I want to stress, was voted for unanimously, and which no one has repealed. This resolution sets out clearly, black on white, that Kosovo is an integral part of Serbia.

If we want to place the principle of a people’s right to self-determination -the principle behind the Soviet Union’s policy during the time when peoples were struggling to free themselves from colonialism -above the principle of territorial integrity, this policy and this decision should be universal and should apply to all parts of the world, and at least to all parts of Europe. We are not convinced by our partners’ statements to the effect that Kosovo is a unique case. There is nothing to suggest that the case o f Kosovo is any different to that of South Ossetia, Abkhazia or Trans-Dniester. The Yugoslav communist empire collapsed in one case and the Soviet communist empire collapsed in the second. Both cases had their litany of war, victims, criminals and the victims of crimes. South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Trans-Dniester have been living essentially as independent states for 15 years now and have elected parliaments and presidents and adopted constitutions. There is no difference.

We do not understand why we should support one principle in one part of Europe and follow other principles in other parts of Europe, denying peoples in the Caucasus, say, the right to self-determination.

I do not rule out that gradual work on the Serbian side could eventually transform their view on Kosovo. I do not want to speak for the Serbs, but ongoing and tactful work could result in some kind of compromise being reached.

I do not understand the need today to force an entire European people to its knees and humiliate it so that an entire nation will then look upon those who have brought about this situation as enemies. These kinds of issues should be settled only through a process of agreement and compromise, and I think that we have not yet exhausted our possibilities in this respect.

We are told that there

Au Nord, du nouveau

Par Stéphane Juffa © Metula News Agency

Les conséquences néfastes pour Israël, liées au fait d’avoir un incapable avéré occupant les fonctions de 1er ministre, atteignent des proportions inquiétantes. Si, dans un pays à l’abri des guerres, l’influence d’un chef de l’Etat médiocre, que personne ne suit ni ne respecte, n’est pas, à proprement dit, la fin du monde, il en va tout autrement dans le cas d’Israël. Lorsque les pressions s’accumulent, il s’avère impératif d’avoir à la barre un timonier expérimenté, capable de se concentrer sur son sujet et qui sache donner des ordres. Nous avions, il y a quelques semaines, exprimé ces craintes dans nos colonnes et nous n’avons pas eu très longtemps à attendre pour assister à leur concrétisation.

Il faut admettre que la situation stratégique d’Israël est plutôt gratinée. Elle doit subir les menaces de deux organisations terroristes paramilitaires sur ses frontières nord et sud, un danger de guerre conventionnelle face à la Syrie, et des appels à son éradication en provenance de Perse. De plus, ces risques ne se calculent pas indépendamment les uns des autres et ne s’additionnent pas non plus : ils se multiplient de façon exponentielle lorsque l’on considère la situation hypothétique d’avoir à gérer une agression combinée de plusieurs de ces composantes hostiles.

C’est dans ce genre de stress qu’il faut pouvoir conserver son sang froid, évaluer correctement – sans les sous-estimer ni les exagérer – les dangers et contrôler les déclarations des ministres et des représentants des courants politiques. Mais comment faire lorsque, comme Ehoud Olmert, on est à la merci politique du lâchage des membres de sa coalition gouvernementale et même d’une partie non négligeable des personnalités de son propre parti ?

Durant la semaine qui se termine, nous avons eu à constater les méfaits causés par le maintien transitoire d’Olmert à la présidence du conseil. Il aura suffi, en fait, à Béchar Al Assad d’envoyer un député de son parlement s’exprimer sur un media international arabe et y déclarer que la Syrie envisageait de déclencher un conflit contre Israël durant l’été.

Déjà, la condition d’un député dans un pays où le président vient d’être élu avec 98.5% des suffrages exprimés devrait pousser à la circonspection. De plus, lors de l’interview, ledit quidam a étalé son ignorance crasse des réalités israéliennes : il a mal récité son texte, s’enflammant, par exemple, contre Amir Meretz, censé être notre ministre de la Défense. On ne lui avait pas dit que Meretz est un parti politique, et que Peretz n’attend que de connaître le nom du vainqueur des primaires travaillistes, la semaine prochaine, pour lui céder sa place. Il faut ajouter qu’aucun parlementaire syrien n’oserait s’exprimer publiquement, particulièrement sur des ondes étrangères, sans avoir été prié de le faire par le dictateur ou son entourage, les geôles de Damas recueillant volontiers les auteurs d’initiatives spontanées.

Reste que dans l’état de fébrilité, à la limite de l’hystérie, qui règne dans les sphères du pouvoir à Jérusalem, il n’en fallait pas plus pour déclencher une cacophonie démentielle de réactions aux propos du député de Damas. La classe politique de l’Etat hébreu, oubliant, en la circonstance, qu’on ne parle jamais de paix avec quelqu’un qui vous menace de guerre, s’est éparpillée dans toutes les directions. La plus courue : il faut engager sans tarder des négociations de paix avec la Syrie. La plus maladroite : Olmert a demandé à nos amis turcs d’informer Al Assad qu’il était prêt à “reprendre les négociations là où elles avaient été stoppées et à faire des concessions substantielles pour parvenir à la paix avec la Syrie”.

L’oculiste de Damas, qui doit être hilare de la réaction qu’il a provoquée, s’est d’abord arrangé pour rendre publique l’offre de reddition d’Olmert – qui, traduite en arabe, signifie : je suis prêt à vous rendre le plateau du Golan -, avant de faire dire à ses media que la Syrie n’avait reçu aucune repartie concrète “aux propositions de paix qu’elle avait formulées, en dehors du commentaire de la radio nationale israélienne”. D’autres media syriens se sont empressés de compléter le camouflet en annonçant que Damas n’avait qu’une confiance très limitée quant aux intentions profondes d’Ehoud Olmert.

Leçon : lorsqu’on vous menace et que vous êtes sûr de vous, surenchérissez, remettez le Tartarin à sa place. Et lorsque ça n’est pas le cas : taisez-vous !

Mais dans un troupeau dans lequel tous les moutons se considèrent comme des experts en stratégie, lorsque le berger, ne sachant plus où il va, est incapable de crier “vos gueules, les brebis !”, chacun y va de sa proposition de négociation.

Cela émane de l’évaluation effectuée par l’armée, selon laquelle il faut calmer le jeu et ne pas participer à la surenchère belliciste dans laquelle l’ennemi entend nous entraîner. Mais le chef d’état-major, Gaby Ashkenazi, n’a jamais dit aux politiques de s’empresser de baisser leur pantalon et de le faire savoir à la cantonade. Au contraire, depuis sa reprise en main de Tsahal, les unités multiplient leurs exercices consistant à s’entraîner à l’invasion de la Syrie. L’une de ces manœuvres, imposante, s’est encore déroulée cette semaine.

Et l’on doit à la vérité et au juste discernement d’affirmer, qu’en cas de conflit, cet été, aucune force au monde ne pourrait empêcher Tsahal de se rendre maître du territoire syrien. En termes stratégique et tactique, le rapport de force entre l’armée israélienne et son adversaire syrienne ressemble aux différences qui existent entre un Boeing 747 et un avion de tourisme.

Dans ces conditions, que craint-on à Jérusalem ? D’abord, et cela pourrait faire l’économie des autres analyses, on craint… la victoire militaire. Occuper Damas, renverser le régime tyrannique des Al Assad, et ensuite ? Se retrouver à devoir gérer un pays, brimé depuis le décret de la loi martiale, en 1963, divisé en une multitude de peuplades, de tribus, de sectes et d’obédiences ? Certaines d’entre elles, fort agressives, au point qu’elles font ressembler, par comparaison, l’enfer irakien voisin à une antenne du Club Méditerranée. Occuper et régir trente millions de Syriens, habitués à n’obéir qu’à la répression sans concession exercée par la famille Al Assad, lorsque l’on est sept millions d’Israéliens ? Ce n’est pas un choix, c’est une hypothèse à écarter.

En fait, si ce facho de Béchar pouvait continuer à gendarmer les Frères musulmans et les chiites déjantés sans nous chercher querelle, ce serait la moins mauvaise des solutions. Reste, s’il ne nous en laisse pas le choix, la possibilité militaire de lui infliger une bonne raclée, en détruisant son armée, les signes de son pouvoir et ses infrastructures. C’est ce qu’on s’efforcera de faire, si Mars parvenait à imposer la guerre, mais en sachant que l’on va encore attiser, avec une incroyable vigueur, la haine à notre égard des 1.2 milliards d’Arabes et de musulmans ; que leur objectif principal demeurera, plus que jamais, de se reconstituer afin de laver, une fois de plus, leur honneur taché ; qu’on repousserait aux calendes grecques l’horizon d’une pacification régionale, et que l’accalmie suivant l’hypothétique conflit et notre hypothétique victoire, ne durerait que l’espace d’un nouveau laps, soit entre quinze et trente ans.

Encore faudrait-il veiller, durant la bataille, à ne pas affaiblir Al Assad au point de persuader ses ennemis de l’intérieur qu’ils peuvent le renverser.

L’état-major de Tsahal doit également tenir compte des nouvelles dotations de l’armée syrienne en matériel russe, qui poussent le dictateur de Damas, surtout spécialisé en ophtalmologie, à croire qu’il peut faire le malin. Le titre de son effort de guerre pourrait être : “Tout aux missiles”. En fait, mais j’ignore jusqu’à quel degré Al Assad en est conscient, c’est Moscou qui le pousse à faire le fier-à-bras et à risquer de perdre son royaume.

Car Poutine est très vivement irrité par l’intégration d’Israël aux premières loges du programme américain d’écran total antimissiles. Si l’on veut être précis, il convient de définir le rôle rempli par Israël dans ce projet comme celui de co-leader ; il colle plus à la réalité que celui d’associé.

En effet, du point de vue tactique, la fonction dévolue par ce programme à l’Etat hébreu est celle de “1er défenseur des capitales européennes contre la menace iranienne”. Mais la part du lion que Washington octroie à Jérusalem se situe avant tout dans l’élaboration même du bouclier : à ce stade du développement, Israël est responsable de la réalisation des défenses relatives à deux des trois niveaux de l’espace que Washington entend protéger. L’on approche d’ailleurs la somme de 5 milliards de dollars que les Américains sont en train d’investir dans les portions israéliennes du projet. Un chiffre considérable, qui en dit long sur les espérances placées par la Maison Blanche et les stratèges du Pentagone dans la technologie israélienne.

Dans le concret, Israël poursuit son développement du Khetz – fabriqué ensuite en série aux USA – et de ses systèmes connexes. Le Khetz, la Flèche, le Arrow, est d’ores et déjà opérationnel. Il est conçu pour anéantir les missiles balistiques en haute altitude, en cours de réalisation en Iran.

Pour contrer les menaces plus proches du sol, les Katiouchas et autres Qassam, et même les obus d’artillerie, les ingénieurs israéliens planchent sur le David’s sling, ou Bride de David, dans la traduction française, qui est proposée ici pour la première fois. Au ministère israélien de la Défense, on espère qu’il sera opérationnel dans deux ans, alors que la date butoir est fixée à 2013. Ce système, destiné, entre autres, à réduire les terroristes paramilitaires du Hamas et ceux du Hezbollah au silence, constitue la déclinaison revivifiée du projet Nautilus.

Le troisième système du bouclier est de conception américaine, s’agissant des Patriot. De fait, la plus récente émulation de ces missiles est censée protéger la tranche intermédiaire du ciel, ou, expliqué en termes plus pragmatiques, arrêter les objets volants offensifs que le Khetz et la Bride de David ne seraient pas parvenus à intercepter.

Entre les 5 et 20 mars derniers, les Américains et les Israéliens ont réalisés les premiers essais pratiques de ce bouclier antimissiles intégré. C’était dans le Néguev, c’était classé ultrasecret et cela portait le nom de Juniper Cobra, soit, en français, Cobra du genévrier, et ne me demandez pas à quoi coïncide le choix de ce nom, ni à qui ressemble celui qui l’a choisi, car je n’en possède pas la moindre idée.

Tout ce que je veux vous dire, c’est que le Cobra du genévrier s’est soldé par des “résultats positifs”, et que cela a rendu furieux Vladimir Poutine. Ce qui expliquerait de façon logique les déclarations aux accents de Seconde guerre froide, dont il a inondé l’éther à la veille du G8.

En termes israéliens, l’intégration au poste de fer de lance du bouclier US n’a pas que des aspects positifs. Pour nous “punir” de nos efforts aux côtés de Washington, Poutine livre, en effet, à l’Iran et à la Syrie des systèmes de missiles en tous points redoutables.

Il y a le 9M113 Kornet : un engin antichars guidé par faisceau laser, aussi efficace contre les personnels que contre les structures (il s’agit de deux ogives différentes et interchangeables), dont Tsahal a fait la pénible connaissance durant la dernière guerre du Liban. Cette arme efficace, livrée par milliers aux commandos de Al Assad, a été développée par le bureau d’ingénieurs KPB.

Contre les avions, Poutine a transféré aux ennemis mortels d’Israël des missiles SAM 15 (Surface to Air Missile), Gauntlet (petit gant), 9K331 Tor, dans leur désignation originale russe. Des fusées, transportées par camions et tirées depuis iceux, capables de prendre en chasse deux cibles simultanément, et se déplaçant à une vitesse vertigineuse de 850 mètres à la secondes. Violent !

Enfin, dans le domaine du sol-sol, issu du même bureau d’études que le Kornet, voici l’Iskander, (Alexandre, en grec, “celui qui protège l’homme”). Désigné SS-26, cette version ultra améliorée du Scud dispose d’une portée de 300 kilomètres et d’une charge utile de 480 kilos. Mais ce qui donne des sueurs froides à ses adversaires, c’est que l’Iskander est, en principe, capable d’éviter ses chasseurs et de déposer sa charge à quelques mètres de la cible qui lui a été désignée. D’après ses concepteurs, ce missile devrait pouvoir échapper aux Patriot PAC 2/3, qui équipent Tsahal. Si cela est vrai, la Syrie pourrait lancer une attaque surprise et démolir, en nombre, des installations militaires de la résolution d’un hangar d’avion, et même d’un avion au sol.

Je traite, parlant de ces missiles russes de la dernière génération livrés par Poutine à Al Assad, d’un élément majeur qui retient évidemment l’attention des stratèges israéliens. Certes, Assad ne remportera pas une guerre sur la base unique de ces missiles. De plus, rien n’empêche Tsahal, si la tension devient insupportable, de se livrer à une opération préventive contre son voisin du Nord-Est, et de les rendre largement inopérants. Au bout de l’équation, l’armée israélienne, plus complète, plus moderne, disposant d’une aviation formidable, de blindés se situant à la pointe de la technologie, d’une artillerie efficace et d’autres moyens offensifs dont je ne parlerai pas, engloutirait son adversaire. Personne, hors de Syrie, ne nourrit de doute à cet égard.

La question cruciale est à nouveau celle du prix à payer, ce, pour accéder à une victoire militaire qui ne résoudrait rien, durablement, dans notre différend avec les Arabes. Vladimir Poutine est assurément au courant de cette équation : en hâtant la livraison des missiles à la Syrie, il contribue à nous dissuader d’emprunter la voie de la confrontation. Elle pourrait nous coûter des milliers de morts, beaucoup parmi notre population civile. Plus que lors de la guerre du Kippour et son cortège, toujours traumatisant, de quelque 2 000 victimes israéliennes. Or, si les armes livrées par la Russie devaient nous obliger – sans tirer un seul coup de feu - à nous asseoir avec Assad à la table de négociation, voire à nous forcer à évacuer le Golan, Poutine serait parvenu à remettre solidement le pied au Proche-Orient, ce que l’on pensait irrémédiablement révolu.

Et si le Hezbollah – qui a reconstitué son arsenal au nord du Litani – participait à un conflit au côté des Syriens, ce dont nous n’avons aucune raison de douter, les populations de Galilée seraient à nouveau touchées. Il nous serait, de plus, difficile de conduire deux offensives majeures de concert, d’autant plus qu’entre Tsahal et le Hezb, au Liban, se trouvent déployés les 15 000 hommes du contingent de l’ONU. Comment réagiraient-ils à des tirs de Katiouchas sur la Galilée ? Deviendraient-ils, à leur tour, des boucliers humains protégeant les terroristes chiites ? On n’en sait encore rien.

Sûr que si les Américains (ou les Européens : c’est une blague !) prenaient en charge la sécurité du territoire syrien après un blitz de Tsahal, le temps d’essayer de mettre en place une démocratie en Syrie, une campagne visant à chasser les Al Assad deviendrait stratégiquement intéressante ; c’est sans parler de l’amélioration gigantesque, au niveau des droits de l’Homme et de la paix durable, que cela apporterait. Mais, en constatant la mélasse dans laquelle ils se dépêtrent en Irak, personne, ici, n’oserait proposer aux Yankees cette nouvelle charge.

Béchar vocifère, alternant les menaces et les propositions de négocier, mais il ne se risquera pas à provoquer le géant militaire qu’est Tsahal ; ce, à moins que ses conceptions stratégiques ne soient celles d’un kamikaze. Le danger vient de voir la tension monter – comme dans un duel de Western au pistolet – et que l’un des protagonistes dégaine parce qu’il aura perdu ses nerfs. C’est exactement ce qui s’était passé à la veille de la guerre des Six jours, que personne n’entendait déclencher.

Comment va le temps ? Il tourne, en l’absence de conflit, en faveur de ceux qui possèdent la meilleure technologie et qui développent la Bride de David, mais à force de slalomer entre des barils de poudre, on ne peut exclure l’éventualité qu’ils explosent prématurément.

C’est le Richistan.
Le pays des riches.
C’était un village. Maintenant c’est une nation.

Selon le journaliste Robert Frank, qui y a consacré un livre, les Etats-Unis comptent maintenant 1000 milliardaires (contre 13 en 1985).
Il y a autant de millionnaires en Caroline du Nord que dans l’Inde entière…

Chacun des 5 enfants de Sam Walton, le PDG de Walmart, possède autant que John D. Rockefeller, le premier milliardaire américain.

Les richistanis ont leur propre système de santé, leurs clubs privés, leurs jets en time-sharing..
Pour ranger leurs placards, ils font appel à des professional organizers.
( Corinne Lesne, http://clesnes.blog.lemonde.fr/
)

... The wealthy weren’t just getting wealthier - they were forming their own virtual country.

They were wealthier than most nations, with the top 1% controlling $17 trillion in wealth. And they were increasingly building a self-contained world, with its own health-care system (concierge doctors), travel system (private jets, destination clubs) and language. (”Who’s your household manager?”)

They had created their own breakaway republic - one I called Richistan.

As a former foreign correspondent, I decided to cover Richistan just as I would cover another country. I wouldn’t judge the rich as heroes or villains, any more than I would judge Indonesians when covering Indonesia. My job would simply be to tell the reader what their world is like and what’s happening there.

... The real story behind all this wealth, however, isn’t in the numbers. It’s in the people, and how they’re changing the culture and character of wealth in America.

( The Wall Street Journal, Robert Frank, http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/wp-print.php?year=2007&monthnum=06&day=05&name=why-richistan-why-now )

Souvent, dans vos articles, la profondeur de l’analyse l’emporte sur l’abondance et le peu de pertinence d’un matériel documentaire étouffant.
Mais peu importe le prétexte, c’est le texte qui compte.
Ce n’est pas le cas lorsque vous tentez de nous rendre intéressant le triste bouffon apatride que les Français se sont vus octroyer comme président, avec comme seul alibi et seule justification les déclarations de ce dernier.
Il ne nous reste plus grand chose à lire, ne vous joignez pas, par pitié, à la claque subtile des grands clairvoyants prudents (même si votre voisin s’appelle Ignacio Ramonet)
En fait de prétexte, pourquoi ne pas gloser sur le fait que la politique étrangère de la France repose officiellement sur un bien étrange trio dont vous n’aurez aucun mal à trouver le point commun : Sarkozy - Lévitte - Kouchner ?

... Le réseau de surveillance de l’espace américain est la référence mondiale en matière de catalogage des satellites ...  Ces informations excluent les satellites américains sensibles, mais ne se privent pas de fournir des données sur les orbites des matériels militaires des autres nations.

...  Mais selon les responsables français, le radar Graves, ainsi qu’un système complémentaire supervisé par le gouvernement allemand, constitue déjà un système capable de détecter précisément l’emplacement, la taille, l’orbite et les fréquences de transmissions de certains satellites américains, informations dont les Etats-Unis préféreraient éviter une divulgation mondiale.

... A l’heure actuelle nous disons à nos amis américains: ‘nous avons vu des choses que vous pourriez souhaiter garder en dehors du domaine public. Nous accepterons de le faire si vous acceptez en retour de cesser de publier l’emplacement de nos satellites sensibles.”

http://www.techno-science.net/?onglet=news&news=4169

Comment vous que l’Europe de l’Est façe confiance à celle de l’Ouest avec ce qui s’est passé en 1938 à Munich et la mise sous tutelle de la Pologne en 1945 ?

Les Etats-Unis sont plus fiables que la France en ce domaine.

Au fait, combien de temps le royaume de Belgique survivrat encore au grand écart entre ses régions ?

Un futur premier ministre d’une nation qui n’a pas de drapeau de son pays dans son quartier général de campagne, c’est une nouveauté.

http://www.courrierinternational.com/article.asp?obj_id=74792

Voici la nouvelle méthode US pour régler son compte à l’insurrection irakienne…
...l’armer encore plus.
Fallait y penser, non?

Intéressant ces réactions Anglaises.

Je voudrais ajouter une sorte de “guillemet” à ce que vous avez écrit sur la politique étrangère du gouvernment Prodi…
Comme vous devez le savoir, nous avons eu droit à Rome à la visite de M. Bush. Depuis que je vis à Rome (et j’ai assisté à maintes visites de chefs d’Etat, président Américain compris - notamment lors des funérailles du Pape où étaient présents les chefs d’Etat du monde entier, plus Bush….), je n’avais JAMAIS vu un tel déploiement de forces de l’ordre.

Hier samedi 9 juin, nous pauvres habitants du centre ville nous sommes retrouvés prisonniers de nos demeures, encerclés par des divisions blindés, des hordes de CRS, de policiers, de Carabinieri, de Guardia di Finanza….. rues bloqués, aucune circulation autorisée, murs de CRS qui bloquaient même les piétons comme nous, qui allions faire notre marché (nous avons du sortir du centre historique et traverser le fleuve pour revenir ensuite vers notre rue et rentrer chez nous, détour de 45 minutes!).
Tous les hélicoptères étaient mobilisés, le bruit était infernal. Les avions de chasse patrouillaient le ciel autour de Rome, etc. Rome occupée, symbole de la vassalité de l’Italie aux Etats Unis. Rome qui recevait son chef suprème, ou Dieu en personne.

Pendant ce temps, en direct sur RAI News 24, on pouvait voir Bush chez le Pape, Bush chez le président de la République, Bush avec Prodi et D’Alema, Bush auprès des militaires dont les yeux étaient remplis d’étoiles ... tout sourire. Les déclarations d’entente idylliques fusaient: “alliance avec les Etats Unis plus solide que jamais” et “encore plus profonde qu’avant”, remerciements de Bush pour l’aide Italienne en Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq, Liban, etc. Aucune dissonance, aucune critique de la part de Prodi, aucun MAIS “à la Sarkozy”, aucun mot sur les prisons secrètes, la torture, l’assassinat par les GI de l’un de nos plus grands agents de renseignement qui tentaient de protéger la pauvre journaliste otage à peine libérée par les méchants intégristes, aucun mot sur les agissements illicites des agents de la CIA en Italie… Même pas un mot sur le climat! Seulement des déclarations d’amour inconditionnel, de fidélité eternelle, envers et contre tout.  En comparaison, Tony Blair a eu plus de dignité envers les USA, il a osé exprimer quelques “MAIS”....

C’était donc un affichage de zèle que même Berlusconi n’aurait pas fait. De zèle sécuritaire surtout, absolument EFFRAYANT, de peur sans doute d’être accusés par la droite d’anti-americanisme et de complaisance envers les manifestants anti Bush…. Eh oui, il y avait une manifestation anti-Bush prévue pour l’après midi. Mais soudain, les grands partis de gauche et du centre chrétien démocrate, le grand syndicat CGIL, les millions de militants de ces partis qui avaient défilé contre la guerre en Iraq et la politique des USA, et tous les braves gens révoltés par la guerre illégale avaient soudain disparu de la rue. La manifestation a été abandonnée par les services d’ordre des partis aussi bien que par les militants, laissée en main à de petits voyous violents portant passe-montagne, foulard sur le visage ou casque de moto… volontairement. Le Gouvernement de gauche tenait à se démarquer très nettement des protestations contre l’Amerique!!!

La police a commencé à encercler Piazza Navona où tous les manifestants devaient se retrouver. Nous passions par là et avions décidé de nous joindre aux groupes qui s’étaient installés sur la place, avec la fameuse Titubanda (orchestre populaire de Rome, ouvert à tous ceux qui savent souffler dans un instrument) qui jouait des airs cubains. Nous avons soudain compris que la place venait d’être hermétiquement bloquée par les CRS et que nous étions prisonniers. Soudain, inévitablement, les premiers “provocateurs” ont commencé à se plaindre de l’encerclement et à protester contre les CRS. Des groupes de voyous (sans doute infiltrés par les services comme au bon vieux temps des “années de plomb”) ont lancé quelques objets sur les boucliers des CRS et ont commencé à crier ROMA LIBERA! et là, en deux minutes, ça a été la charge, brutale et hors de proportion. Lacrymogènes, coups de matraque, etc. Nous avons essayé de sortir de la place pour rentrer chez nous, nous avons longuement discuté avec les CRS en leur montrant notre carte d’identité avec adresse, en vain. Personne ne voulait nous laisser sortir de là, en sachant que nous n’étions même pas des manifestants…ils savaient que nous allions être attaqués par des hordes de CRS et ils nous empêchaient de rentrer chez nous!!!

Un ami était là avec sa fillette de 7 ans, et il lui a fallu 35 minutes de course entre casseurs et police, et de discussion avec les forces de l’ordre pour qu’ils acceptent enfin de les faire sortir du piège à souris où il les avaient laissé rentrer sans le moindre mot d’avertissement….
Quand la charge a eu lieu, nous nous sommes réfugiés contre un mur, c’est un miracle si nous n’avons pas été blessés. Nous avons fui avec les autres, sous les lacrymogènes, et avons enfin eu la chance de trouver une ruelle bloquée par la Guardia di Finanza, qui après une demi heure de supplications et de cris, ne nous a pas forcés à retourner au cœur de la bataille et a accepté de nous laisser passer. Je n’ai jamais vu ça ici.

Cela est scandaleux. J’ai participé à de nombreuses manifestations contre la guerre en Iraq, même celle qui s’est tenue devant l’ambassade américaine le soir même de l’attaque. Tout cela sous le gouvernement Berlusconi. Mais je n’ai jamais vu une telle stratégie de guerre urbaine déployée contre nos manifestations d’antan, et pourtant, certaines d’entre elles étaient chaudes. Nous n’avons jamais vu une charge des CRS en 4 ans de protestations anti-guerre et anti-USA. Ils se contentaient de nous surveiller de loin, en évitant soigneusement de nous provoquer, pendant que le service d’ordre était impeccablement assuré par les syndicats et les partis. Et les petits « voyous » no-global et « disobbedienti » qui ont toujours été présents au milieu des foules catho-communistes et «bien pensantes» (composées de grand mères, de petits enfants avec leurs parents, de bourgeois…) n’ont jamais éprouvé le besoin de répondre à la provocation de la police, puisqu’il n’y avait aucune provocation !
Cette fois, le gouvernement Prodi a dévoilé son vrai visage : celui d’un gouvernement qui n’aime pas ses composantes de gauche anti-americaine, qui veut être l’allié préféré des USA, quel que soit son président, qui est toujours d’accord avec les USA… au moins, comme vous le remarquiez dans votre article, avec Berlusconi, les choses étaient plus claires. Souvenons nous de la phrase qu’il avait prononcée, qui avait tant scandalisé le «centre gauche » : « moi, je suis toujours d’accord avec les USA, même avant de connaitre leur opinion ou de savoir ce qu’ils pensent ! »… j’aimerais bien que M. Prodi ait le courage de la prononcer lui aussi, cette phrase, au lieu de berner ses électeurs et de parler de l’importance vitale de l’Europe, qui est « le destin de l’Italie », comme il dit (alors que l’alliance avec les USA n’est un « choix » pour ce pays). Eh bien, ce choix a été clairement fait pendant cette rencontre au sommet. Et il est beaucoup plus fort que le malheureux « destin » de l’Italie, à en juger par la violence de la police contre ceux qui ne sont pas d’accord avec la politique des Etats Unis et qui déplorent que leur gouvernement se soit « couché » devant ce pays malgré la volonté des électeurs. Italia : lo zerbino degli Stati Uniti ! (le paillasson des USA).

Décidément, les gouvernements de centre gauche en Occident semblent toujours finir par être plus liés aux USA que les autres (Blair, Prodi, …sans parler des Verts allemands et même du SPD, malgré les apparences ... et la brave Segolène Royal qui clamait son admiration pour Hillary Clinton en campagne). Peut-être par faiblesse, ou par crainte d’être confondus avec des «communistes »... Ils ont sans doute quelque chose à prouver, mais à qui ? sûrement pas à leur électorat… plutôt aux USA eux-même ?

Il serait intéressant d’analyser ce phénomène. Umberto Ecco parlait de la fascination de la gauche pour la culture americaine. Je retrouve cette fascination même chez les intellos germanopratins dans les talk-shows et les tables-rondes français, et chez les journalistes branchés de la télé française (Guillaume Durand, etc). Je n’arrive pas à comprendre d’où vient telle fascination….Mais peut-être faut-il vivre aux USA pendant des années (comme je l’ai fait ou comme l’a fait M. Immarigeon) pour ne plus subir ce genre d’hypnose.

Alors tout cela signifie-t-il que notre seul espoir d’imdeependance réside dans la «droite » ?? Et pourtant, malgré les démonstrations de Gaullisme presque caricaturales de M. Sarkozy et ses plus récents « MAIS » à l’égard des « amis américains » ne m’ont pas encore rassurée… Et le choix d’un Kouchner pour le Quai d’Orsay ainsi que les récentes agitations sur le Darfour (BHL en tête, jouant bien sûr le jeu des USA voulant contenir la Chine, et de leurs compagnies de pétrole…) ne peuvent que renforcer mon inquiétude.

L’Europe est-elle en train de se coucher , step by step, inexorablement, et de renoncer à un rêve auquel elle n’a jamais vraiment cru? Le JSF, le bouclier anti-missile US et le dossier OTAN vont-t-il finir par permettre l’accomplissement de ce vieux rêve américain? Un certain Ethan B. Kapstein écrivait en 1994 [Foreign Affairs, May-June 1994] que les Usa devaient acquérir un monopole absolu en ce qui concerne le commerce d’armement dans le monde, et que l’industrie de la défense US aurait très bientôt éliminé l’industrie Européenne (et Russe bien évidemment) – seul moyen pour apporter la paix dans le monde, bien entendu… La prophétie est-elle en train de se réaliser, avec l’aide des gouvernements européens et de leurs forces armées ?

« On sait quelle terreur les Hongrois, que l’imagination populaire confondait avec les Huns d’autrefois, inspirèrent aux populations agricoles de l’Europe occidentale. Passant comme un tourbillon sur leurs petits chevaux nerveux, ils ne s’arrêtaient que pour massacrer et pour brûler, puis disparaissaient aussitôt : on ne savait s’ils étaient des hommes comme les autres. D’après le vieil historien Jornandès, les Huns descendaient des femmes que Filimer, roi des Goths, chassa de son armée parce qu’elles entretenaient un commerce avec les démons. Les peuples de l’Europe occidentale, qui, pendant une partie du moyen age, eurent à subir les incursions des Magyars, propagèrent des légendes analogues pour justifier leur terreur. Pour eux, ces Hongrois ces « Ogres », étaient en effet des êtres surnaturels, d’origine diabolique. Une longue dent, semblable à une défense de sanglier, sortait du côté gauche de leur bouche ; leur visage, disait-on, était couvert de cicatrices et de difformités provenant des morsures et des entailles qu’avaient faites leurs mères pour les habituer à la douleur et les rendre terribles à voir ; ils aimaient à se nourrir de chair crue, à boire le sang qui jaillit en écumant des blessures ; leur nom, répété par les nourrices dans les heures de veillée, épouvante encore les petits enfants. Il est vrai que, pendant le premier siècle de leur séjour en Europe, les Hongrois, fiers de leur bravoure et de la terreur qu’on avait d’eux, aimaient à parcourir l’Europe en excursions de pillage…
De son passé, le Hongrois a gardé la libre allure, le geste digne, le regard droit et fier. Il a un très haute idée de sa race et se sait noble, puisque la noblesse était autrefois le privilège des hommes libres ; aussi emploie-t-il volontiers des formules de politesse révérencieuse, qui d’ailleurs ont perdu leur sens primitif : il parle à son camarade en lui donnant le titre de « Ta Grâce ! » Le mot becsület (honneur) revient constamment dans son lagage : tout ce qu’il fait doit être digne d’un galant homme. Très brave, il aime à redire les hauts faits de sa nation, à réciter les grands exploits de guerre ; mais souvent il est naïf aussi ou plutôt insouciant, et l’Allemand, le Juif, réussissent facilement à le tromper, en le prenant par les hauts sentiments, car, de tous les peuples d’Europe, il est celui qui a le plus la passion du grand. « Mon peuple périra par l’orgueil », disait Szechenyi, le « grand comte », qui devint fou de chagrin en voyant, en 1849, la Hongrie s’engager dans une voie qu’il croyait fatale à son pays. Mais si le Magyar est trop fier pour être habile, il se distingue par une singulière âpreté juridique et défend le droit écrit avec une ténacité d’Anglais. »

Elisée Reclus, Nouvelle géographie universelle. (cité par R Cortambert, Mœurs et caractères des peuples, Paris,  Hachette, 1879)

Le président français a non seulement abusé de la vodka avec Poutine durant le G8. Mais il a aussi, et ça personne n’en a parlé, fait une très très grosse colère à propos d’une histoire confuse de blague de Toto et de jalousie.
C’est expliqué sur le blog http://www.thedino.org , c’est un billet daté du samedi 9 Juin
Bisous

The Globalization of Military Power: NATO Expansion
NATO and the broader network of US sponsored military alliances

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Global Research, May 18, 2007
- 2007-05-17

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) did not fundamentally change its mandate after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the wake of the Cold War, NATO continued to expand. In 1999, before the NATO war against Yugoslavia, NATO expanded into Eastern Europe.

NATO is determined to expand its membership circle and to expand its mandate. Ultimately NATO is slated to become a global military force.  Moreover, part of the objectives of NATO as a global military alliance is to ensure the “energy security” of its member states. What this signifies is the militarization of the world’s arteries, strategic pipeline routes, maritime traffic corridors used by oil tankers, and international waters.

NATO’s “Mutual Defence Clause” Used to Control Energy Resources?

U.S. Senator Richard Lugar has called for NATO to come to the aid of any member of the military alliance, such as the United States, whose energy sources may be threatened. The justification of such an intervention would be under NATO’s Mutual Defence Clause (Article 5). Senator Lugar’s idea has received strong support from the Eastern European members of NATO and the E.U., which are dependent on the Russian Federation for their energy supplies.

Senator Lugar was quoted as saying that, “[NATO] should recognize that there is little ultimate difference between a member being forced to submit to coercion because of an energy cutoff and a member facing a military blockade or other military demonstration on its borders.” [1]

Article 5 is the raison d’être of NATO. It construes any attack on one member as an attack on all NATO members. Article 5 of NATO’s charter is the basis for the formation of NATO, “mutual defence.” Any interpretation of the clause in regards to energy security would mean that any NATO member whose energy sources are cut off would be able to rely on assistance from the rest of the military alliance. Article 5 could also be interpreted to insinuate that the cutting off of energy to any NATO member would be defined as an act of aggression or an act of war. It should be noted that almost all NATO members lack their own energy resources.

It is no surprise that Russia has been greatly angered and unnerved by this strengthening energy security notion within NATO. If such a doctrine were adopted by NATO, it could be used as a justification for the imposition of economic and political sanctions against Russia and other energy producing countries. The clause could also provide a mandate for attacking Russia or any other energy exporting country, including Iran, Turkmenistan, Libya, and Venezuela, with a view to commandeering the energy and natural resources of such countries.

The E.U. Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson has also released a statement saying “Both [Russia and the E.U.] believe the other is using the energy weapon as an instrument of politics.” The E.U. Trade Commissioner also added that relations between the E.U. and Russia were at their worst levels in the post-Cold War era and that “Europe wants security of [energy] supply…” [2]

For this reason, amongst several others, Russia and her allies perceive the U.S. and NATO’s global missile shield project as a means of commandeering Russian and global energy supplies and natural resources through the threat of force. Russia, like China and Iran, is also being encircled by a military frontier, which it sees as part of the efforts of NATO to surround it and its allies.

The Global Expansion-Integration of NATO as a Worldwide Military Alliance

“…NATO has been transforming from its Cold War and then regional incarnation of the 1990s into a transatlantic institution with global missions, global reach, and global partners. This transformation is most evident in Afghanistan where NATO is at work, but the line we’ve crossed is that that ‘in area/out of area’ debate that cost so much time to debate in the 1990s is effectively over. There is no ‘in area/out of area.’ Everything is NATO’s area, potentially. That doesn’t mean it’s a global organization. It’s a transatlantic organization, but Article 5 now has global implications. NATO is in the process of developing the capabilities and the political horizons to deal with problems and contingencies around the world. That is a huge change.”

-Daniel Fried, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs (April 17, 2007)

NATO is also contemplating a process of “global reach” which would transform it into a global military force with member states outside of North America and the European continent. Although not yet official, NATO has already initiated a transition towards the “globalization” of its military forces and operations. NATO is heavily involved in Afghanistan and is tangled in Central Asia; NATO bases exist in Afghanistan, on the immediate borders of China and Iran. NATO has also extended its presence in the Balkans (highlighted by its involvement in the former Yugoslavia). NATO has also envisioned large military operations in the Sudan and more generally in the African continent, under what is referred to by its opponents as the “masquerade of peace-keeping.”

NATO is also involved on the ground in Lebanon, albeit informally. [3] A naval armada of NATO warships is also deployed in the waters of East Africa, the Red Sea, and the Arabian Sea. The naval forces of NATO countries such as Germany and Denmark are also present in the Eastern Mediterranean and can strike Syria in the event of war. [4]

Creeping towards Iran, NATO Expansion in the Persian Gulf: The “Gulf Security Initiative”

NATO has formally stepped into the Persian Gulf, even though in reality the forces of several NATO nations have been operating there since the Cold War. Kuwait’s Deputy Director of National Security Apparatus, Sheikh Thamer Ali Sabah Al-Salem Al-Sabah, announced that Kuwait signed a security agreement with NATO during a GCC-NATO Conference that took place from December 11 to December 12, 2006. The GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) which has been renamed The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf includes Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the U.A.E., Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman. The GCC already has a military agreement amongst its members, the Gulf Shield Defence Force, and individual bilateral security agreements with the U.S. and Britain. NATO has been in dialogue with Qatar, Kuwait, and the other members of the GCC in pursuit of establishing a more formal NATO presence in the Persian Gulf and a new security arrangement against Iran.

This new regional balance in the Persian Gulf is part of a broader alliance in the Middle East that is linked to NATO. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, the United States, Britain, and NATO, besides the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) are all part of this coalition in the Middle East. [5] This militiary alliance or coalition essentially represents an eastern extension of NATO’s “Mediterranean Dialogue.” The Middle Eastern members of this coalition, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, are labeled the “Coalition of the Moderate,” whereas Iran and Syria are said to lead a “Coalition of Radicals/Extremists.”

Aside from the implications of a confrontation with Iran, this cooperation between the GCC and NATO confirms that NATO is preparing to become a global institution and military force. The Middle East is an important geo-strategic and energy-rich area of NATO expansion. The vanguards of NATO in the region are Turkey and Israel.

The United States has also been building its missile arsenal in the Persian Gulf and transporting large amounts of military hardware and radar systems into the Persian Gulf. Originally, the justifications for the deployment of military hardware into the Persian Gulf was the “Global War on Terror,” then the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and now the new justification has become protecting America’s Persian Gulf allies, including the U.A.E., Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, against an Iranian ballistic missile threat.

The GCC-NATO Conference is mandated under the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative and was held under the theme of “Facing Common Challenges,” which directly denotes Iran as the target of military-security cooperation between the GCC and NATO. [6]

Furthermore, the GCC-NATO Conference took place after military games were held in the Persian Gulf by GCC members, the United States, Britain, France, and Australia— which also demonstrates that cooperation between the two branches of NATO, the Franco-German entente and the Anglo-American alliance, was initiated before the historical 2006 NATO Conference in Riga, Latvia. [7]

The GCC agreements with NATO are also significant because they mean that the Persian Gulf is potentially being shared and divided by the Franco-German entente and the Anglo-American alliance.

Although Sheikh Thamer Ali Sabah Al-Salem Al-Sabah and Kuwaiti leaders have tried to play down the meaning of the cooperation between Kuwait and NATO, the cooperation between both sides gestures towards NATO expansion and likely confrontation with Iran. The Kuwaiti official also highlighted that the goal of the conference was to make use of NATO’s diverse experiences given its multinational composition.

With the Anglo-American military build-up and the extension of NATO into the Persian Gulf, the leaders of the GCC have been emboldened in their cooperation with the U.S. and British militaries. Recently the Defence Minister of Bahrain, Shaikh Khalifa bin Ahmed Al-Khalifa, has said that the Arab Sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf have “the capability to respond to any attack from neighbouring Iran,” and would “respond with force” if Iran blocked the Straits of Hormuz as a result of any U.S. military strikes or attack on Iran. [8] It is also no coincidence that the leaders of Kuwait have also declared that they are ready for an American-led attack against Iran and the eruption of war in the Middle East. [9]

It should be noted that any attacks by Iran on the Arab Sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf would be in response to their cooperation with the U.S. and their approval of the use of their airspaces, waters, and territories against Iran by the U.S. military and its allies. The leaders of these nations also supported the U.S. and Britain in their war and invasion of Iraq and are the hosts of large U.S. ground, air, and naval bases.

NATO’s ultimate goal: Encircling Russia, China, and their allies

“The first and most important area where change must come is in further developing our ability to project stability to the East”

-NATO Secretary-General Manfred Wörner
The February 7, 2007 Congressional testimony of the U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who was presenting the Pentagon’s 2008 military budget, confirms that the United States, aside from Iran, still considers China and Russia as potential adversaries. Secretary Gates told the U.S. Senate that both Russia and China posed threats to the United States: “In addition to fighting the ‘Global War on Terror,’ we also face (…) the uncertain paths of China and Russia, which are both pursuing sophisticated military modernization programs.” [10]

The real question is: are the Russians and Chinese a threat to the United States or is it the reverse? Also, do China and Russia constitute an economic threat to the United States?

The Russian Foreign Ministry and government almost immediately demanded for an official explanation from the White House for the threatening remarks.

The reaction of the Russians has steadily become more and more apprehensive as they realize that they are being encircled. It has been for quite some time that Russia, China, and their allies have slowly been surrounded. China faces a militarized eastern border in Asia, while Iran has virtually been surrounded, and Russia’s western borders have been infiltrated by NATO.

NATO expansion continues despite the end of the Cold War and promises from the military alliance that it would not expand. Military bases and missile facilities are encircling China, Iran, and the Russian Federation.

On February 2007 at the Munich Conference on Security Policy in Germany, President Vladimir Putin stated that NATO was targeting the Russian Federation and also reminded NATO that it had pledged that the military bloc would not move eastward. [11] The late Boris Yeltsin also made similar statements about NATO expansion in regards to the entry of the Baltic States into the military bloc. President Vladimir Putin’s speech was the most significant Russian statement yet and is a sign that Russia is beginning to feel the threat on its immediate borders, from the Russian Far East to the border with Georgia and in Eastern Europe.

From a Russian perspective, NATO is no longer committed to “peaceful co-existence.” General Yuri Baluyevsky, Chief of the Russian Armed Forces General Staff and First Deputy Minister of Defence, warned Russians that they now face even greater military threats than during the Cold War. Both the Russian President and General Baluyevsky have called for a new Russian military doctrine to respond to the growing and emerging threats from the U.S. and NATO. [12]

The military projects being propelled by the United States, several NATO allies in Europe (namely Britain, Poland, and the Czech Republic), and the Japanese for the establishment of two parallel missile shield projects, threatens both Russia and China. One missile shield will be located in Europe and the other missile shield in the Far East. These missile shields are being elevated under the pretext of hypothetical Iranian and North Korean threats to the United States, Europe, South Korea, and Japan.

  “This [meaning the missile shields being planted on Russia’s borders] is a very urgent and politically important issue, and could drag us into a new arms race,” Colonel-General Yuri Solovyov, a commander of the Russian military has commented in regards to the facilities that are part of the missile shield project that are going to be set up near the Russian border in Eastern Europe. [13]

There is also discussion of another missile shield being erected in the Caucasus, or even possibly in the Ukraine. The Republic of Azerbaijan and Georgia are potential candidates for housing the missile shield project in the Caucasus. 

  “Our analysis shows that the placing of a radio locating station in the Czech Republic and anti-missile equipment in Poland is a real threat to us [Russia],” clarified Lieutenant-General Vladimir Popovkin, Commander of Russia’s Space Forces, and additionally explained, “It’s very doubtful that elements of the national U.S. Missile defence system in Eastern Europe were aimed at Iranian missiles, as has been stated [by U.S. officials].” [14]

The U.S. missile project in the Czech Republic is also opposed by the majority of the Czech population. [15] The wishes of the Czech people are being ignored, just as the wishes of the American, British, Italian, Canadian, and Japanese people are continuously being ignored by their respective governments. In other words, these so-called democratic governments are extremely undemocratic when it comes to military planning and foreign wars.

The borders of Russia and China are being militarized by NATO and the broader network of military alliances organized by the United States. Surprisingly, Turkey which is a Middle Eastern member of NATO, Iran’s direct neighbour and a logical choice for any missile shield facilities meant to protect against an alleged Iranian ballistic missile threat, has not been selected as a location for a missile defence shield. The fact that the missile shield project is being positioned in Poland and the Czech Republic rather than Turkey and the Balkans suggests that the project is not directed mainly against Iran, but against Russia.

The other missile shield project, in the Far East, aside from North Korea will be adjacent to China’s heavily populated eastern provinces and the resource-rich Russian Far East. This Asiatic missile shield will be roughly located in Japan, with the possibility of facilities in South Korea. Japan and the United States began a joint missile defense research project in 1999, coincidently the same year as NATO expansion and the NATO war against Yugoslavia. [16] Taiwan is also a vital link in the militarization of the frontier with China.

Once the formation of this international military network is completed, the genuine basis for the creation of the two parallel missile shield projects will be fully apparent.  These two military projects are not separate but interlinked with each other. They are part of the globalization of NATO and a broader military alliance that is in the process of encircling Russia, China, and their allies.

Alongside the development of this global military network, NATO and the U.S. have started an endeavour to control the world’s oceans. The high seas, international trade, and maritime traffic are also the focus of a solidifying control regime spearheaded by the U.S. government.

Putting a Leash around China: The Importance of Strategic Maritime Oil Routes, Taiwan, and Singapore

The United States has strong military links with Taiwan because Taiwan provides a logistical hob for military engagement against China and Chinese energy security. Taiwan is geo-strategically important because the island is located between the South China Sea and the East China Sea. The U.S. puts the outmost importance on Taiwan’s position in regards to the critically important and strategic maritime shipping lanes that transport oil and other resources to China.

Much has been discussed about the important geo-strategic oil routes in Central Asia and about important land corridors, but attention should also be remunerated to the strategic maritime oil routes or international shipping lanes. Energy supplies are closely linked to Chinese national security, Chinese development, and Chinese military strength. Should China’s oil supplies be cut off in the event of a war or, more likely, delayed it would be vulnerable and could potentially be paralyzed and suffocated. A maritime cordon around China would serve such a purpose. 

The Straits of Taiwan and Malacca are geo-strategically vital to transporting oil and resources to China. Whoever controls both straits controls the flow of energy to China under the present status quo. It would be a harsh blow to China, should the straits be blocked and the stream of oil tankers stopped or delayed, just as it would be a blow to the U.S. and E.U. should the Straits of Hormuz be blocked by Iran. It so happens that the U.S. Navy dominates these shipping lanes. Until China has a secure source of inflowing energy from a route that is not controlled by the United States it will continue to be vulnerable to the U.S. Navy which continuously monitors both the Straits of Taiwan and Malacca.

Both Taiwan and Singapore are close allies of the U.S. because of these realities. Also, Singapore and Taiwan are heavily militarized with a view to exerting control over these two vital straits. Should there be a war between China and the United States, both Singapore and Taiwan, in alliance with the U.S. Navy, have contingency plans to block oil traffic from reaching China.

Although the Straights of Malacca lie within the sovereign maritime territory of Malaysia, the rapid militarization of Singapore is aimed at controlling and, if need be, halting the flow of oil tankers from the Straits of Malacca. This would cut the flow of energy to China in the event of a war between the U.S. and China. The naval facilities of Singapore are also highly specialized to service warships and submarines and are heavily used by the U.S. Navy. 

China knows that it is vulnerable to military invention against its energy supplies. This is why the Chinese have been developing their naval bases and pushing for oil terminals and energy corridors to be built over land routes directly from Central Asia and the Russian Federation to China. Chinese cooperation with Russia, Iran, and the republics of Central Asia serves the purpose of creating a trans-Asian energy corridor that would ensure a continuous flow of energy to China in the event of an American-led naval blockade of the high seas. Discussions are underway for developing a gas pipeline from Iran to Pakistan, India, and China with the collaboration of Russia. [17]

The Chinese have also objected to the proposals and initiatives being put forward on global warming. China argues that the climate debate is a calculated challenge to the economic growth of China and the Developing World. The Chinese believe the purpose of the U.S. and E.U. climate change initiative is to pressure them to cut their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to such an extent that it would upset their industrial and economic drive. [18]

Naval build-up in the Indian Ocean and the Chinese Eastern Flank

There has been a gradual naval build-up around China. This includes an increase in the submarine squadrons of the Asia-Pacific region.  An Australian report published by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) has warned that an Asiatic arms race is underway. The report writes; “In an arc extending from Pakistan and India through Southeast Asia and up to Japan there is a striking modernization and [military] expansion underway.” [19]

China has also been reported by Bill Gertz of The Washington Times to be “building up military forces and setting up bases along sea lanes from the Middle East to project its power overseas and protect its oil shipments, according to a previously undisclosed internal report prepared for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.” [20]

China has engaged in a proactive naval policy aimed at securing the East China Sea, the South China Sea, and the Indian Ocean. These bodies of water all correspond to the international energy maritime route(s) that transport African and Middle Eastern oil to China. The Chinese aim is to protect the Chinese energy lifeline from the U.S. Navy and its allies. The Pentagon refers to these naval bases as the “the string of pearls,” because of their geo-strategic importance to the balance of naval power in the Indian Ocean. [21]

Chinese naval facilities are being constructed all along this vital maritime corridor. The naval port of Gwadar in Pakistan, on the shore of the Arabian Sea, has been designed and constructed by the Chinese. An agreement has also been signed with Sri Lanka (Ceylon) that will give China access to the port of Hambatota on the southern edge of the island. [22]

China has also planned the construction of a naval port in Myanmar (Burma), a geo-strategically important Chinese ally. The creation of a port in Myanmar would terminate any need or threats from both the straits of Taiwan and Malacca. China borders Myanmar directly and a railroad network and transport route exists from the coast of Myanmar to Southern China. [23]

The United States has also been trying to obstruct any possible means of allowing oil to directly reach China through any trans-Asian oil cooperation aside from the traditional and vulnerable sea route(s), which are under the watchful eye of the U.S. Navy. Any trans-Asian energy arrangement, such as the Iran-Pakistan-India Pipeline, is detrimental to the Anglo-American and NATO agenda for controlling Eurasia.

The U.S. Pacific Fleet is also placing greater strategic importance on the island of Guam in the Pacific Ocean as the U.S. deepens its collaboration with Australia, Singapore, the Philippines, and Japan to militarily encircle China further. [24] The subject of North Korean ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons is presently being used as an ideal basis for further encircling China in the Far East. The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) started by the Bush Jr. Administration in 2003, just after the invasion of Iraq, is also a means of controlling the movement(s) of international traffic and cutting energy supplies to China should a juncture of aggression against the Chinese arrive.

Control of Strategic Waterways, the Naval Cordon of the Seas, and a “Global Navy”

Controlling the high seas and trade is an additional line of attack being set up to envelop the Eurasian giants, China and Russia. This is precisely what the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), and the establishment of a “global naval force,” under the command of the U.S., has the objectives of accomplishing. China is in deeper danger from an ocean-based threat than Russia in this regard.

The naval network that is being created by NATO and NATO allies is beginning to emerge. Over 40 countries have been participating in naval movements in the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. [25] This is a threat to Chinese energy supplies and international trade going through the Indian Ocean between Africa and Eurasia.

Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chief of U.S. Naval Operations, has stated that the U.S. seeks to craft and establish “a thousand-ship navy” to take charge of international waters. [26] This strategy outlined is the eventual amalgamation of NATO and allied navies in what has been termed by the U.S. Navy as a “global maritime partnership” which “unites navies, coast guards, maritime forces, port operators, commercial shippers and many other government and non-government agencies to address maritime concerns.” [27]

The initial areas where this new strategy is coming to play are the Persian Gulf, the waters of East Africa, and the Arabian Sea. Admiral Mullen also cited the existence of a predominately NATO group of 45 warships deployed in the Persian Gulf and around the waters of the Middle East as part of this global naval force. [28] The operations in the waters of the Middle East and in the Arabian Sea include Combined Task Forces (CTFs) 150 and 152. Combined Task Forces (CTF) 150 operates in the waters of the Gulf of Oman, the Gulf of Aden, the Red Sea, and the North Arabian Sea, where several French warships are positioned. Combined Task Force (CTF) 152, which includes Italian, French, and German warships operates in the Persian Gulf and has its operational headquarters in Bahrain.

It is significant to note that Combined Task Force (CTF) 152, which is part of the group of 45 warships cited by Admiral Mullen as being part of the global naval force, is under the command of the U.S. Navy and CENTCOM. This includes the naval operations in the Persian Gulf and around the Middle East. Operation Iraqi Freedom in the Persian Gulf and Operation Enduring Freedom off the Horn of Africa are just two of the operations that these predominately NATO warships are actively operating under.

The growing naval armada is comprised of three primary coalition Combined Task Forces (CTFs) and seven supporting naval forces. Amongst the 45 ships that constitute the force of warships are those of France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands (Holland), Canada, Australia, Pakistan, and other NATO partners, aside from U.S. Navy and British warships.

The global naval force is mandated under the combined auspicious of NATO and the naval operations wing of CENTCOM. The formation of this large, and relatively unheard of, armada of warships is only possible with the consent of the Franco-German entente within the framework of NATO. These warships have gathered under the pretext of fighting the “Global War on Terror.”

Controlling International Waters, Movement, and Global Trade: The “Proliferation Security Initiative”

Aside from the global naval force being created by the U.S. and NATO, a strategy has been devised to control international trade, international movement, and international waters. The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), under the mask of stopping the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) components or technology and the systems for their delivery (missile technology or components), sets out to control the flow of resources and to control international trade. The policy was drafted by John Bolton, while serving in the U.S. State Department as U.S. Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

The strategy was initiated on May 31, 2003, by the White House and outlined authorizing an open violation of international law. Under international law the U.S. Navy or NATO warships are not allowed to board and search foreign merchant ships that they encounter in international waters. Under Part VII (7) of the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea the U.S. operations are internationally illegal, unless authorized by the home country the merchant ship originates from. Warships can only board and search or detain ships that are from the same country, unless a bilateral agreement has been signed with another nation granting the right to search merchant ships carrying their flag.

In international waters foreign ships can only be searched if polluting near the waters of a naval force’s home country or on the reasonable suspicion of piracy. Additionally, in international waters ships owned by a national government have immunity from stops, inspections, and seizures from the vessels of other countries. Under these international guidelines it would be illegal for the U.S. Navy to stop a vessel belonging to the government of North Korea or Syria or China in international waters. With the new international waters regime proposed and presently being exercised on North Korea by the U.S. government all this has started to change, especially in the waters of the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. The governments of several Asian nations have openly criticized and doubted the legality of the new operations, including the Malaysian government. [29]

China naturally was suspicious of the U.S. initiative for international waters and has refused to participate in the 2003 scheme. The Chinese see this as a way for the U.S. and its allies to further control international waters and international trade. Russia on the other hand joined the scheme because Moscow is not in a position, like China, where its lifeline is based on maritime traffic and international waters. Furthermore, the Russia Navy under the scheme can reciprocally halt and board U.S. merchant vessels. 

It is no coincidence that Singapore, Japan, and the South China Sea, all in close proximity to China, have been picked as the main vicinities of the many naval exercises under the banner of this new scheme. The U.S., Britain, Japan, Australia, Canada, Singapore, France, Italy, and Germany, along with Russia all have taken part in the naval exercises under the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).

Many North Korean vessels have been illegal halted and badgered since the initiation of the naval initiative, but China, like other countries, is also under threat too from the internationally illegal naval operations that are reminiscent of the internationally illegal “no-fly zones” forced over pre-invasion Iraq by the U.S., British, and French governments. The precedent has been set for one day stopping Chinese ships and maritime traffic going to China. 

NATO Expansion and the March to Global Conflict

The global military standpoint and the geo-political ambitions of NATO increasingly underline and give a glimpse of NATO operations and military directives. The system of military alliances is tightening and its main targets seem to be the Eurasian giants; Russia, China, and possibly India. NATO expansion is not just limited to Europe and the former Soviet Union, but is in pursuit of a global characteristic. In Asia an Asiatic parallel sister-alliance to NATO is being formed from the network of existing military alliances in the Asia-Pacific Rim. [30] China, Russia, and Iran now are in the forefront of a reluctant Eurasian alliance that is taking shaping to oppose NATO and the United States. Ultimately it may be in the Middle East that the pace for NATO expansion will be established. If the Middle East falls under the total control of the Anglo-American alliance and NATO the stage will be set for a new phase of the “long war” that will lead all the way into the heart of Eurasia.

Notes

    [1] Judy Dempsey, U.S. senator urges use of NATO defense clause for energy, International Herald Tribune, November 28, 2006.

    [2] Mu Xuequan, Mandelson: Mistrust between Russia, EU worst since Cold War ends, Xinhua News Agency, April 21, 2007.

    [3] Pr. Michel Chossudovsky, Debating “War and Peace” behind Closed Doors: NATO’s Riga Security Conference, Centre for Research on Globalization, November 26, 2007.

Riga, the Latvian capital, was the place of a historical NATO conference which involved all the major decision makers, parties, corporations, and individuals within the NATO alliance. The Belarusian Opposition was also invited.

Debating “War and Peace” behind Closed Doors: NATO’s Riga Security Conference, by Pr. Michel Chossudovsky, outlines the NATO program being discussed behind closed doors and provides a comprehensive list of attendants and participants of the Trans-Atlantic summit in Latvia.

    [4] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The March to War: Naval build-up in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), October 1, 2006.

  [5] Kuwait to sign NATO security agreement during Gulf conference next week, Kuwait News Agency (KUNA), December 6, 2006.

    [6] Kuwait to sign NATO agreement, Op. cit.

    [7] Pr. Michel Chossudovsky, “Weapons of Mass Destruction:” Building a Pretext for Waging War on Iran?, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), November 1, 2006.

    [8] Gulf states ‘can respond to attack,’ Gulf Daily News, Vol. XXIX (29), No. 364, March 19, 2007.

  [9] B. Izzak, Kuwait prepared for any US-Iran war, Kuwait Times, May 10, 2007.

    [10] Robert M. Gates, Posture Statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee (Testimony, Senate Armed Services Committee, Washington, District of Columbia, February 06, 2007).

    [11] Vladimir Putin, Speech and the Following Discussion at the Munich Conference on Security Policy (Address, Munich Conference on Security Policy, Munich, Bavaria, February 10, 2007).

  [12] U.S. Anti-Missile Systems in Europe Threatens Russia — General, MoscNews, February 9, 2007.

    [13] U.S. Anti-missile Shield in Europe May Cause Arms Race — Russian General, MoscNews, 16 March, 2007.

    [14] U.S. anti-missile shield threatens Russia-general, Reuters, January 22, 2007.

    [15] Mark John, U.S. missile plan triggers NATO tensions, Reuters, March 5, 2007.

    [16] Sarah Suk, U.S. admiral confident of missile shield effectiveness, Kyodo News, May 1, 2007.

   

    [17] Atul Aneja, “Pipeline should extend to China,” The Hindu, May 7, 2007.

    [18] Chinese object to climate draft, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), May 1, 2007.

    [19] Andrew Davies, The enemy down below: Anti-submarine warfare in the ADF, (Barton, Australian Capital Territory: Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), February, 2007), p.1.

    [20] Bill Gertz, China builds up strategic sea lanes, The Washington Times, January 18, 2005.

“China is building strategic relationships along the sea lanes from the Middle East to the South China Sea in ways that suggest defensive and offensive positioning to protect China’s energy interests, but also to serve broad security objectives,” said the report sponsored by the director, Net Assessment, who heads Mr. Rumsfeld’s office on future-oriented strategies.

    [21] Pallavi Aiyar, India to conduct naval exercises with China, The Hindu, April 12, 2007.

    [22] Ibid.

    [23] Ibid.

    [24] Luan Shanglin, U.S. to stage large-scale war games near Guam, Xinhua News Agency, April 11, 2007.

    [25] Naval chief: U.S. has no plan to attack Iran, Xinhua News Agency, April 17, 2007.

    [26] Thom Shanker, U.S. and Britain to Add Ships to Persian Gulf in Signal to Iran, The New York Times, December 21, 2006.

    [27] Ibid.

    [28] Ibid.

    [29] Malaysia in no hurry to join U.S.-led security pact, Reuters, April 17, 2007.

    [30] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Military Alliance: Encircling Russia and China, Centre for Research on Globalization, May 10, 2007.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization

... Vingt-deux ans ont passé depuis qu’ont surgi les premières accusations, en octobre 1985, du versement d’une commission aux Saoudiens en échange du plus gros contrat de vente d’armes jamais signé par le Royaume-Uni. Depuis, tous les gouvernements qui se sont succédé à Londres ont nié l’existence de tels pots-de-vin, invoquant la sécurité nationale et le secret d’Etat.

... Le versement présumé de ces pots-de-vin au prince saoudien a été découvert grâce à une enquête du Serious Fraud Office (SFO, Bureau des fraudes graves), suspendue en décembre dernier sur ordre de lord Goldsmith, l’Attorney général du Royaume-Uni [le plus haut conseiller juridique du gouvernement].

... Les prétextes ne manquent d’ailleurs pas pour les champions du pragmatisme. BAE est un fournisseur officiel du Pentagone, et les ventes aux Etats-Unis représentent 42 % du chiffre d’affaires du groupe.

... Votée en 2002, la législation anticorruption britannique n’a donné lieu à aucune poursuite.

Aux Etats-Unis, le Foreign Corrupt Practices Act a permis de nombreux procès. Or BAE s’est engagée depuis 2000 à respecter les dispositions de cette loi interdisant le versement de commissions à des responsables publics étrangers en vue de l’obtention d’un marché.

Des pressions croissantes pourraient bien inciter le Congrès américain à ouvrir sa propre enquête sur BAE, d’autant plus que le prince Bandar est un proche de la famille Bush. Idem en Suisse et en Suède, deux pays qui ont conclu des affaires avec BAE et où la justice est moins facilement découragée.

... qui sommes-nous pour faire la leçon à l’Afrique sur la lutte contre la corruption ? ( 2007-06-09 The Guardian, http://www.courrierinternational.com/article.asp?obj_id=74756 )

... En réalité, comme on a pu le voir lors du sommet du G8, c’est Bush qui a isolé l’Europe dans ce débat. Le Canada, la Chine et même le Japon ont montré un vif intérêt pour les propositions du président américain de contourner les Nations unies et d’organiser une série de réunions multilatérales - sous l’égide des Etats-Unis - afin de s’accorder sur des objectifs raisonnables de réduction des émissions de CO2.

... Depuis quelque temps, les Américains et les principaux pays émetteurs de CO2 ont engagé des négociations d’un tout autre type que le protocole de Kyoto. Ce processus porte aussi un nom, même s’il est peu connu : c’est le Partenariat Asie-Pacifique pour le développement propre et le climat. Il retient globalement les solutions avancées par les Etats-Unis et fondées sur la technologie plutôt que les taxes et les limitations de rejet de CO2. Le partenariat s’intéresse davantage aux nouvelles formes d’efficacité énergétique comme le “charbon propre” et les piles à combustible.

... (Blair)“Il y a deux contraintes politiques. Premièrement, les Etats-Unis ne signeront aucun accord global si la Chine n’en fait pas partie. Deuxièmement, la Chine ne signera aucun texte susceptible de ralentir sa croissance économique. Si l’on ne parvient pas à faire entrer ces deux acteurs dans les négociations, nous retournerons à un processus semblable à celui de Kyoto, qui débouchera peut-être sur un accord mais qui n’engagera pas les principaux pollueurs.”

... Au lieu de ranimer le protocole de Kyoto, le sommet du G8 vient de l’enterrer. ( Le G8 enterre le protocole de Kyoto, Dominic Lawson, The Independent, http://www.courrierinternational.com/article.asp?obj_id=74757 )

Ah, eh bien justement Armand, j’allais le dire,j’étais en train de tourner dans ma tête les idées et phrases pour mon commentaire sur ces “folles” (le terme est faible) dépenses, lorsque j’ai consulté le commentaire déja associé  .
c’est tout juste ce que je pensais !

je dirai donc la même chose mais pour ne pas lasser, je l’agémenterai d’une image qui m’est depuis longtemps venu à l’esprit, depuis l’écroulement de l’union soviétique exactement.

C’est comme dans une bagarre de rue lorsque deux costauds s’écharpent. Soudain, l’un s’écroule K-o ,les badauds attroupés autour feraient bien alors de se méfier du vainqueur encore plein de l’adrénaline du combat,et de la hargne qui va avec et qui peut alors se mettre à chercher des noises et s’en prendre à n’importe qui ?

La sécurité publique voudrait alors que la police (dans mon image) soit là pour calmer ledit vainqueur et faire revenir l’ordre public.

Dans le cas présent il faudrait donc une autorité Onusienne valable capable de tenir ce rôle.On en est loin! au passage je suis convaincu que ça viendra. Après tout ça!

Reste donc à se demander combien de temps le second géant de la bagarre historique va tenir le coup ?

Le montant de ses dépenses qui pourrait nouvelle image être comparé à un taux d’adrénaline dans un organime ! m’amène à penser que comme s’interrogeait un autre intervenant sur ce site (Francis Lambrecht) ces jours ci, ou cela va-t’il craquer ?
Ce pourrait-être l’économie -la monnaie-,ou plus exactement le système financier dans son ensemble.
Les mêmes causes en somme que pour l’adversaire de la guerre froide,même si ce n’était pas la seule cause,  c’était la principale,les dépenses prohibitives par rapport à l’économie. L’accident économique et financier, la difficulté à soutenir de telles dépenses,provoquant la désorganisation de tout le système

Ce serait une belle revanche de l’Histoire, non ?

“Les scélérats tombant ignoblement…” de la démesure de leur folie.