Forum

Bush autorise un mur de 1100 km à la frontière mexicaine

Le président américain George W. Bush a promulgué aujourd’hui une loi autorisant la construction d’un mur d’un millier de kilomètres sur la frontière mexicaine, occasion pour lui de porter l’attention sur l’immigration clandestine à douze jours des élections parlementaires.

Cette loi “rendra nos frontières plus sûres”, a déclaré M. Bush lors de la cérémonie de signature à la Maison Blanche. Elle permet la construction d’un mur d’environ 1.100 km sur un tiers de la frontière mexicaine. La construction de ce mur est vivement contestée par le gouvernement mexicain. Mais elle l’est aussi aux Etats-Unis, où ses détracteurs doutent de son efficacité pour contrer l’immigration clandestine.

La signature fournit cependant à M. Bush et à sa majorité républicaine la chance de faire porter le débat avec l’opposition démocrate sur autre chose que l’Irak et de flatter une base électorale qui menace de se détourner des urnes le 7 novembre.

“Malheureusement, les Etats-Unis n’ont pas eu le contrôle total de leurs frontières pendant des décennies et l’immigration clandestine a augmenté”, a dit M. Bush lors de la signature en présence des chefs des groupes républicains dans les deux chambres du Congrès, Bill Frist et John Boehner. “Nous avons la responsabilité de faire face à ces défis. Nous avons la responsabilité de faire appliquer nos lois. Nous avons la responsabilité de sécuriser nos frontières. Nous prenons cette responsabilité au sérieux”, a-t-il dit.

http://www.7sur7.be/hlns/cache/fr/det/art_285798.html?wt.bron=homeBottomOvz
—-
Bush Signs U.S.-Mexico Border Fence Bill

By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 26, 2006; 11:58 AM

President Bush today signed into law a bill that authorizes construction of 700 miles of new fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border, a measure he hailed as “an important step in our nation’s efforts to secure our border and reform our immigration system.”

Before signing the Secure Fence Act of 2006 in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Bush said the new law would help modernize the 2,000-mile border. But he said more must be done to achieve immigration reform, and he repeated his call for a program that would allow U.S. employers to bring in guest workers and would offer legal status to many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants nationwide.

Congress approved the Secure Fence Act last month as majority Republicans sought to show voters they were tough on illegal immigration ahead of midterm elections. The legislation did not include Bush’s guest worker and legalization proposals, which were blocked by key House Republicans who insisted on first tightening control of the nation’s southern border.

While the new law authorizes 700 miles of double-layered fencing, among other measures, it does not include funding for the project. A separate $34.8 billion homeland security spending bill signed earlier this month includes $1.2 billion—described as a “down payment”—for various installations including the fence. The fence alone, stretching across parts of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, is estimated to cost at least $6 billion to build.

Shortly after passing the Secure Fence Act, lawmakers practically ensured that the fence would never be built as advertised when they passed the spending bill, Washington Post staff writer Spencer S. Hsu reported.

That bill gave the Bush administration leeway to distribute the money to a combination of projects including roads, technology and “tactical infrastructure” to support the Homeland Security Department’s preferred option of a “virtual fence.” Thus, the $1.2 billion would pay for an unspecified blend of fencing, vehicle barriers, lighting and technology such as ground-based radar, cameras and sensors.

In addition, Republican congressional leaders pledged in a late-night session shortly before recessing that Native American tribes, members of Congress, governors and local leaders would get a say in “the exact placement” of any structure, and that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff would have the flexibility to use alternatives “when fencing is ineffective or impractical.”

Nor is it clear when any fencing would be built. The Secure Fence Act requires Homeland Security to gain “operational control” of the border in 18 months. But the law funding it envisions five years. Chertoff has set a goal of two to three years, but only after an overhaul of immigration law.

In his statement before signing the bill, Bush said it “will help protect the American people.”

Illegal immigration has risen because “unfortunately, the United States has not been in complete control of its borders for decades,” Bush said. “We have a responsibility to address these challenges. We have a responsibility to enforce our laws. We have a responsibility to secure our borders.”

He touted a doubling of funding for border security under his administration, from $4.6 billion in 2001 to $10.4 billion this year, and a strengthening of the Border Patrol from about 9,000 agents to more than 12,000.

With the Secure Fence Act, “we’re modernizing the southern border of the United States so we can assure the American people we’re doing our job of securing the border,” Bush said.

The act “is part of our efforts to reform our immigration system,” but “we have more to do,” he said. “Meaningful immigration reform means that we must enforce our immigration laws in the United States.” Most businesses want to obey the law against hiring illegal immigrants, he said, “but they cannot verify the legal status of their employees because of widespread document fraud. So we’re creating a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility and in the meantime holding people to account for breaking the law.”

He renewed his call for a “temporary worker plan” to provide employers with foreigners willing “to do jobs Americans are not doing.”

Bush added, “We must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are already here. They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. That is amnesty. I oppose amnesty. There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant and a program of mass deportation, and I look forward to working with Congress to find that middle ground.”

Some congressional Republicans have opposed Bush’s proposal on grounds that it amounts to a de facto amnesty, even if Bush does not call it that. Amnesties in the past, such as a 1986 immigration law signed by President Reagan, did not give illegal immigrants an “automatic path to citizenship.” Instead, they were required to go through a lengthy process that included determining their eligibility for the amnesty, applying for legal permanent resident status and waiting for five years after obtaining it before becoming eligible to apply for citizenship.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102600120.html
—-
Bush Signs Mexico Border Fence Bill
Sign In to E-Mail This Print Save
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 26, 2006
Filed at 11:32 a.m. ET

Skip to next paragraph
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
President George W. Bush signed the Border Security Act at a ceremony in the Roosevelt Room of the White House.
WASHINGTON (AP)—President Bush signed a bill Thursday authorizing 700 miles of new fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, hoping to give Republican candidates a pre-election platform for asserting they’re tough on illegal immigration.

‘‘Unfortunately the United States has not been in complete control of its borders for decades and therefore illegal immigration has been on the rise,’’ Bush said at a signing ceremony.

‘‘We have a responsibility to enforce our laws,’’ he said. ‘‘We have a responsibility to secure our borders. We take this responsibility serious.’‘

He called the fence bill ‘‘an important step in our nation’s efforts to secure our borders.’‘

The centerpiece of Bush’s immigration policy, a guest worker program, remains stalled in Congress.

And a handful of House Republican are at the brakes, blocking negotiations with the Senate for a bill that includes the president’s proposal.

Still, Bush argues that it would be easier to get his guest worker program passed if Republicans keep their majorities in the House and Senate after the Nov. 7 elections. His proposal would allow legal employment for foreigners and give some of the estimated 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States a shot at becoming American citizens.

The measure Bush put into law Thursday before heading for campaign stops in Iowa and Michigan offers no money for the fence project covering one-third of the 2,100-mile border.

Its cost is not known, although a homeland security spending measure the president signed earlier this month makes a $1.2 billion down payment on the project. The money also can be used for access roads, vehicle barriers, lighting, high-tech equipment and other tools to secure the border.

Mexican officials have criticized the fence. Outgoing Mexican President Vicente Fox, who has spent much of his six years in office lobbying for a new guest worker program and a chance at citizenship for the millions of Mexicans working illegally in the U.S., calls the fence ‘‘shameful’’ and compares it to the Berlin Wall.

Others have doubts about its effectiveness.

‘‘A fence will slow people down by a minute or two, but if you don’t have the agents to stop them it does no good. We’re not talking about some impenetrable barrier,’’ T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, a union representing Border Patrol agents, said Wednesday.

Customs and Border Protection statistics show that apprehensions at border crossings are down 8 percent nationally for the budget year that just ended, Bonner said. Apprehensions were up in the San Diego sector, he said, an area of the nearly 2,000-mile border that has the most fencing.

A spokesman for Customs and Border Protection would not confirm the statistics or discuss reasons for the increase in the San Diego sector.

Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, both Texas Republicans, had wanted to amend the fence bill to give local governments more say about where fencing is erected. They lost that battle, but Republican leaders assured them the Homeland Security Department would have flexibility to choose other options instead of fencing, if needed.

Cornyn said he voted for the fence because he wanted to help demonstrate that Congress was serious about border security.

‘‘The choice we were presented was: Are we going to vote to enhance border security, or against it?’’ Cornyn said. ‘‘I think that’s how the vote was viewed.’‘

———

Associated Press Writer Suzanne Gamboa contributed to this report.

^———

On the Net:

Information on the bill, H.R. 6061, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov
—-
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush-Immigration.html?hp&ex=1161921600&en=efae246c402a63ec&ei=5094&partner=homepage

... Wall Street traduit un communiqué final relativement équilibré en l’espoir d’une prochaine baisse des taux si le prix du pétrole et des matières premières continuait de refluer. Nous faisons le pari que le tableau apparaîtra fort différent d’ici le 7 novembre ; le lobby pétrolier, qui soutient de façon inconditionnelle l’administration Bush, aura alors cessé de maintenir artificiellement une pression baissière sur le cours du baril via les marchés dérivés (sur lesquels il exerce un contrôle sans partage, avec la complicité active des hedge funds, qui excellent à naviguer dans le sens des vents dominants).

Les consommateurs américains ne tarderont pas à découvrir quel est le véritable “prix marché”... Ils s’apercevront aussi que ce mois d’octobre boursier est tellement fabuleux (il se solde par la plus forte hausse mensuelle observée depuis octobre 2003, et le plus grand nombre de séances de hausse depuis le début du 21ème siècle !) qu’il ne peut résulter que d’une volonté inflexible de doper la confiance des électeurs/consommateurs durant la période cruciale préparatoire au renouvellement partiel du Sénat américain. Panem et circenses font toujours recette !

Mais n’oubliez pas qu’il faudra commencer à démonter le chapiteau le 8 novembre aux premières lueurs de l’aube sur les marchés asiatiques. Nous ne serions pas étonnés que certains artistes, déçus du montant de la recette de la soirée précédente, laissent malencontreusement ouverte la porte de la cage aux fauves ! ( Philippe Béchade, 26 oct.2006 http://www.la-chronique-agora.com/lca.php?id=958 )

Si vous ne l’avez déjà vue, on trouve sur Thomas Paine’s Corner, une initiative de West Point contre la guerre :

“THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2006
U.S. Service Academy Graduates Unite Against Illegal Iraq War

Join Anti-War West Pointers in New Organization

New York – (October 25, 2006) – The overwhelming response by alumni of United States service academies to the anti-war efforts of West Point Graduates Against the War (http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org) has resulted in a combined arms organization of former and current land, sea, and air officers united against the war in Iraq. The new organization, Service Academy Graduates Against the War (http://www.sagaw.org), was established by three West Pointers, William Cross, James Ryan, and Joseph Wojcik, all 1962 USMA graduates and cofounders of the former organization. They were joined in the new endeavor by Dud Hendrick, a 1963 United States Naval Academy graduate and Terry Symens-Bucher, an alumnus of the United States Air Force Academy, class of 1975.

The new grassroots organization calls on graduates of all service academies to speak out against the destruction of the honor of the United States and the dissipation of its military caused by the deceitful policies of the present administration. It also calls for the impeachment of the president of the United States for high crimes and misdemeanors.

The founding alumni and their fellow service academy graduate members, instilled with the service academy codes of honor, believe a fundamental respect for truth is a basic and lifelong attribute of character. To that end, they have united to speak out against the deceitful behavior of the government of the United States and its widely known malefactors. At issue is the lying, cheating, stealing, delivering evasive statements and quibbling which has put vast numbers of innocent people in deadly peril and disgracefully diminished the integrity of the United States.

“660,000 people slaughtered,” said James Ryan, “and still no one in the US government is held accountable for this crime against humanity.” The new web site painstakingly documents the illegality of the assault on Iraq, and documents the lies and subterfuge perpetrated by the president of the United States and his subordinates.

“All service academy grads should be concerned about the illegality of orders premised on the lies of the president,” said Dud Hendrick, US Naval Academy graduate. “We also serve to protect our fighting men and women from being subject to illegal and immoral orders.”

Membership in Service Academy Graduates Against the War is open to all alumni of United States service academies, as well as widows, widowers, parents, children, and grandchildren of deceased graduates. Non-graduates may enroll as “Honor Guard” supporters.

POSTED BY JASON MILLER”

A quoi bon aller chercher un obscur penseur médiéval : il y a des paroles plus anciennes : “celui qui prendra l’épée, périra par l’épée”. Car l’épée n’est pas l’axe du monde, même si la grandeur ne se divise pas.

Oui l’extension d’une Europe à 25 est une farce .
Il fallait d’abord songer à unifier les ex pays de l’Est , les fédérer .
Le ver est dans le fruit . Voyez maintenant les dérives politiques de pays comme la Hongrie , la Pologne et ne parlons pas des deux petits nouveaux
que l’ont voudrait adjoindre .
Barroso n’a aucune dimension politique , ce n’est pas un chef d’Etat . Rien ne bouge dans la problématique du refus du “Traité constitutionnel”
en France et en Hollande , c’est comme si ce fait n’avait jamais existé .
Et les nuages s’amoncellent dans la perte d’identité de l’Europe .

Regrettable que ce mot “démocratie"revienne constamment , elle n’existe pas aux Usa , il s’agit d’une ploutocratie et certainement pas en
Europe ou ce sont des particraties et des appareils de partis qui gèrent la politique , si l’on peut parler de cela mais peut-être vaudrait-il mieux parler de baronnies de suzerainetés et de vassalités au service d’intérêts bien compris mais non ceux du peuple ou des nations .

La Chine a tout simplement pris la place de responsable du “maintien de l’ordre” en Asie de l’Est, rôle que Washington voulait confier à l’ultra-nationaliste japonais ABE.

En tirer la conclusion que la Chine va punir la Corée du Nord serait penser que la diplomatie chinoise est aussi erratique que la diplomatie US

La Chine veut en priorité éviter le changement de la constitution japonaise et l’armement nucléaire du japon. N’oublions jamais que 12 millions de chinois sont morts pendant l’invasion japonaise.

“La plupart de nos mémoriaux donnent une vision sentimentale de la guerre. Peu d’entre eux commémorent l’horreur. Il est aujourd’hui une nouvelle catégorie dont le but, semble-t-il, est de la banaliser”, note le chroniqueur George Monbiot, en référence à la mode britannique consistant à dresser des monuments à la mémoire des animaux. “Le fait d’insister sur les souffrances des animaux en temps de guerre illustre la difficulté à reconnaître celle des êtres humains. Sur le monument de Park Lane [à Londres], on peut lire l’inscription suivante : ‘Ils n’avaient pas le choix’. Les civils tués en Irak ne l’avaient pas non plus, de même que les millions de femmes violées au cours des siècles par les combattants. (...) Vous pouvez toujours parcourir ce pays à la recherche d’un quelconque monument qui leur serait dédié. (...) Alors que se passe-t-il ? Qu’ont donc ces mémoriaux de si attirants pour que des membres de la famille royale acceptent de les inaugurer (...)  et les multimillionnaires de droite de les financer ? Pourquoi, alors que la guerre que nous avons déclenché en Irak a tué des centaines des milliers de personnes, sommes-nous tellement obsédés par le sort des victimes non humaines ?”
The Guardian (Royaume-Uni), traduit par Courrier International.

Cette déroute était prévisible: il suffisait seulement de relire Ibn Khaldoun (Les prolégomènes)

La France pense à se retirer d’AFghanistan. Raison officielle : les Forces Spéciales françaises et sont trop peu nombreuses, alors qu’on a besoin d’elles ailleurs ; Côte d’Ivoire, Congo et Liban (d’où il est aussi question que la France retire des troupes).

cf. l’article du Jane’s Defence Weekly (25/10/06)

France ponders withdrawal of special forces

J A C Lewis JDW Correspondent, Paris, and
John Berg, JDW Correspondent, Oslo

France is considering withdrawing its special forces from Afghanistan over the next few months, French Ministry of Defence (MoD) officials have confirmed.

The move comes as the US mulls a re-organisation of its forces in Afghanistan following the integration of some 12,000 US-led forces operating under Operation ‘Enduring Freedom’ into NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) on 5 October. French special forces have been operating under US command.

The officials said “all options are open” concerning the presence of the 200-strong French special forces contingent in Afghanistan and that any decision to remain or stay “will depend in large part on the re-organisation of US forces” in Afghanistan.

The expanded ISAF is currently commanded by British Army General David Richards, commander of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, who will remain in post until February 2007 when a composite headquarters led by US Army General Dan McNeill will take over for 12 months.

French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie was in Washington, DC, as Jane’s went to press and was expected to discuss the future of French special forces in Afghanistan with US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Forces from France’s Commandement des Operations Speciales have, according to French sources, operated smoothly alongside US forces in Afghanistan despite friction between Paris and Washington over France’s refusal to take part in military action in Iraq. Six French special forces personnel have died in fighting against Taliban or Al-Qaeda elements in Afghanistan since 2003.

MoD sources in Paris said France’s decision would not be related to the situation on the ground in Afghanistan even though the new armed forces chief-of-staff, General Jean-Louis Georgelin, acknowledged before the French Parliament’s defence committee on 10 October that “the situation is fast deteriorating both in the east and south” of the country. The military sources said the withdrawal, if confirmed, would be due more to the small size of French special forces - they number barely 2,000 in all - and the pressing need for such personnel in other theatres where France is engaged, such as Lebanon, Cote d’Ivoire and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

In a separate development, the left-wing party in Norway’s centre-left government on 18 October blocked a plan to meet NATO’s request to send an unspecified number of Norwegian special forces to Afghanistan to assist in the fighting taking place in the south of the country. The two other parties of the government, Labour and the Centre Party, wanted to send the force, which has been ready and on high alert for several weeks.

Centre Party leader Aslaug Haga said on the same day that Norway cannot leave “all the dirty jobs” to US, UK and other NATO forces and a clear majority in the Labour Party had wanted to meet NATO’s request for more troops. Relative to its size, Norway is one of the biggest contributors to ISAF in Afghanistan, but all its forces are deployed in the north of the country.

Concernant : “Une vision froidement réaliste de la crise entre la Russie et la Géorgie : Georgia – on Moscow’s Mind, Patrick J. Buchanan”

Buchanan termine cet analyse intéressante à bien des égards avec “The destiny of that region will be determined by the dominant powers that reside there: Russia, China, Turkey, Iran. Not by us.”

Ainsi cette destinée ne concerne pas l’UE, même pas écartée : inexistante ! Quant à la Grande Bretagne elle a soldé son histoire là bas dans les bataillons du Pentagone, sans même une étoile au drapeau. RIP Blair. Et pauvre Chirac, le plus ancien des “grands politiciens de l’Europe”, un maître du “feu nucléaire” : l’UE, la plus grande puissance commerciale totalement éliminée de son propre voisinage, de sa porte vers l’Asie !—- Caucase ou “route de l’Asie” en Persan.

En deuxième point Buchanan a réussi à ne pas parler pétrole ! L’OILygarchie US percutant la GAZPROMarchie ! Le pipeline Georgien vaut bien un gazoduc Ukrainien ! Autant de Dollars ignorés par un américain ? Buchanan n’est pas Texan !

En troisième point cela confirme l’influence de l’OTAN dans l’élargissement de l’UE : ni l’Ukraine, ni le Caucase n’en seront. Influence de l’OTAN d’ailleurs relative car de nombreux états européens n’en sont pas. Comme la France sortie de l’OTAN, un temps, sans quitter le “Marché Commun” ...

En quatrième point : significatif que l’Europe n’y apparaisse qu’en terme d’otage, bien entendu pas otage US, uniquement otage du nain économique Russe—- PIB 765 milliards $ en 2005; PIB UE plus de 10 mille milliards $  et alors que l’Europe est ... 4e producteur pétrolier du monde.
Conclusion : on ne se lasse pas de mesurer cette catastrophe de la conscience européenne, et ses répercussions ... après l’effondrement, un soviétique comme Poutine reste tellement plus important.

Je ne pense pas que les bateaux étatsunien et britanique soient aussi désemparés que cela ; on peut même se convaincre du contraire quand on considère que l’intervention en Irak n’avait d’autre but que la déstabilisation durable de ce pays.
Dans ce cas, les pachas des flottes peuvent bien faire retour au port avec le sentiment du devoir acompli. Le rideau de fumée qu’ils ont établi autour des causes officielles n’a coûté qu’un peu de chair à canon.
Les opinions ne tarderont pas à les remercier de faire amende honorable en faisant cingler les boys vers San Diego et Portsmouth… avant de repartir pour de nouvelles aventures.

France2, dossiers 30/05/2005 L’Europe au fil des crises. ( http://referendum-constitution-europeenne.france2.fr/dossiers/10967808-fr.php )

L’Europe “se fera dans les crises et elle sera la somme des solutions apportées à ces crises”, avait prophétisé Jean Monnet, un des “pères” de la construction européenne.

De la CED à Maastricht
- 30 août 1954: Le projet de Communauté européenne de défense (CED) échoue, la France ne ratifiant pas le traité signé en mai 1952. C’est la première crise européenne. Il faudra attendre les années 90 pour voir l’amorce d’une politique extérieure de sécurité et de défense.
- 14 janvier 1963: Le général de Gaulle met son veto à l’adhésion du Royaume Uni. Il le répètera le 27 novembre 1967 et le Royaume-Uni adhérera en 1973.
- 1er juillet 1965: crise de la “chaise vide”. Rupture des négociations entre la France et les autres pays membres après un affrontement à propos du financement de la politique agricole commune (PAC). Pendant sept mois, la France refusera de siéger dans les instances communautaires.
- 30 novembre 1979: “I want my money back”. Le Premier ministre britannique Margaret Thatcher insiste lors du sommet de Dublin pour obtenir un rabais de la contribution britannique au budget européen. Après près de cinq ans de crise,  “Maggie” obtient une victoire totale le 26 juin 1984 à Fontainebleau (France).

De Maastricht à Nice
- 2 juin 1992: le traité de Maastricht est rejeté par référendum par les Danois. Ils approuveront un deuxième texte en 1993, les exemptant de la participation à l’euro et à la politique de défense commune.
- 17 septembre 1992: Tempête monétaire, la Grande-Bretagne et l’Italie suspendent leur participation au Système monétaire européen (SME).
- 16 mars 1999: Démission collective de la Commission européenne, présidée par le Luxembourgeois Jacques Santer, suite à un rapport accablant dénonçant sa “lourde responsabilité” dans des affaires de fraude.
- Décembre 2000: les Quinze se retrouvent à Nice pour prévoir le fonctionnement des institutions européennes après l’élargissement à 25 le 1er mai 2004. Ils ne parviennent qu’à un accord a minima et extrêmement complexe après quatre jours et quatre nuits de psychodrames.

De Nice à la Constitution
- 8 juin 2001: les Irlandais rejettent à 54% le traité de Nice. Ils l’approuveront par 62% le 19 octobre 2002.
- début 2003: division de l’Europe sur la crise irakienne. Alors que l’Allemagne et la France s’opposent à une intervention américaine, les dirigeants de huit pays (Royaume Uni, Espagne, Italie, Portugal, Danemark,  Pologne, République tchèque, Hongrie) signent une lettre de soutien aux Etats-Unis, bientôt suivis par d’autres pays d’Europe de l’Est.
Lors d’un sommet extraordinaire, Jacques Chirac reprochera aux pays en voie d’adhésion à l’UE d’avoir “manqué une bonne occasion de se taire”.
- 25 nov 2003: Les ministres des Finances de la zone euro ouvrent une crise autour du pacte de stabilité, en suspendant les procédures engagées contre l’Allemagne et la France pour le dérapage de leurs déficits. Les petits Etats reprochent aux “grands” de ne pas se soumettre aux mêmes règles.
- 13 décembre 2003: Les 25 pays membres de la future UE élargie ne parviennent pas à s’entendre à Bruxelles pour doter l’Europe de sa première Constitution, suite à un désaccord sur le système de vote applicable dans l’UE élargie. Le projet de Constitution sera finalement adoptée le 18 juin 2004, sous réserve de ratification par voie référendaire ou parlementaire dans chaque pays (processus en cours jusqu’en 2006).

( NB : l’UE s’est faite à travers des crises, “remplaçant” des siècles de guerre. Ce qui me frappe actuellement c’est la multiplicité des crises de l’UE, le blocage semble général ... US et Russie se disputent et morcellent le plus grand et rentable marché du monde. Chacun y a ses bases. Mais la puissance Russe actuelle est basée sur les cours du pétrole (en baisse) et le Dollar n’est plus bien vaillant, notamment. L’Inde, la Chine et L’Amérique du Sud s’y concurrenceront aussi bientôt.)

October 21, 2006

ISRAEL, PALESTINE, AND CANADA

John Chuckman

Canada’s Thirty-Percent Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, just made a speech at a B’nai Brith banquet. Normally, there would be nothing notable in this, but his words this time reinforced controversial statements he made while Israel savagely bombed Lebanon. He also continued driving an ugly new Republican-style wedge into Canada’s national politics after calling Liberal leadership candidates “anti-Israel.”

Harper said that his government supports a two-state solution in the Middle East. That is the policy of most Western governments, and there was nothing original in Harper’s way of stating it. It was the kind of vague, tepid stuff we might hear from Olmert himself.

“Our government believes in a two-state solution—in a secure democratic and prosperous Israel living beside a viable democratic and peaceful Palestinian state.”

It is interesting to note the lack of symmetry in Harper’s “secure democratic and prosperous Israel” versus “a viable democratic and peaceful” Palestine. I don’t know why prosperity does not count for Palestinians, but as anyone who understands developmental economics knows, prosperity is key to developing modern, democratic institutions. You only get the broad middle-class which makes democracy possible out of healthy growth.

I suspect Harper was signaling, while calling for peace with two states, hardly a stirring theme for a B’nai Brith audience, that he saw no equivalency to the two sides. If not, perhaps he will explain another time what he did mean.

Harper did not define what he means by viable. Palestine, as anyone familiar with the situation knows, cannot be viable as a walled-off set of postage-stamp Bantustans, the only concept of a Palestinian state Israel has ever considered.
 
The key element in Harper’s statement is what he means by democratic and peaceful. Those words are not so self-explanatory as they may first appear. Both these adjectives are regularly twisted in meaning, particularly by the United States. 

Hamas won an honest and open election in Palestine, internationally scrutinized, but the result of that election was rejected by Harper and others, inducing chaos into Palestinian affairs, the very thing Israel’s secret services likely intended when they secretly subsidized Hamas years ago to oppose Fatah. Hamas has not learned the required mantra about recognizing Israel, yet Hamas is no threat to Israel, or plainly Israel’s secret services would never have assisted it in the first place.

Hamas is not well-armed, nor is it, surrounded and penetrated by Israel, in a position to become so. Israel speaks as though not recognizing Israel is an unforgivable defect, but governments often fail to recognize other governments. The United States has a long list of governments it has not recognized in the past and ones it does not recognize now. This is not always a smart thing to do, but it is not a crime, it is not even a faux pas, and it may just be a negotiating point.

Hamas has not invaded Israel, nor has it conducted a campaign of assassinating Israeli leaders - both actions Israel has repeated against Palestinians countless times. Every time some disgruntled individual in Gaza launches a home-made, ineffectual rocket, Israel assassinates members of Hamas or sends its tanks into Gaza, killing civilians. Presumably, a peaceful Palestine would be one either where there were no disgruntled people or where an efficient police-state stopped them all.

This is a preposterous expectation. It simply can never be. With all of Israel’s violent occupations and reprisals, it has never been able to impose absolute peace, not even on its own territory. There have been scores of instances of renegade Israeli settlers shooting innocent Palestinians picking olives or tending sheep, and there have been mass murders of Palestinians a number of times, as at the Dome of the Rock and the Temple Mount. How much less able is any Palestinian authority to enforce absolute peace when Israel allows it pitifully limited resources and freedom of movement?

Realistically, the expectation for absolute peace should be interpreted as a deliberate barrier to a genuine peace settlement. Why would Israel use a barrier to peace when its official statements never fail to mention peace?

Because most leaders of Israel, probably all of them, have never given up the frenzied dream of achieving Greater Israel, a concept which allows for no West Bank and no Palestinians. Not every leader has spoken in public on this subject, but a number have. Other prominent figures in Israel from time to time also have spoken in favor of this destructive goal.

There seems no rational explanation, other than wide support of this goal, for Israel’s persistent refusal to comply with agreements which could have produced peace, the Oslo Accords perhaps being the greatest example. Israel worked overtime to destroy the Oslo Accords, always attributing their failure in public to the very Palestinians who had worked hard to see the Accords born. More extreme Israeli politicians openly rejected the Accords from the start. 

The crescendo statement in Harper’s speech, his voice rising in force and his audience literally rising to its feet, was, “The state of Israel, a democratic nation, was attacked by Hezbollah, a terrorist organization—in fact a terrorist organization listed illegal in this country,” and “When it comes to dealing with a war between Israel and a terrorist organization, this country and this government cannot and will never be neutral.”

Harper’s definition of democracy appears to be the American one: those governments are democratic who agree with American policy. We know America has overthrown many democratic governments in the postwar world, including those in Haiti, Chile, Iran, and Guatemala. Today it threatens a cleanly-elected government in Venezuela and utterly ignores a cleanly-elected government in Palestine.

America shows itself always ready to work with anti-human rights blackguards when it feels important interests are at stake, General Musharraf of Pakistan and some of the dreadful Northern Alliance warlords in Afghanistan being current examples. There were dozens more during the Cold War, including the Romanian Dracula Ceaucescu and the Shah of Iran, put into power by a coup that toppled a democratic government. The American definition of democracy is highly selective at best.

Israel has demonstrated a similar understanding of democracy from the beginning. Israel was ready to help France and Britain invade Suez in the 1950s, an action which represented a last ugly gasp of 19th century colonialism. Israel worked closely for years with apartheid South Africa, even secretly assisting it in developing and testing a nuclear weapon (weapons and facilities were removed by the United States when the ANC took power). Savak, the Shah’s secret police, whose specialty was pulling out people’s finger nails, was trained by American and Israeli agents.

Harper’s statement of total support for Israel in Lebanon is not in keeping with traditional Canadian views and policies. Canadians want balance and fairness. Unqualified support for Israel is tantamount to giving it a free pass to repeat the many savage things it has done, things most Canadians do not support.

Israel has proven, over and over again, it needs the restraining influence of others. Criticizing Israel does not make anyone anti-Israeli. Israel, sadly, has done many shameful things that demand criticism from those who love freedom and human rights, starting with its keeping a giant open-air prison going for forty years.

Harper should know that when Israeli leaders such as Olmert or Sharon speak of two states, they do not mean the same thing that reasonable observers might expect.

They mean a powerless, walled-in rump state in which elections must consistently support Israel’s view of just about everything, a state whose access to the world is effectively controlled by Israel, and a state whose citizens have no claims whatsoever for homes, farms, and other property seized by Israel. The hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers living in the West Bank, living on property taken bit by bit since the Six Day War are there to stay. Palestinians’ property rights to homes and institutions in Jerusalem, from which they are being gradually pushed, are being voided. 

Israel has invaded Lebanon twice with no legitimate justification. It killed many thousands the first time and about 1,600 the last time. It flattened the beautiful city of Beirut the first time and a fair portion of the re-built city last time. It dropped thousands of cluster bombs, the most vicious weapon in the American arsenal, onto civilian areas. In effect, this action created a giant minefield, an illegal act under international treaty, with mines which explode with flesh-mangling bits of razor wire.

The Hezbollah that was Israel’s excuse for invading Lebanon last time never invaded Israel. They launch their relatively ineffective Katysha rockets only when Israeli forces violate the border, which they do with some regularity in secret. Hezbollah’s main function, despite all the rhetoric about terrorists, has been as a guerilla force opposed to Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. Israel has long desired to expand its borders into that region, and there are statements on record to that effect, another aspect of Greater Israel. Israel occupied southern Lebanon for many years after its first invasion, and still held on to an enclave after its withdrawal. 

Democratic values are not just about holding elections now and then. Otherwise, apartheid South Africa would have deserved our support. So would Northern Ireland when it repressed Catholics for decades. So, in fact, would the former American Confederacy. These states all had elections but only some people could vote, and other people were treated horribly.

Democratic values must reflect respect for human rights, which apply to all, something about which Israel has been particularly blind. There are no rights for Palestinians. Indeed, Israel has no Bill or Charter of Rights even for its own citizens because of the near impossibility of defining rights in a state characterized by so many restrictions and theocratic principles.

The relatively small number of Arabic people given Israeli citizenship, roughly 19% of the population, descended from 150,000 who remained in Israel after 1948, mainly those who were not intimidated by early Israeli terror groups like Irgun and the Stern Gang into running away or who simply could not escape. Despite subsidized immigration to Israel, accounting for the bulk of Jewish population growth, Israeli Arabs have managed roughly to keep their fraction of the population through high birth rates. They are, however, under constant pressure, often being treated as less than equal citizens. On many occasions, prominent Israelis have called for their removal. 

According to a recent study of Jewish Israeli attitudes, 41 percent think Arab citizens should be encouraged by the government to leave Israel, and 40 percent want segregated public facilities for Arabs. The survey also found 68 percent of Israeli Jews would not live in an apartment building with Arabs, and 46 percent would not let Arabs visit their homes.

Harper’s dichotomy between democracy and terror, the crescendo subject of his speech, is simply nonsense. It mimics Bush’s garbled words about terrorists versus American freedoms or everyone’s being with us or against us. Israel is not so admirable a democracy nor is Hezbollah so terrible a group as he would have us believe.

En Mai dernier, dans le GlobalEurope Anticipation Bulletin N°5, LEAP/E2020 avait détaillé les quatre phases de la crise systémique globale, indiquant que la phase dite d’ « accélération » commencerait en Juin et s’étalerait sur une période de six mois maximum, moment où commencerait la phase explosive de la crise, dite « phase d’impact ».

... la phase d’impact va débuter courant Novembre 2006 et que le facteur catalyseur de ce changement de phase sera les élections de mi-mandat au Congrès des Etats-Unis qui se trouvent être le point nodal des principales lignes de fracture de l’actuel système global.

La phase d’accélération a consisté en la prise de conscience généralisée que le système global que nous connaissons depuis plusieurs décennies était en train de changer profondément et durablement comme l’illustrent les tendances suivantes désormais reconnues largement sur toute la planète [2]: aggravation des crises sur le nucléaire avec la Corée et l’Iran, impuissance générale des Etats-Unis sur toutes les crises majeures de ces derniers mois, y compris le conflit israélo-palestinien [3], guerre civile en Irak et enlisement américain dans ce pays au moins jusqu’en 2010 [4], sentiment croissant d’une défaite occidentale en cours en Afghanistan [5], effondrement de l’immobilier aux Etats-Unis [6], volatilité croissante du système des « hedge funds » [7], entrée en récession de l’économie US [8], aggravation des déficits commerciaux et des paiements américains [9], affaiblissement continu du Dollar [10], endettement croissant des ménages américains [11].

La phase d’impact qui succède à la phase d’accélération se caractérise quant à elle par le déclenchement d’une série de crises brutales affectant par contagion tout le système global. Cette phase explosive de la crise, qui durera de six mois à un an, affectera directement et très fortement les opérateurs et les marchés financiers, les possesseurs d’actifs à revenus fixes en dollars, les fonds de pensions et les relations stratégiques entre les Etats-Unis d’une part, et l’Europe et l’Asie.

Selon les analyses de LEAP/E2020, son impact sera beaucoup plus fort dans le secteur financier que ce que les prévisions laissaient penser au premier semestre 2006, car la mobilisation de ce même secteur aux Etats-Unis (et de ses relais de communication) pour préserver le contrôle du Parti Républicain sur le Congrès américain, a conduit à « euphoriser » l’opinion publique américaine et l’immense majorité des acteurs de ce secteur, afin que les dirigeants de ce même parti puisse prétendre à un bon bilan économique (seul thème de campagne à leur disposition depuis l’été 2006) [12]. Cette utilisation de tout un pan du système global à des fins électorales internes aux Etats-Unis a donc empêché la plupart des acteurs d’anticiper correctement les ruptures à venir et, va de ce fait, accroître considérablement le potentiel explosif de la phase d’impact dans ce secteur puisque les opérateurs y seront pris « à contre-pied ».

Au cœur de cette opération d’ « euphorisation » de l’électeur américain, on trouve en particulier la banque d’affaires Goldman Sachs. Cette dernière, dont l’ancien président, Henry Paulson est l’actuel ministre des finances américain, est ainsi à l’origine de la décision technique qui a provoqué artificiellement la chute des cours du pétrole ces dernières semaines, à savoir la modification de la part de l’essence dans la composition de son index GSCI (Goldman Sachs Commodity Index) qui fait référence sur le marché des matières premières de Chicago, et a conduit, en Août et Septembre 2006, les traders a devoir brutalement vendre 100 milliards de dollars US de « futures » pétroliers ...( http://www.europe2020.org/fr/section_global/161006.html )

The age of terror :
http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk10092006.html

Confronting Turkey’s Armenian Genocide :
http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk10162006.html

En attendant d’avoir touché le fond…