Forum

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.

... Aucun ne s’est engagé à entreprendre des changements aussi importants en termes de mode de vie et d’environnement. Et aucun n’a fait preuve d’autant de constance dans ses efforts pour concrétiser les vœux de la communauté internationale afin de freiner le réchauffement climatique.

... Domicile d’un Américain sur huit, avec une économie plus puissante que celle du Canada, la Californie compte sur la scène planétaire, et son gouverneur a l’intention d’en profiter. Son Etat a plus d’avance sur ce sujet que n’importe quel autre pays.

( 2007-06-08 The New York Times, Timothy Egan, G8 •  C’est Schwarzenegger qu’il fallait inviter
http://www.courrierinternational.com/article.asp?obj_id=74725 )

L’Armée turque au coeur du pouvoir (Partie 1)

Erol Ozkoray
Journaliste et éditeur de la revue Idea Politika (1998-2002) (1).
Conseiller en communication politique.

(L’article publié par Politique Internationale, N°101, Automne 2003)

Éternelle candidate à l’Union européenne (UE), la Turquie éveille les passions, mais pose, aussi, de sérieux problèmes d’ordre institutionnel et politique. Aucun autre pays ne présente à ce point un double visage. D’un côté, une société civile développée et dynamique ; d’un autre côté, un Léviathan géant arc-bouté sur le statu quo qui tire tout un peuple vers le bas. D’un côté, une laïcité militante ancrée au cœur d’un républicanisme à la française ; de l’autre, un gouvernement islamique qui rêve d’anéantir l’espace public. D’un côté, une société qui, dans son écrasante majorité, aspire à la modernité occidentale (80 % des Turcs souhaitent adhérer à l’UE) ; de l’autre, une structure étatique paranoïaque qui exploite les vieux démons (l’impérialisme européen, le Traité de Sèvres, l’encerclement par la Grèce) pour mieux asseoir son pouvoir. Le cas turc a, décidément, tout d’un casse-tête chinois.

La plupart des observateurs occidentaux estiment que les problèmes majeurs de la Turquie - les questions chypriote, kurde et arménienne, le conflit avec la Grèce, la crise économique, le chômage, les droits de l’homme, la liberté d’expression et la montée de l’islam - se régleront avec le temps grâce aux réformes demandées par l’UE. Il ne reste finalement qu’un seul obstacle sur la route de l’Europe : l’armée qui, vingt-trois ans après le putsch de 1980, continue de détenir tous les leviers de commande.

De l’armée du peuple à l’esprit de caste

Créée par Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, cette armée est l’armée du peuple. En remportant la première guerre d’indépendance nationale contre les puissances impérialistes (1919-1923), elle a jeté les bases de la Turquie moderne. La république laïque, à laquelle 90 % de la population turque se déclarent attachés, est une valeur constitutive de la nation. Mais au lieu de se muer comme en France en une démocratie, cette république laïque a emprunté un tout autre chemin : trois coups d’État militaires (1960, 1971 et 1980) l’ont transformée en régime autoritaire (2). Au fil des années, l’armée s’est de plus en plus coupée du peuple. Elle est devenue un groupe social à part entière doté de privilèges particuliers, replié sur lui-même. Bref, une caste vivant en autarcie, séparée du reste de la population.

Aujourd’hui, l’armée turque se livre à un travail de sape systématique visant à ruiner les efforts des pro-européens tout en évitant de prendre ouvertement position contre l’UE afin de ne pas se dévaloriser aux yeux de l’opinion publique. Bien décidée à préserver le statu quo, elle s’oppose aux réformes démocratiques qui remettraient en cause ses prérogatives si le pays accédait à l’UE. Comble du paradoxe : l’armée turque, qui fut le fer de lance de la modernité occidentale, se réfugie dans un conservatisme anachronique.

Le vrai problème de la Turquie n’est ni religieux, ni économique, ni même géographique : il est politique. Avec les élections législatives du 3 novembre 2002 qui ont porté les islamistes à la tête du gouvernement, le système a clairement montré ses limites. Cette fois, le peuple turc s’est trompé. Ce n’est pas la première fois qu’un peuple bascule dans l’extrémisme par désespoir. Comment peut-il en être autrement quand l’injustice et les inégalités atteignent de tels sommets, quand la classe moyenne frôle le seuil de pauvreté, quand la corruption gangrène le pays et réduit à néant tout espoir de sortie de crise ? Mais ce désespoir a aussi des causes structurelles : un système des partis qui rappelle étrangement la IVe République française et, surtout, l’entêtement de l’armée à vouloir maîtriser ce système par le biais de la Constitution de 1982 dont l’objectif est de dépolitiser le pays. Ceux qui avaient semé le vent avec le putsch de 1980 ont récolté la tempête le 4 novembre 2002 au matin. Ce coup de théâtre était l’aboutissement inévitable d’une dérive autoritaire et oligarchique qui a, peu à peu, permis à l’armée d’exercer la réalité du pouvoir.

Le guet-apens du centre

La dépolitisation constitue la base même du système des partis. Il n’existe en Turquie aucun repère politique au sens occidental du terme. La distinction entre la droite et la gauche, sans laquelle il ne saurait y avoir de véritable démocratie, n’a plus cours. Or le positionnement au centre conduit à l’autodestruction des partis ou, dans le meilleur des cas, à leur émiettement et à leur déclin.

Si les généraux ont fait l’apologie du centre, c’est qu’ils se méfiaient autant de la droite que de la gauche, qu’ils assimilaient aux mouvements terroristes des années 1976-1980. Analyse erronée qui osait faire l’amalgame entre des forces démocratiques et des groupes terroristes ! Après vingt ans d’application (1983-2003), ce système est aujourd’hui en faillite. Totalement déboussolés, les Turcs ne font plus aucune différence entre l’ultra-nationalisme, l’islamisme, le libéralisme, la social-démocratie et le conservatisme.

De fait, dans un corps électoral majoritairement conservateur (3), le transfert des voix de gauche (par exemple, les partisans de l’ancien premier ministre Bülent Ecevit et de son Parti de la gauche démocratique (DSP)) vers les islamistes ou vers les nationalistes s’opère avec facilité. De scrutin en scrutin, les électeurs oscillent désespérément d’un parti à l’autre selon le principe des vases communicants, y compris lorsque ces partis sont idéologiquement très éloignés. Tout est bon pour sortir de l’impasse. Après les islamistes en 1995, ce sont les nationalistes qui l’ont emporté en 1999. Des libéraux conservateurs en 1987 (le Parti de la mère patrie (ANAP) de Turgut Özal) à la gauche en 1991 (le Parti populaire social-démocrate (SHP) d’Erdal Inönü), l’électeur turc a donné sa chance à tout le monde. Toutes sortes de coalitions ont été expérimentées : entre la gauche et la droite (1991), entre la droite et les islamistes (1995) ou encore entre la gauche, les libéraux et les ultra-nationalistes (1999).

Si l’on ajoute à cela une inflation galopante (+ 70 % par an en moyenne depuis vingt ans), une corruption qui a coûté au pays 100 milliards de dollars en quinze ans et deux dévaluations, le tout ayant débouché sur une banqueroute économique (4) qui dure depuis avril 2001, le citoyen turc a de quoi se sentir désorienté. Les Turcs sont un peuple très patient. Plutôt que de se révolter contre leur État, ils ont essayé depuis quinze ans toutes les combinaisons politiques possibles et imaginables pour réaliser finalement l’exploit, en novembre dernier, de déloger du Parlement l’ensemble des partis politiques qui s’y trouvaient. Aucun n’a, en effet, franchi la barre des 10 % requise pour être représenté à la Grande assemblé nationale.
C’est une première dans l’histoire du parlementarisme européen : la totalité de la classe politique a été éliminée. Le vainqueur des élections de 1999, le DSP de Bülent Ecevit, est ainsi passé de 24 % à 1 % des voix en l’espace de trois ans, du jamais vu dans une démocratie occidentale. Les électeurs ont utilisé la seule arme dont ils disposent - le bulletin de vote - pour prendre leur revanche sur le ” système corrompu “. Il ne reste plus au Parlement que deux formations : un nouveau parti qui participait aux élections pour la première fois, l’AKP (parti islamiste dirigé par Recep Tayyip Erdogan), et le Parti républicain du peuple (CHP, social-démocrate) de Deniz Baykal qui, en 1999, avait été victime de la règle des 10 %.
Sur les 34 % de voix obtenues par l’AKP, 25 % au moins sont des votes de protestation, l’étiage de ce parti se situant aux alentours de 8-9 %. 66 % des votants ne se sont donc pas prononcés pour ce parti sans compter que, dans un pays où le vote est pourtant obligatoire, 12 millions d’électeurs (sur 41 millions) ont boudé le chemin des urnes. Si l’on tient compte de l’abstention, le score de l’AKP tombe à 24 %.

La victoire des islamistes est, aussi, le résultat de la stratégie du Parti républicain du peuple (CHP) de Deniz Baykal - un parti ” social-démocrate ” qui, depuis le coup d’État de 1980, n’a jamais remis en cause le poids de l’armée sur la vie politique turque. Baykal a commis deux erreurs majeures lors de la campagne : 1°) il s’est opposé à ce que le seuil des 10 % soit abaissé à 5 % ; 2°) il a provoqué une bipolarisation avec l’AKP, ce qui a eu pour effet de propulser les islamistes vers la majorité absolue. Conséquence : un raz-de-marée islamiste (363 sièges sur 550), et un CHP à 18 %, score catastrophique par rapport aux capacités de la gauche turque.

” Démocrates islamistes ” et république laïque : le mariage impossible
Les Turcs n’aiment pas les mises en scène politiques, surtout lorsqu’elles sont orchestrées par l’État. Ils n’aiment pas non plus qu’on s’en prenne à leur liberté de vote. Ainsi, en 1983, lors des premières élections générales organisées après le coup d’État de 1980 sous l’œil vigilant de la junte militaire, ils ont voté en masse pour le Parti de la mère patrie (ANAP, libéral) de Turgut Özal. Celui-ci a remporté la majorité absolue, malgré la présence d’un parti créé par l’armée sur lequel les généraux fondaient de grands espoirs. C’est une réaction du même ordre qui s’est produite lors du dernier scrutin. L’interdiction des deux partis islamistes Refah et Fazilet, puis la condamnation de Recep Tayyip Erdogan à dix mois de prison et cinq ans d’inéligibilité pour anti-laïcité ont été ressenties par les Turcs comme autant d’injustices qu’ils ont voulu réparer en votant AKP.

Le premier ministre Recep Tayyip Erdogan a bâti toute sa carrière politique sur l’islam. Le fait qu’il se positionne aujourd’hui comme un ” conservateur moderne ” et qu’il se désolidarise de l’islam en tant qu’idéologie prouve quatre choses : qu’il veut éviter un coup d’État ; que la démocratie et l’islam politique sont deux notions incompatibles ; que l’AKP est devenu - au moins en apparence - un parti comme les autres ; et qu’il aspire à rester au pouvoir le plus longtemps possible.

On a beaucoup dit en Turquie, mais aussi en Europe, que ce gouvernement était composé d’” islamistes modérés “, voire de ” démocrates islamistes “. Or, dans une république laïque, il ne saurait y avoir de place pour un islam politisé qui, tôt ou tard, est appelé à entrer en conflit avec les institutions de l’État. L’islam est une religion communautaire et un projet politique global dont l’aboutissement naturel ne peut être que le totalitarisme. Des talibans afghans aux mollahs de Téhéran, les exemples ne manquent pas. Tirant les leçons de cette antinomie entre islam politique et république laïque, Erdogan a transformé son parti en parti attrape-tout afin d’éviter une réaction immédiate de l’armée.

Le sentiment d’appartenance à l’État-nation est un élément essentiel de l’identité turque. Selon un sondage d’opinion, 90 % des Turcs se définissent d’abord comme turcs, la religion musulmane ne venant qu’en deuxième position. Dans tous les pays où l’islam est fortement implanté, on obtient généralement le résultat inverse. C’est le miracle de la laïcité turque. Dans ce contexte, dire que la Turquie est un pays musulman n’a aucun sens. Cela revient à définir la France comme un pays catholique ! Face à la laïcité turque, les islamistes étaient contraints de changer et de se normaliser. Apparemment, c’est ce qu’ils commencent à faire. Comme quoi la république laïque a dompté ses islamistes !
Ce gouvernement continue néanmoins d’inspirer à l’armée un grand scepticisme. Celle-ci rêve d’un nouveau ” coup d’État postmoderne ” (5), comme en 1997, lorsque le parti islamiste Refah de Necmettin Erbakan - figure historique de l’islam politique en Turquie - fut évincé de la coalition sous la pression des militaires qui surent habilement mettre la société civile de leur côté.
Dans les années 1970, cette armée ne s’était pourtant pas privée d’utiliser les islamistes pour diviser la droite, alors représentée par l’inamovible premier ministre Süleyman Demirel. N’était-elle pas allée chercher Erbakan, qui était à l’époque réfugié en Suisse pour lui demander de fonder son propre parti afin de faire pièce à Demirel ? Aujourd’hui, la stratégie de l’armée consiste de nouveau à diviser pour régner. Mais, cette fois, à diviser le parti d’Erdogan. Ce faisant, les militaires ne se rendent pas compte qu’ils renforcent l’AKP au lieu de l’affaiblir…

Le ” coup d’État permanent “

La Turquie est un pays en pleine décomposition. Comme il y a un siècle, elle est redevenue l’homme malade de l’Europe. Le cas turc dépasse largement le cadre réducteur d’une crise économique liée à la mauvaise gestion du pays. Il s’agit d’une faillite structurelle d’ordre politique, dans laquelle l’armée joue le rôle principal. Depuis vingt-trois ans, le pays est gouverné de la même façon : les problèmes sont soit ignorés (la politique de l’autruche parfaite), soit réglés (s’il le faut vraiment et toujours au dernier moment) par des méthodes brutales. C’est un système où la concertation et le dialogue n’ont pas droit de cité. Le mot ” concession ” a disparu du vocabulaire de l’État. L’État turc existe pour lui-même et par lui-même et il se confond avec l’armée. Quant au citoyen, il n’existe qu’à travers l’État et doit s’effacer quand les intérêts de celui-ci sont en jeu.
La Turquie se présente donc comme une pseudo-démocratie post-totalitaire. Kenan Evren, l’instigateur du coup d’État de 1980, n’avait-il pas l’habitude de dire qu’une ” démocratie ne peut être basée que sur l’unité et l’union nationale ” ? Les Turcs vivent dans un univers orwellien, conditionnés et surveillés en permanence par leurs maîtres en uniforme.

Cette forme d’organisation de l’État est poussée à son paroxysme dans le sud-est et l’est du pays, peuplés majoritairement de Kurdes, où l’exécutif et la justice sont placés sous le contrôle direct de l’armée. Au niveau national, la réalité est plus subtile : les Turcs sont confrontés à un ” coup d’État permanent “. La base juridique de l’État est la Constitution de 1982 et son instrument politique le Conseil national de sécurité (CNS). Le CNS, qui se réunit une fois par mois sous la présidence du président de la République, est composé du premier ministre, du ministre des Affaires étrangères, du ministre de la Défense, du chef d’état-major, ainsi que des chefs des armées (Terre, Air, Marine et Gendarmerie). L’armée se comporte comme un parti politique classique et remplit parfaitement son rôle. Sous la direction du chef d’état-major, les militaires qui siègent au CNS définissent les grands axes de la politique turque. La moindre initiative du gouvernement islamiste est examinée lors des réunions mensuelles du CNS. L’accès du gouvernement aux services de renseignement est limité. Quant au fonctionnement de l’” État profond ” (l’organisation interne du secrétariat du CNS en fait partie), il lui échappe totalement.
Cette oligarchie militaire a mis en place un système complexe, géré par le secrétaire général du CNS. Mieux encore : ce même secrétaire général préside au sein du CNS une ” cellule de crise ” - un organe d’exception qui, au fil du temps, est devenu le véritable centre du pouvoir exécutif. Le CNS mène depuis vingt ans une ” guerre psychologique ” contre la population turque, qui subit les conséquences dramatiques de cette politique autoritaire, sans que le gouvernement ne puisse exercer le moindre contrôle.

Notes :

(1) Cette revue a été contrainte de suspendre sa parution après avoir fait l’objet de plusieurs saisies et mesures d’interdiction de la part des autorités turques. L’état-major des armées a engagé contre Erol Özkoray pas moins de huit procédures judiciaires. Il a déjà remporté deux procès. Dans les six procès en cours, le procureur requiert au total près de trente ans d’emprisonnement sur la base de l’article 159 du Code pénal qui réprime les critiques contre l’armée.
(2) Depuis la naissance de la République, l’armée turque a mené une trentaine de tentatives, réussies ou non, de coups d’État, toujours officiellement pour ” sauver la démocratie “. Quand elle fait la guerre, par exemple à Chypre en 1974, il s’agit d’une ” opération de paix “. L’idéologie dominante cultive le paradoxe, brouille les pistes et joue sur la désinformation avec la collaboration de la presse.
En 1960, l’armée met fin au pouvoir du Parti démocrate qui gouvernait la Turquie depuis 1950. Les responsables de ce parti sont emprisonnés et le premier ministre Adnan Menderes est condamné à la pendaison, ainsi que deux de ses ministres (le ministre des Affaires étrangères Fatin Rüstü Zorlu et le ministre des Finances Hasan Polatkan) au terme d’un procès qui dure un an.
Le coup d’État de 1971 renverse le premier ministre Süleyman Demirel et la Constitution de 1962 est amendée dans un sens autoritaire.
Les terrorismes de gauche et de droite qui ravagent le pays entre 1976 et 1980, causant la mort de 6 000 personnes, finissent par provoquer la réaction de l’armée qui intervient le 12 septembre 1980. Le Parlement est fermé, les partis politiques supprimés, leurs leaders jetés en prison. L’armée fait voter sa propre Constitution en 1982.
(3) En trente ans, et à la suite de deux coups d’État (1971 et 1980), le peuple turc est devenu conservateur. Le vote de gauche, qui était de l’ordre de 45 % en 1973, a chuté aujourd’hui à 30 %, y compris les voix du parti kurde DEHAP. Dans le même temps, le vote de droite est passé de 55 à 70 %, en incluant les voix islamistes et nationalistes. Mais, dans son immense majorité, l’électorat turc est ouvert à la nouveauté et est attiré par toutes les innovations contemporaines. Ce qui explique son adhésion au projet européen.
(4) Le total de la dette turque (intérieure et extérieure) s’élève à 260 milliards de dollars, tandis que son PIB est d’environ 150 milliards de dollars. Selon les critères de Maastricht, le rapport dette/revenus ne doit pas dépasser 60 %. Dans le cas turc, ce rapport est de 173 %. L’économie turque est sous le contrôle du Fonds monétaire international (FMI) qui a préféré sauver la Turquie après le 11 septembre, en raison de son importance géostratégique, en y injectant 31 milliards de dollars en quinze mois. En août dernier, le FMI a de nouveau rééchelonné la dette jusqu’en 2006. Initialement, le paiement de cette dette, qui atteint 11,5 milliards de dollars, était prévu pour l’automne 2003. La Turquie est toujours en état de faillite officieuse. Tôt ou tard, elle devra demander un moratoire sur le paiement de sa dette extérieure et annoncer une consolidation de sa dette intérieure.
(5) Le ” coup d’État postmoderne ” est une innovation politique des dirigeants militaires de l’époque, qui ont forcé le premier ministre Necmettin Erbakan à démissionner. À sa place fut nommé Bülent Ecevit, le doyen de la gauche turque.

... Suite Partie 2

http://www.info-turk.be/345.htm#pouvoir

Ce qui prouve que les USA sont en train de finir comme feu l’URSS :

- dépenses militaires extraordinaires et guerres sanglantes,
- aveuglement idéologique de l’Etat et propagande à fond,
- faillite monétaire, faillite morale, faillite économique

reste à voir si ça se traduira par une implosion ou un ratatinement lent.

** Le 20ème siècle a vu les premières Guerres mondiales—la première et la deuxième.
* Le 21ème siècle assiste à la première Bulle Mondiale.

Quel marché n’est pas affecté par la folie actuelle ? Quelle grande entreprise n’a pas été prise à l’abordage par les corsaires du private equity ? Quel actif est tranquillement à l’abri des prix en ébullition… encore à des cours raisonnables ?

* Partout, de Baltimore à Bombay, les gens cherchent à s’enrichir de la pire des façons—en spéculant.

* Comme les Guerres mondiales, cette bulle est bien plus grande que celles des siècles précédents. Plus de gens sont impliqués. Plus d’actifs… plus d’argent… plus d’entreprises… plus de devises… plus de banques… plus de tout ! Et comme les Guerres mondiales, cette Bulle mondiale menace de causer bien plus de dégâts que tout ce qui l’a précédé.

Le Dow a atteint un nouveau record cette semaine… ( Chronique Agora 2007-06-06 LA PREMIERE BULLE MONDIALE, Bill Bonner,http://www.la-chronique-agora.com/lca.php?id=1110 )

US missiles hit Russia where it hurts

By M K Bhadrakumar

One does not need the clairvoyant gnome Oskar Matzerath in Guenter Grass’s allegorical novel The Tin Drum to scream and tell us in a voice that can break thick glass jars that looking from Germany’s Baltic resort of Heiligendamm, where the annual Group of Eight summit commenced on Wednesday, that the horizons to the east of the Vistula are getting very dark, heavy with storm clouds.

The G8 mandarins will add caveats, insisting Heiligendamm has important business to transact - climate change, free trade, terrorism, energy security, AIDS and, of course, Africa’s development.

Oskar has begun to hammer on his drum to drown out the idiocies of the adult world. Indeed, the fantastical reality of this year’s summit of the G8 is that it wears the look of a drunken birthday party, taking place at a time of great uncertainty when the world around is once again threatening to become too much to bear.

A new cold war is building up. The US Congress’ House Committee on International Affairs ominously titled its hearing on May 17 as “Russia: Rebuilding the Iron Curtain”. The rhetoric of US-Russian relations has become distinctly sharp and vicious. It slipped by unobtrusively for months, and took a sudden leap in the recent weeks.

A determined effort is on by Washington to eliminate Russia’s strategic parity with the US. Washington regards this as the first essential step toward getting “unipolarity” and the New American Century project going again. The outcome is uncertain. Moscow is firmly resisting, no matter what it takes. But it is also a complex struggle. Despite Washington’s attempts to portray it as a morality play of democracy and freedom versus authoritarianism, the heart of the matter is that the struggle also enables the US to consolidate its trans-Atlantic leadership over Europe in the post-Soviet era.

Without the Western alliance providing the anchor sheet of its geostrategy, the US cannot establish viable global dominance in the 21st century. That is to say, there is no ideology as such involved in the new cold war. In philosophical terms, it is about “absolute security” - how absolute indeed security can be, yet how futile it may still remain. It is, on a different plane, about national sovereignty in a globalized system. It is also about the efficacy of “unilateralism”. Least of all, it is about “triumphalism”. It certainly lifts Washington’s morale, sapped by the Iraq quagmire.

China shifts stance

Its outcome will determine the way the international system works for the better part of the 21st century. No major country can pretend to be unaffected by it. This is most apparent in the pronounced shift in China’s standoffish stance lately.

A Moscow statement highlighted that during the meeting between Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi in Seoul on Monday on the sidelines of the Asia Cooperation Dialogue meeting, they “exchanged views on a broad range of international themes of mutual concern [emphasis added], including cooperation within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the United States’ plans to deploy a global missile-defense system”.

Not surprisingly, the issue of Washington’s deployment of its anti-ballistic-missile (ABM) system has figured in a Russian-Chinese high-level political exchange as a topic of “mutual concern” to the two countries. In the past six weeks, in fact, the Chinese stance on the escalating US-Russia confrontation over that defense system has shifted significantly. A series of Chinese commentaries has appeared indicative of a high level of interest in Beijing over the trajectory of the tensions in US-Russia relations.

China previously viewed the tensions more as “an exchange of rhetoric”, and seemed to have estimated that in the ultimate analysis, Russia would resort to a “pragmatic diplomatic strategy” guided essentially by two core considerations. These are Russia’s need of US involvement with its developing economy in the nature of US capital, technology, expertise and market, and second, Russia’s keenness to ensure its World Trade Organization accession, for which US support is vital.

In essence, China doubted whether the existing post-Soviet pattern of “contention and cooperation” in US-Russia ties would substantially change in a setting where the two countries could be only seeking “maximum benefits” out of a conflict of interests. China remained rooted in this belief, and justifiably so, since it was apparent that the US and Russia continued to cooperate on many issues, and even had a “bilateral strategic interest” in doing so.

To be sure, China could see that Washington was attempting to maintain its hegemony in international affairs and was, therefore, determined to prevent the resurgence of Russia, which in turn led to the US stratagem to pressure and weaken Russia. But China still couldn’t quite anticipate that US-Russia relations would deteriorate almost to the point of the last century’s Cold War, or that the two powers would come to view each other with such hostility, or that they were likely to embark on an arms race.

However, China began reassessing the state of play by the end of April. The People’s Daily took note on May 9 for the first time that by its decision to deploy its missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, Washington was “no doubt targeting Russia”. Commenting on Moscow’s warning that Russia might seek withdrawal from the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, the People’s Daily admitted the “likelihood of a new arms race rising dramatically”. The commentary concluded, “If we look at US-Russian relations closely, it is clear that we are standing at the edge of a new cold war.”

A series of Chinese commentaries thereafter has swiftly built up on that conclusion by frontally attacking the US deployment of a missile-defense system in Europe. Not only that, China stressed that Washington’s deployment plans in East Asia and Europe are in actuality its “two wings”. Dismissing Washington’s claim that the deployments are directed against Iran and North Korea, the People’s Daily underlined on May 18 that “the existing layout is targeted directly and entirely at both Russia and China”. This implied for the first time China’s commonality of interests with Russia in regard of the latter’s “strong opposition” to the US deployments.

Chinese criticism of the US deployment has since become strident, underlining that the US action will produce a “profound effect on the global strategic layout at present”; that it undermines regional security; that it will have a negative impact on the “internal stability” of the affected countries; and that it will make US foreign policy even more belligerent.

China identifies four factors guiding Washington’s decision on the deployment of the missile defense: a search for “absolute security”; blind faith in technological supremacy; US ambition of global hegemony; the United States’ keenness to retain leadership of the Euro-Atlantic alliance.

Progressively, the Chinese stance has come to put the blame squarely on the US for ratcheting up tensions with Russia. The causes of the present tensions, in the Chinese view, are manifold. They lie in Washington’s strategy of pushing for the North AtlanticTreaty Organization’s (NATO’s) eastward expansion; making further inroads into Russia’s strategic space by deciding to deploy the defense system in Central Europe; the US “frequently poking its nose” into Russia’s domestic affairs, such as openly funding political forces in Russia that oppose the Kremlin; fomenting “color revolutions” in the former Soviet republics; “brushing aside Russian opinions in the handling of global issues”; and generally resorting to “unilateralism in international affairs”.

China says the US actions in this respect remind one of the “law of the jungle”, where with the “biggest power and the sharpest claws” at its command, Washington is bullying the weak; fighting for spheres of influence; interfering with impunity in the internal affairs of other countries; and resorting to unilateralism. And it is doing all this while complacent in its belief that “one can do just about anything one wants so long as one is strong enough, whatever one does is rational and compatible with rules, whereas if the other side struggles or opposes, that only means they don’t understand, and the only thing one needs to do is to explain”.

China has carefully sized up Moscow’s “grit” in resisting the US pressure. It seems to have assessed that President Vladimir Putin is indeed serious when he says Russia is determined to ensure the global strategic balance. With this assessment of the Kremlin’s seriousness, China has begun raising its head above the parapet.

A Chinese expert at Kanwa, a Hong Kong-based think-tank, was quoted by the Russian official news agency in an interview on Monday as saying that the planned US deployments in Japan and Australia of anti-missile installations and the powerful XBR radars (with an estimated range of 4,000 kilometers) would allow the Americans to follow the launches of missiles from China’s main testing range in Shanxi province. Therefore, he said, “Russia is worried about the US plans in East Europe - and China in East Asia. And the two countries can evidently decide to pursue a coordinated policy on this account.”

The European predicament

The expert in Kanwa went on to underline China’s determination to accelerate the development of its own missile program if the Asian missile-defense system is created. Clearly, the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization due to be held in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, in August assumes new significance.

But in comparison with China’s increasingly open stance, the predicament faced by the European countries remains acute. This is evident from the different levels of reaction in European capitals to the escalation in US-Russian rhetoric. Apropos Putin’s statement on Monday that Russia might have to target Europe with nuclear missiles if the US deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic went ahead, Washington, London and Warsaw poured heavy criticism on the Kremlin. But Paris and Berlin have been noticeably circumspect.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel tried to cool down tempers by saying, “For me it is important to be clear that the Cold War remains forever in history.” Merkel stressed that Russia is a partner for the West, and “we share a common responsibility ... We depend on each other, and this is what will determine the Heiligendamm summit. Even when we disagree, it remains indisputable that Russia is a partner, Russia is a member of the G8.”

In essence, Merkel disagreed with British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s characterization of Putin’s statement as “quite unsettling”. The reaction by the French Foreign Ministry too has been noticeably balanced. It acknowledged Russia’s concerns over the missile-defense deployments in Eastern Europe as “legitimate”, and it called for “comprehensive discussions” between the US and Russia. More important, it distanced Paris from the acrimony by painting the ABM deployment as a “bilateral project [emphasis added], which is being pursued by the United States, Poland and the Czech Republic”.

The German and French statements offer a perfect study in contrast with the hot words by the NATO bureaucracy in Brussels and Polish officials in Warsaw, who tried to play up Putin’s remarks as suggestive of Russian belligerence. Without doubt, “Old Europe” is being pulled in opposite directions. Senior European leaders fear that the missile-defense controversy could split Europe and set back its relations with the US once again at a time when they have just about recovered from frictions over the Iraq war. Ideally, Europe would like to work together with the US. But countries of “Old Europe” also wish to give consideration to the positions of both the US and Russia.

Equally, the controversy touches a lot of raw nerves as it involves overall post-Cold War trans-Atlantic cooperation. Washington and London, with Poland and the Baltic countries (which are new to both NATO and the European Union but are diehard allies of the US) in tow, plus, of course, the NATO bureaucracy in Brussels, are striving to set the agenda of the trans-Atlantic friendship. But “Old Europe” and the US, despite their recent improved relations, have different interests to pursue in the post-Cold War setting - and have different ideas about war and peace, and different beliefs in a world order.

All the same, relations between the US and its traditional allies in Western Europe, though put to stress by the Iraq war and which may be not as solid and predictable as during the Cold War, are still largely intact. Friendlier ties are in the interest of Western Europe. On its part, the US also realizes that without the Western alliance, its agenda of global dominance will remain a pipe dream, and that under no circumstances do the “New Europeans” have the experience, resources and credibility to replace the traditional Western European allies.

Europe’s best hope, therefore, will be that the US missile-deployment issue doesn’t assume dimensions that jeopardize trans-Atlantic cooperation. This became starkly apparent on May 22 when Europe’s three largest gas companies - Eni of Italy, Gaz de France and E.ON Ruhrgas of Germany - warned against growing tensions between Europe and Russia and sought greater political support for stepping up their business activities involving Russia. The European energy giants are all in varying stages of negotiating long-term deals involving asset swaps with Russia’s Gazprom.

‘Selective cooperation’ with Russia
But it is unlikely that the tensions in US-Russia relations will ease any time soon. Washington is working on the basis of a well-thought-out, clear-cut strategy toward Russia. In a high-profile show of support to the “New Europeans” against Russian pressure, President George W Bush was scheduled to visit Prague and Poland immediately before and after the G8 summit in Heiligendamm.

Thereafter, on June 25 he is to host Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves in the White House, which will be another meeting fraught with symbolism to the Russians. This will be just ahead of Putin’s hastily arranged weekend halt at the Bush family home in Kennebunkport, Maine, on July 1. Fortunately, Putin will be in the region as he had plans to visit Guatemala.

In retrospect, it is clear that visits in recent weeks by US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of StateCondoleezza Rice to Moscow were undertaken under pressure from America’s European allies who are unhappy about Washington’s insistent unilateralism in the missile-defense deployments. After meeting Putin in the Kremlin, Rice virtually let it be known that dogs could bark, but the caravan would move on. She said, “The US needs to be able to move forward to use technology to defend itself, and we’re going to do that.”

There has also been a systematic attempt by Washington to “provoke” the Kremlin. At a time when tempers were already testy in January, Washington criticized Moscow’s decision to increase gas prices for Belarus as “energy imperialism”, whereas the US had previously insisted on strict market-economy principles for Belarus. When Moscow got into a tizzy over the Estonian government’s removal of the memorial to World War II Soviet veterans in Tallinn, Bush rushed to express solidarity with the Baltic state.

Gates testified before the US Congress while presenting the Pentagon budget for the coming fiscal year that the unprecedented rise in military expenditure was necessitated, among other factors, in view of “the uncertain paths of China and Russia” as well as “the dangers posed by Iran and North Korea’s nuclear ambitions” - this as if Russia threatened the US, or as if Russia belonged to the so-called “axis of evil”.

Again ignoring Russian sensitivities, Bush signed a bill envisaging Ukraine’s and Georgia’s membership of NATO. Furthermore, the US allocated funds for accelerating these countries’ NATO accession. Also, Moscow realizes that the US Congress has no immediate plans of repealing the Jackson-Vandik amendment of 1974 imposing trade sanctions, despite repeated Russia pleas that the Cold War-era legislation is an aberration when the two countries are supposedly building a partnership.

In April, the US administration brought out two highly provocative reports on Russia. On April 5, the State Department released a report titled “Supporting Human Rights and Democracy”. It contained a scathing attack on the Kremlin, accusing it of human-rights violations and “breaking away from the principles of democracy”. It made an astounding claim that US support for some public organizations in Russia had begun to yield results and, furthermore, that such support would continue with the objective of influencing the forthcoming elections to the Duma (parliament) as well as the presidential election next year.

On April 16, the State Department brought out another report titled “Strategic Plan for the Fiscal Years 2007-2012”, which declared that countering Russia’s “negative behavior” would be one of Washington’s diplomatic priorities over the coming five-year period. This was the first time that Washington went on record that it had been giving financial support to political elements within Russia hostile to the Kremlin as well as identifying Russia’s resurgence as a focal point of US diplomatic strategy.

On May 17, the House of Representatives Committee on International Affairs held highly publicized hearings in Washington under the title “Russia: Rebuilding the Iron Curtain”. Opening the hearing, Congressman Tom Lantos, who is also the chairman of the House committee, spoke about Putin’s leadership in highly derogatory terms. Making it clear that he had spoken to Rice before making the speech, Lantos declared: “I do not think Vladimir Putin is a reincarnation of Josef Stalin. But I am profoundly disturbed by his pattern of abuse and repression of dissidents, independent journalists and, in fact, anyone who opposes him. Russia’s tactic under the KGB colonel now in charge of the Kremlin threatens to send the country back to its authoritarian past.”

Lantos continued berating Putin in this vein in extraordinary language throughout his speech. His vilification of Putin reached a high point when Lantos said, “I urge Mr Putin to rethink his skewed vision of crime and punishment ... Putin’s crackdown ... is reminiscent of so many dark moments in Russia’s history.” Lantos rounded off with an insinuation that Putin’s hand was behind the murders of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya and former Russian security-service officer Aleksandr Litvinenko.

Evidently, somewhere along the line, it begins to appear that Putin is somehow the real enemy for the political class in Washington, and not so much post-Soviet Russia. There is no doubt that personality factors have crept into Washington’s tensions with Moscow. We may not have heard the last word yet on Russian ex-intelligence official Andrei Lugovoy’s sensational statement in Moscow a week ago that he was cultivated by British intelligence with the mission of collecting damaging information on Putin and his family members.

It probably annoys Washington that what matters for Putin is that he remains a hugely popular leader for the Russian people, with a rating that is consistently above 70% - so popular, ironically, that if he were to seek a third term in office, 43% of Russia’s Communist Party supporters would vote for him rather than for their own leader, Gennadi Zyuganov.

But other than the crushing defeats that Putin has inflicted on US and British business interests in the energy sector in recent months in Russia and Central Asia, there are few reasons for such a sustained US propaganda barrage against the Kremlin. Indeed, Putin could be an ideal partner for the US in the era of globalization.

Writing in the Russian magazine Argumenty i Fakty recently, prominent Russian political observer Vyacheslav Kostikov pointed out: “Putin’s critics prefer to overlook the fact that his economic policies are entirely liberal. He is a popularly elected president. He has never violated the constitution or torn up any international agreements. In all his years as president, not one Russian military division has crossed Russia’s borders. It wasn’t Russian planes that bombed Belgrade, Baghdad and villages in Afghanistan.”

Last Thursday, David Kramer, US deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, summed up the US policy in an address at the Baltimore Council on Foreign Affairs titled “US and Russia”: “Cooperate wherever we can, push back whenever we have to. If you’re looking for a bumper sticker of our Russia policy, that’s it.” The idea of “selective cooperation” with Russia has become an established bipartisan doctrine in Washington.

Testifying in the US Congress last month, Stephen Sestanovich, formerly US president Bill Clinton’s special envoy to the Commonwealth of Independent States, echoed the same idea when he said, “To set our relationship with Russia on a more productive course over the next five years, the US needs to send a two-part message: ‘We do not shy away either from consultation and cooperation where they are possible or from disagreement and even opposition where they are necessary.’” Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton aptly caught the bipartisan mood in Washington when she proposed that Congress could legislate on constituting a medal for veterans of the Cold War.

Russia’s strategic parity with the US

Moscow increasingly perceives the propaganda attack as one part of an all-out US political and strategic offensive that is aimed at disrupting Russia’s ties with Europe, damaging its international standing, and isolating it within its geographical space. The US decision regarding the missile-defense deployments in Eastern Europe further reinforces Russian fears of a concerted US strategy of encirclement.

Evidently, Moscow takes the United States’ deployment in Europe very seriously. No amount of US propaganda that the deployments are intended against Iran carries conviction in Moscow. As the Russians see it, the X-band tracking radar in the Czech Republic will pry deep into the European part of Russia up to the Urals, while the anti-missile base in Poland is intended to provide cover for the radar.

The belief is rooted in Moscow that the US missile-defense deployments aim at destroying Russia’s strategic parity with the US. An essay featured in Foreign Affairs magazine in its March-April 2006 issue titled “The rise of US nuclear primacy” received huge attention among the Russian strategic community. It held out a chilling warning: “The age of MAD [mutual assured destruction] is nearing an end. Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy. It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike ... Russia and China - and the rest of the world - will live in the shadow of US nuclear primacy for many years to come.”

The Russian military assesses the threat perception by linking the proposed ABM deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic with the offensive capability that the US has developed over recent years in terms of the new Tomahawk generation of cruise missiles with a range of 3,500 kilometers. They are of such high speed and precision that they are impossible to intercept.

The Russian military has assessed, and the Russian leadership is convinced by now, that in reality the ABM system is an integral part of a formidable US strategic system that could incrementally within the next five years or so give the US a first-strike capability. For instance, over the past three years alone, more than 6,000 Tomahawk missile launchers have been deployed extensively on US naval platforms. As of now, the US possesses the capability to shell all strategically important targets on Russian soil.

In comparison with the US strategic buildup in the post-Cold War era, post-Soviet Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal has sharply deteriorated. Russia is estimated to possess almost 40% fewer long-range bombers, 60% fewer intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and 80% fewer ballistic-missile submarines.

But what the Russians fear the most is that the proposed ABM systems in Central Europe will plug important gaps in the overall US capability to launch a devastating first strike on Russia’s nuclear capability. For instance, the proposed radar in the Czech Republic would be capable of determining the parameters of the trajectories of Russian ballistic missiles during the first few seconds after their launch (as against the gap of several minutes needed under the existing shipboard or space surveillance systems), which would make it far easier to bring down the missiles.

Russian military experts have written how, with a surreptitious concentration of its naval strike formations in the regions of the Barents Sea and the Baltic Sea, US cruise missiles could target at one go the Russian silo and mobile ICBM launchers as well as submarines with ballistic missiles and strategic air groups. Such a strike could also target simultaneously the armed forces’ command points, its missile-defense systems, airfields, naval bases and communications systems.

A second strike could follow using deck-based aircraft on aircraft carriers and the strategic air force targeting land forces and military-industrial complexes on the whole. A Russian military expert, Mikhail Volzhenskiy, wrote recently in Izvestia, “The probability of such a scenario is very high. We recall Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Iraq, where the American operations commenced with the concentrated use of long-range cruise missiles. Undoubtedly, our political and military leaderships have taken into account this experience in working out their strategy ... Thus we perceive the deployment of the ABM system in Europe in particular as an attempt to unilaterally destroy the existing balance of forces on the continent and in the world.”

Curiously, Putin echoed the same thoughts last Thursday when he said, “There is no need to fear Russia’s actions, and they are not aggressive ... They are aimed at maintaining balance in the world order, and are extremely important for maintaining peace and security globally.” In other words, Moscow has intended the recently tested Iskander as its response to the US ABM systems in Europe.

Moscow has decided against the option of withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and instead chosen to work on an improved version of its famous Topol-M intercontinental missiles, which are the only missiles in the world with the capability to accelerating to supersonic speed while at the same time changing direction twice a minute (so as to avoid radar detection), and can be fired also to shorter ranges. They are strategic as well as theater missiles and are practically invulnerable to the ABM. Their MIRVed (multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle) version can carry up to 10 independently targetable warheads.

The implicit Russian strategy is to destroy the US ABM systems in Europe in the first 15-20 minutes after a perceived US cruise-missile strike, with the help of several specially located ICBMs targeted at Europe or shorter-range missiles with nuclear warhead elements. The approximate flying time to targets in the Czech Republic would be 10-15 minutes, as compared with the estimated 2.5 to three hours needed for a US cruise-missile attack to hit all Russian targets.

At the same time, within an estimated 20 minutes, nuclear missiles fired from Russian submarines in the North Sea could hit targets in Poland. In sum, as Professor Vadim Kozyulin of the Russian Academy of Military Sciences put it, Moscow’s strategy is to make it clear that “a conflict with Russia cannot be contemplated without incurring [unacceptable] losses for the attacking side”. Moscow envisages that such a paradigm will leave Washington with no choice but to negotiate. But for the moment at least, Washington doesn’t seem impressed.

Any Putin-Bush meet in Heiligendamm is more likely to produce tedious arguments than meaningful negotiations. Unlike Oskar’s drum, which was burdened by the human condition, Bush’s drum excitedly anticipates victories to come - beyond the defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan.

M K Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for more than 29 years, with postings including ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-98) and to Turkey (1998-2001).

(Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)