Forum

Hello, I’m leading a sociological survey.
What do you think about Iranian nuclear program?

EU ministers meeting tackles fate of Turkey talks
11.12.2006 - 09:22 CET | By Mark Beunderman

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - EU foreign ministers are meeting in Brussels today for key discussions on the fate of Turkey’s EU membership talks.

They will try and reach a deal on which parts of the talks should be frozen after a last-minute Turkish gesture on Cyprus failed to gain support over the weekend.

The gesture made by Ankara on Thursday to open one port to trade from EU member state Cyprus - which would be a first step in meeting a key EU customs requirement - is unlikely to be seen by most ministers as enough of a concession by Ankara.

Finnish prime minister Matti Vanhanen, whose country holds the EU presidency, said on Friday “What Turkey has said is not enough ...Turkey has not fulfilled its commitments which is why we are now in the position where we have to make conclusions,’’ with Finnish officials indicating that a European Commission proposal to suspend the opening of eight chapters of Turkey’s 35-strong EU negotiations book remains on the table.

Cypriot foreign minister Yiorgos Lillikas said that “the move made ... by Turkey is an act designed to impress and we have been expecting it. It constitutes mockery towards the European Union, since it lacks serious content.”

His comments echoed similar remarks by his Greek counterpart Dora Bakoyannis who said Ankara’s move “obviously serves PR needs,” according to Athens news agency.

Although some EU capitals reacted more positively to Ankara’s eleventh-hour initiative, its strong rejection by others means that discussions are likely to re-focus on the commission’s proposal to sanction Turkey for not fully implementing the so-called Ankara protocol, which prohibits blocking trade from EU member states.

The UK, Sweden and Spain lead the camp of member states which believe the commission-proposed sanctions too hard, while Cyprus, Greece and Austria want more chapters frozen while also pushing for a “review clause” - a new deadline on Turkey to meet the Ankara protocol.

A “review clause” was earlier this month proposed but later withdrawn by German chancellor Angela Merkel, with German media reporting over the weekend that the German ruling coalition is internally strongly divided over the Turkey talks.

German papers also see divisions within the European Commission, with trade commissioner Peter Mandelson in a Sunday interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung strongly welcoming Ankara’s last-minute ports offer, while enlargement chief Olli Rehn stressed that the commission proposal to suspend eight chapters remains valid.

The Turkey issue is seen as so sensitive that many EU diplomats expect no agreement to be reached by ministers on Monday, which means the topic will dominate an EU leaders’ summit on Thursday and Friday.

Meanwhile, foreign ministers will also prepare their leaders’ conclusions on the EU’s general enlargement strategy - also encompassing the Western Balkans - with discussions set to focus on the capacity of the union to welcome new members.

Ministers’ talks on external relations will cover the Balkans, Afghanistan, the Middle East peace process, Iran, the control of arms exports and the EU’s arms embargo on China.

http://euobserver.com/9/23068/?rk=1
——
EU holds to tough line over Turkey talks
By Daniel Dombey in Brussels and Vincent Boland in Ankara

Published: December 10 2006 19:01 | Last updated: December 10 2006 19:01

Turkey’s efforts to negotiate its way out of a crisis with the European Union were rebuffed on Sunday when EU officials declared that actions, not words, were needed to keep Ankara’s membership talks from being largely put on hold.

EU officials said Turkey needed to carry out an immediate, dramatic step, such as opening a port to Cypriot ships – and that even such a move might not be enough.

“The burden of proof is on the Turkish side,” said Olli Rehn, EU enlargement commissioner, ahead of a key meeting on Monday of EU foreign ministers that was likely to be dominated by the issue of Turkey.

“If Turkey opens one major seaport as a goodwill gesture, it is a step towards full implementation [of its commitments],” he said.

Although Cyprus is a member of the EU, it is not diplomatically recognised by Turkey and Ankara does not permit Cypriot ships and ­aircraft to use its ports and airports.

The bloc’s tough line could anger and disappoint the Turkish government, which has been criticised at home for a compromise initiative last week that envisaged opening a port as part of a package.

At the weekend, the office of President Ahmet Necdet Sezer said that, in an apparent breach of protocol on sensitive foreign policy issues, he had not been informed that the government was preparing to make the offer. The army has also complained.

European Commission officials had earlier sought to persuade Turkey not to come up with a last-minute initiative, out of fear that failure could intensify bad feeling on both sides.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/8679547c-887e-11db-b485-0000779e2340,dwp_uuid=70662e7c-3027-11da-ba9f-00000e2511c8.html
—-

“To do something temporary and partial at this late stage is simply not enough,” said a French official. He added that under proposals to be considered by foreign ministers on Monday, a decision to suspend part of the negotiations could be reversed at any stage. The proposal also avoids setting Turkey a new deadline to comply with the EU’s demands.

But diplomats said the row within Turkey sparked by the offer would hinder any further progress domestically on the issue as the country heads into a general election next year.

The EU draft also contains trenchant criticism of Turkey, noting that “further efforts are required to strengthen freedom of expression, freedom of religion, women’s rights, minority rights, trade union rights and civilian control of the military”.

Finland, the current presidency of the EU, is highly likely to ask foreign ministers to back the Commission’s recommendation to freeze the membership process on eight out of 35 negotiating “chapters” and rule out closing negotiations on any individual topics.

This issue is still dividing the EU. The UK believes that six to eight countries back its call to soften the measures on Turkey. But Cyprus, Austria and Greece are still holding out for tougher steps.

“The Commission recommendation is still the basis for the presidency proposal,” said a Finnish official. “We don’t expect to change that before Monday’s meeting.”

EU officials say they do not know whether the foreign ministers will be able to resolve the dispute today or whether it will be referred to a summit later in the week.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/8679547c-887e-11db-b485-0000779e2340,dwp_uuid=70662e7c-3027-11da-ba9f-00000e2511c8.html
—-

Il est évident que c’est cette branche européenne,
anglaise et puritaine au départ, qui se décompose
depuis la fin du XXème siècle..
La sécession d’avec le régime anglais, à la fin du XVIIIème siècle, n’était pas une révolution. L’ordre social n’était pas menacé.Avec une fortune basée au départ sur l’esclavagisme, ces gens n’ont jamais cessé de jouer aux vertueux tartuffes, tout en pratiquant un culte de l’ego devenu monstrueux.

Le développement de la technique n’est pas un obstacle à une vie spirituelle, mais à deux conditions : d’abord il faut retrouver le sens de la solidarité avec l’ensemble de l’humanité; ensuite,il est essentiel d’anéantir le culte du Veau d’Or, qui se cache derrière les monothéismes qui dominent l’Ouest,et qui s’étend dangereusement vers l’Est.
Félicitations pour votre article, mais restez optimiste, Monsieur Grasset.

... Wii : la dernière des consoles de jeux vidéo de Nintendo fait un tabac ... 600 000 en une semaine aux Etats-Unis, 400 000 en vingt-quatre heures au Japon… En France, 90 000 ont été prévendues. Quatre millions seraient mises sur le marché mondial d’ici à la fin de l’année ...

En clair : la Wii permet de jouer dans son salon au tennis, au golf, au bowling, à la boxe, à l’escrime… en mimant les gestes adéquats ...

Essayons de décrypter le sens caché de ce nouvel engouement. Avec la Wii, l’individu gagne en apparente liberté. De mouvement, s’entend ... Il se coupe du monde, du toucher et de la chaleur de ses congénères. Libéré des énervements frénétiques des pouces sur les traditionnelles manettes de jeu (joysticks), il est plus présent à soi. Ce faisant, il entre, physiquement si l’on peut dire, dans le virtuel. ( NB : merveilleux)

Ce n’est pas rien, cela, de rentrer dans le virtuel. A l’expérimentation, Nintendo s’est vu contraint de rajouter une dragonne au poignet de sa télécommande : car, tout absorbés par leur jeu, des joueurs finissaient par lancer par inadvertance leur Wii provoquant un soudain (et probablement désagréable) retour au réel.
Fin de jouissance. Une quasi-débandade ludique.

Ainsi le joueur de Wii faisant ses gammes au royaume du virtuel, peut manifestement être tout à ses sensations. Cela semble être une particularité de l’homme contemporain que d’être tout à ses sensations.

Comme le remarquaient Dany-Robert Dufour, philosophe, et Patrick Berthier, chercheur en sciences de l’éducation, dans la revue Le Débat en 2003, les lois du marché l’y poussent, qui écartent de son univers ce qui n’a pas valeur marchande : les liens, les attachements, les sentiments.

Dans un monde où le consommateur est roi, le marché agit en stimulateur permanent de sensations pour développer la consommation et parvenir à disposer “d’individus, définis par rien d’autre que des besoins de consommation toujours élargis”.

La sociologue Claudine Haroche s’interroge de même : “Sentir ne tendrait-il pas maintenant à se confondre avec la seule sensation ?” Car les sentiments n’ont plus la cote. Ils impliquent trop la durée. Alors nous zappons. Tout semble se jouer comme si les formes extrémistes de l’individualisme vers lesquelles paraît tendre la société mondialisée allaient de pair avec le déclin de nos capacités de sentir. Ce n’est pas seul avec sa Wii a priori qu’on fera des rencontres. Mais c’est avec elle qu’on aura des sensations. Et donc accès à l’excès, au trop, au trop-plein, à l’encore plus fort.

... “Pourquoi c’est bien la Wii ? Ben, papa, parce que c’est trop !” ( LE MONDE 09.12.06 La Wii fait sensation, par Jean-Michel Dumay http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3232,36-843768,0.html  )

First Report - Defence Procurement 2006
(Source: House of Commons Defence Committee; issued Dec. 8, 2006)
(Excerpt from body of report)
Procurement and MoD officials have made considerable efforts to ensure that the United States are fully aware of the information required by the UK on the Joint Strike Fighter to allow the aircraft to be operated independently. However, it is still uncertain whether the United States is prepared to provide the required information. 
If the UK does not obtain the assurances it needs from the United States, then it should not sign the Memorandum of Understanding covering production, sustainment and follow-on development. Such an impasse on a procurement programme of such strategic importance to the UK would be a serious blow to UK-US defence equipment co-operation, which has hitherto been of such positive benefit to both our nations. 
If the required assurances are not obtained by the end of the year, we recommend that the MoD switch the majority of its effort and funding on the programme into developing a fallback ‘Plan B’, so that an alternative aircraft is available in case the UK has to withdraw from the Joint Strike Fighter programme. 
We must not get into a situation where there are no aircraft to operate from the two new aircraft carriers when they enter service. (Paragraph 64) 
17. We are concerned to hear that possible changes to the early production of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft programme could lead to an increase in the price for each aircraft. We look to the MoD to monitor this situation very closely and keep us informed of developments. (Paragraph 65). (ends) 

La savez-vous?
L’officier de tir sur les sous-marins britanniques est un officier américain.
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha !
De qui Tony se moque-t-il ?
De tout le monde, même de G.W. (c’est facile!)
Le cynisme politique n’a plus de limites!

Que les vestales faussement effarouchées se préparent à crier dans les gazettes.

La réponse est : 1789. 1789 en tant qu’aboutissement de la volonté d’insoumission à Rome.

Errare humanum est. Et la suite.

Clivage

Ce que vous décrivez me convient. Dans la volonté de pousser plus loin les feux de la guerre contre l’Iran, on retrouve l’expression d’une puissance, celle des USA, conçue comme infinie, héritière du “dieu des juifs et des chrétiens” comme dirait Pascal (les hommes de la modernité participent à la puissance du Dieu créateur, et ce, par leurs machines, leurs Etats, dixit le jeune Hegel 1803, Iéna), puissance dont la métaphore “réalisée” est celle des bombes thermonucléaires.

On retrouve aussi le diagnostic de Nietzsche à propos du “nihilisme européen”, ce mélange de jouissance destructrice (Schadenfreude) et de crétinerie cosmique, avec cette touche incomparable anglo-saxonne et israélienne d’aller au devant des pires catastrophes, dans la certitude radicale de détenir toutes les vérités, celles de l’empire du bien.

Un dernier ingrédient vient épicer ce ragoût funeste, les illusions d’une conscience clivée. Cette psyché malade veut terroriser l’adversaire, l’anéantir dans les feux du Dieu monothéiste et par ailleurs elle se veut humaniste, cette belle âme. Elle parachute des OGM aux paysans afghans et pleurniche devant la dureté et l’incompréhension des « sous-hommes » comme dirait Georges Frèche.

Bref ! Je suis partant pour le pari pascalien, « Que Dieu existe ou n’existe pas, la seule probabilité de son existence suffit à me mettre à genou pour le prier, au cas où il existerait ». Pascal a raison : le grand Dieu sabaoth existe à l’évidence et nous allons voir sûrement le feu du ciel tomber sur les « minables ». Nous avons de beaux jours devant nous.
Léon Chibolet, le 7.12.06

Effectivement, tout a commencé quand les américains ont envahi l’Iraq! Lapalissade! :-)
Pour moi, c’est le sac de Bagdad, de ses universités et de son musée, qui a révélé ce que deviendrait l’Iraq de l’aprés-invasion. Un “peuple” pille, vole, saccage “son” passé historique, les créations de “sa” culture, les instruments de “son” avenir, et l’occupant, puissance “civilisée” laisse faire.
Peut-on parler d’un “peuple”, d’une “nation”? Dans le cadre de toutes les guerres que l’Europe a connu, je n’ai pas connaissance d’un évènement similaire. Même sous la révolution française, Versailles n’a pas été pillé. Les biens appartenant au roi ayant été vendus au profit de la République. Une nation ne se pille pas elle même. Un pays crée artificiellement, si.
Le sac de Bagdad a exposé l’état réel de l’Iraq: Des communautés n’ayant rien en commun, réunies dans un état factice.
La politique de l’occupant consistant a protéger le ministère du pétrole et dévoilant son impréparation totale devant les autres pillages indiquait clairement pour sa part la voie que suivraient les Etat-Unis.
Dès-lors, le tableau était brossé: Des factions indigènes poursuivant chacunes des buts antagonistes et un occupant en visant d’autres.

Defence Committee to Inquire Into the White Paper on the Future of the UK’s Nuclear Deterrent
 
(Source: House of Commons Defence Committee; issued Dec. 6, 2006)
 
 
The Defence Committee welcomes the publication of the Government’s White Paper on the future of the UK’s nuclear deterrent. And it looks forward to a robust and thorough Parliamentary and public debate over the coming months.  
 
With the intention of informing that debate, the Defence Committee has today launched its third-stage inquiry into the future of the UK’s strategic nuclear deterrent, focusing specifically on the Government’s White Paper.  
 
This inquiry will consider the arguments put forward by the Government for the retention and renewal of the UK’s current Trident system and will analyse the White Paper’s assessment of the role of nuclear deterrence in the 21st Century. It will also examine the Government’s analysis of deterrent options, solutions and costs and will consider the respective merits of land-based, air-based, ship-based and submarine based options. And it will consider the international treaty implications of the Government’s decision to retain and renew the deterrent and the possible impact of the decision on the UK’s non-proliferation efforts.  
 
The Committee intends to publish its conclusions before the House of Commons debates the future of the nuclear deterrent in March.  
 
The Committee would welcome written evidence on these matters. This should be sent to the Clerk of the Defence Committee by Thursday 18 January 2007.  

J’ai besoin de précisions concernant l’“indépendance” nucléaire britanique et les “Tridents”.
Il est convenu que les “Tridents” sont des produit américains achetés par la GB pour en équiper ses sous-marins stratégiques. Ces “Tridents” sont constitués de deux parties: La tête nucléaire et le lanceur.
Question: Le lanceur est-il 100% américain? Cette question sous-entend la suivante, si oui, pourquoi? La GB n’est-elle capable ou non de le construire?
Autre question concernant le lanceur. Le lanceur a deux fonctions: La propulsion et le guidage. Si la propulsion n’est “que” affaire de carburant, le guidage, par contre, est l’“essence” du missile, sa raison d’être. Les britaniques sont-ils maîtres du guidage de leurs missiles? Plus précisément formulé, les britaniques peuvent-ils diriger leurs missiles sur les Etat-Unis si nécessaire? L’âpreté de la bataille concernant les codes du JSF semble indiquer que c’est la première fois que le problème de la liberté d’utilisation d’un matériel militaire stratégique “made in US” se pose. Si ce n’était pas le cas, il y aurait déjà des lignes de discussion et des protocoles d’entente éprouvés, qu’il suffirait de suivre et d’appliquer.
Concernant la charge nucléaire, je réitére les termes de ma première question.

Bien sur, je n’attend pas de réponse à mes questions, juste un échange de pensées. La GB est-elle une puissance nucléaire militaire au même titre que la Chine, l’Inde ou le Pakistan;  ou n’est-elle qu’un “allié-vassal” des Etats-Unis.

... Sen. Robert Byrd ... asked if he favored attacking Iran ... Gates plunged right in and said, basically, no. “We have seen in Iraq,” Gates replied, “that once war is unleashed, it becomes unpredictable.” The Iranians couldn’t retaliate with a direct attack on the United States, he said, but they could close off the Persian Gulf to oil exports, send much more aid to anti-American insurgents in Iraq, and step up terrorist attacks worldwide.

Byrd then asked about attacking Syria. “The Syrians’ capacity to do harm to us is far more limited,” Gates said, but an attack on Syria “would give rise to a significantly greater anti-Americanism” and “increasingly complicate our relationship with every country in the region.”

... When he was asked if invading Iraq was a good idea in retrospect, he paused, then said, “That’s a judgment the historians are going to have to make.”

When Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the panel’s senior Democrat, asked if the United States was winning the war in Iraq, he said, “No, sir.” Later, when James Inhofe, R-Okla., asked if he agreed that we weren’t losing the war either, Gates replied, “Yes,” but added, “at this point.”

... In short, Gates may well be that entity that Washington has not seen for many years: a truly independent secretary of defense.
“I don’t owe anybody anything,” Gates told Sen. Edward Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat, when asked whether he’d be loyal to truth or to power.

... Gates noted that 2,889 Americans had died in Iraq “as of yesterday morning”—a sharp contrast (and, no doubt, an intentional one) to the time when then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz ... did not know how many of his fellow citizens had been killed in the war that he helped put in motion.

... In other words, he was telling the panel: “Anoint me, for I am the anti-Rumsfeld.”

...But the main question, at this point, isn’t about Gates; it’s about Bush. For the past six years, there has been a tendency to blame this administration’s colossal mistakes on Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney, but several former officials have told me that, on many occasions, Bush really has been “the decider.” Soon, Rumsfeld will be gone. Cheney will be isolated. We may find out what George W. Bush really thinks… ( Fred Kaplan, http://www.slate.com/id/2154941/nav/tap1/ )

Merci pour ce beau texte. Mille merci.

Future of the Nuclear Deterrent
(Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued Dec. 5, 2006)
 
 
There has been blanket reporting of yesterday’s Government announcement of plans for the future of the UK nuclear deterrent. The MOD would like to clarify a number of points made in media reports: 
MYTH – The decision to maintain our nuclear deterrent beyond the 2020s does not need to be made yet. 
Even with their lives extended our Vanguard Class submarines must leave service in the early 2020s, and experience has taught us it will take around 17 years to develop new submarines. Unless we start work now we risk leaving a dangerous gap in our continuous deterrence. 
MYTH – The UK’s nuclear deterrent cannot be fired without permission from the United States of America. 
Our deterrent is and always will be fully operationally independently. Only the Prime Minister can authorise the use of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, even if the missiles are to be fired as part of a NATO response. Any instruction to fire would be transmitted to the Trident submarine using entirely UK codes and UK equipment. All the command and control procedures are totally independent. In short, decision-making and use of the system remains entirely and properly sovereign to the UK. 
MYTH – Maintaining the UK’s deterrent breaches the Non Proliferation Treaty. 
The UK is a recognised Nuclear weapons state and it is entirely lawful for us to possess nuclear weapons. The treaty does not establish a timetable for disarmament, nor does it prohibit maintenance or renewal of existing capabilities. We are committed to working towards a safer world in which there is no need for nuclear weapons and work towards total elimination if our nuclear weapons along with all others. 

Tony Blair has argued that Britain needs to buy a new generation of nuclear weapons because it might not be able to rely on the United States to protect it if it were attacked.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2040163.ece