Forum

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/082806PALAST.shtml

New Orleans ... Katrina killed no one in this town. In fact, Katrina missed the city completely, going wide to the east. ( *** )

It wasn’t the hurricane that drowned, suffocated, de-hydrated and starved 1,500 people that week. The killing was done by a deadly duo: a failed emergency evacuation plan combined with faulty levees.

... Van Heerden isn’t the typical whistleblower I usually deal with. This is no minor player. He’s the Deputy Director of the Louisiana State University Hurricane Center. ( LSU )

... Funny thing about the murderously failed plan for the evacuation of New Orleans: no one can find it ( *** ) ... you have to have copies of it. Lots of copies—in fire houses and in hospitals and ... Secret evacuation plans don’t work.

... Apparently, the IEM/FEMA crew didn’t know that 127,000 people in the city didn’t have cars. But Dr. van Heerden knew that. It was his calculation. LSU knew where these no-car people were—they mapped it—and how to get them out.

Dr. van Heerden offered this life-saving info to FEMA. They wouldn’t touch it. Then, a state official told him to shut up, back off or there would be consequences for van Heerden’s position. This official now works for IEM.

... Van Heerden is supposed to keep his mouth shut. He won’t. The deaths weigh on him. “I wasn’t going to listen to those sort of threats, to let them shut me down.”

... Back at LSU, van Heerden astonished me with the most serious charge of all. While showing me huge maps of the flooding, he told me the White House had withheld the information that, in fact, the levees were about to burst and by Tuesday at dawn the city, and more than a thousand people, would drown.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/08/31/blinded_by_a_concept/

THE FAILURE OF Israel to subdue Hezbollah demonstrates the many weaknesses of the war-on-terror concept.

One of those weaknesses is that ... the victims are often innocent civilians, and their suffering reinforces the terrorist cause. ...

Another weakness ... is that it relies on military action and rules out political approaches ... it separates ``us” from ``them” and denies that our actions help shape their behavior.

A third weakness is that the war-on-terror concept ...  fails to distinguish among Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, or the Sunni insurrection and the Mahdi militia in Iraq. Yet all these terrorist manifestations, being different, require different responses.

... Looking back, it is easy to see where Israeli policy went wrong. When Mahmoud Abbas was elected president of the Palestinian Authority, Israel should have gone out of its way to strengthen him and his reformist team. ... Nevertheless, Abbas was able to forge an agreement ... It was to foil this agreement that the military branch of Hamas, run from Damascus, engaged in the provocation that brought a heavy-handed response from Israel—which in turn incited Hezbollah to further provocation, opening a second front. That is how extremists play off against each other to destroy any chance of political progress.

Israel has been a participant in this game, and President Bush bought into this flawed policy, uncritically supporting Israel. Events have shown that this policy leads to the escalation of violence.  The process has advanced to the point where Israel’s unquestioned military superiority is no longer sufficient to overcome the negative consequences of its policy.

Israel is now more endangered in its existence than it was at the time of the Oslo Agreement on peace. Similarly, the United States has become less safe since Bush declared war on terror ...

... There are strong voices arguing that Israel must never negotiate from a position of weakness. They are wrong. Israel’s position is liable to become weaker the longer it persists on its present course.

... Given how strong the US-Israeli relationship is, it would help Israel to achieve its own legitimate aims if the US government were not blinded by the war-on-terror concept.

U.S. military leaders in Baghdad have put out for bid a two-year, $20 million public relations contract that calls for extensive monitoring of U.S. and Middle Eastern media in an effort to promote more positive coverage of news from Iraq.

The contract calls for assembling a database of selected news stories and assessing their tone ...etc… “to help the coalition forces understand “the communications environment.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/30/AR2006083003011_pf.html

L’article de Ria-Novosti in French :
http://fr.rian.ru/world/20060331/45051921.html

Rumsfeld Assails Critics of War Policy
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 30, 2006; A06

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned yesterday that “moral and intellectual confusion” over the Iraq war and the broader anti-terrorism effort could sap American willpower and divide the country, and he urged renewed resolve to confront extremists waging “a new type of fascism.”

Drawing parallels to efforts by some nations to appease Adolf Hitler before World War II, Rumsfeld said it would be “folly” for the United States to ignore the rising dangers posed by a new enemy that he called “serious, lethal and relentless.”

In a pointed attack on the news media and critics of President Bush’s war and national security policies, Rumsfeld declared: “Any kind of moral and intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can severely weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.”

Rumsfeld spoke at the American Legion’s national convention in Salt Lake City as part of a coordinated defense of Bush leading up to the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Reviving images of the president’s response to the strike on the World Trade Center in New York, Rumsfeld said, “He remains the same man who stood atop the rubble of Lower Manhattan, with a bullhorn, vowing to fight back.”

With polls showing that a majority of Americans believe it was a mistake for the United States to invade Iraq and with many Democrats calling for a deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops, Rumsfeld called the Iraq war the “epicenter” of the struggle against terrorism. Last week, Bush said that setting a timetable for a troop withdrawal would embolden the enemy and cause chaos in Iraq and throughout the region.

Congressional Democrats angrily responded to Rumsfeld’s remarks. “There is no confusion among military experts, bipartisan members of Congress and the overwhelming majority of the American people about the need to change course in Iraq,” said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). “The only person confused about how to best protect this country is Don Rumsfeld, which is why he must go.”
Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he took exception to what he considered the implication that critics of the administration’s military policies are unpatriotic. He noted that there are “scores of patriotic Americans of both parties who are highly critical” of Rumsfeld’s handling of the Defense Department.

Rumsfeld obliquely acknowledged mistakes and setbacks in Iraq, quoting the French statesman Georges Clemenceau as calling all wars “a series of catastrophes that results in victory.” Moreover, in a reference to recent charges of war crimes against U.S. troops in Iraq, Rumsfeld said that “in every army, there are occasionally bad actors—the ones who dominate the headlines today—who don’t live up to the standards of their oath and of our country.”

Rumsfeld stressed that it is misguided for Americans to fall into self-blame and to “return to the destructive view that America—not the enemy—is the real source of the world’s trouble.” He blamed the U.S. media for spreading “myths and distortions . . . about our troops and about our country.”

He said a database search of U.S. newspapers produced 10 times as many mentions of a soldier punished for misconduct at Abu Ghraib prison than of Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith, a Medal of Honor recipient.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, addressing the same audience later, sounded similar themes. “The dream of some, that we could avoid this conflict, that we did not have to take sides in this battle in the Middle East, that dream was demolished on September the 11th,” Rice said.
Rice said in a radio interview that “we cannot fall prey to pessimism about how this will all come out,” adding that “the really devastating problem for the world would be if America loses its will.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/29/AR2006082900585_pf.html
—-

William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
From washingtonpost

Rumsfeld’s Enemy: It’s Us

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld delivered a fire-and-brimstone speech at the American Legion’s annual convention yesterday (http://www.defenselink.mil/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=1033)—after acknowledging young soldiers serving in Iraq and giving the boy scouts a shout-out, the secretary wove an elaborate picture of an enemy made up of terrorists, morally misguided Westerners, disagreeable military strategists, and a cynical news media.

Rumsfeld stated there could be no appeasing the enemy and any “any moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.”

The “who” Rumsfeld is talking about is himself.
Rumsfeld is the “who” that is right, and everyone who disagrees is not only wrong, but a danger to freedom.

Within minutes of the conclusion of Rumsfeld’s speech yesterday, I received an e-mail from Thayer C. Scott, the secretary’s speechwriter, serving up talking points.

The Defense Department then took the unusual step, usually reserved for its broadsides against Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker, of issuing a statement saying that the Associated Press coverage of Rumsfeld’s Salt Lake City remarks mischaracterized them.

Either Rumsfeld has delivered one of the most important speeches of the modern era, or he’s gone crazy.

I think the latter, not just because I think the secretary is wrong on his intellectual characterization of terrorism, and not just because he is wrong about the media and its intentions, and not because he is so pugnacious, or because he has been wrong so many times before. 

Rumsfeld is so wrong about America.  His use of World War I history and the specter of fascism and appeasement, and his argument about moral weakness or even treason in any who oppose him, is not only polarizing but ineffective in provoking debate and discussion about the proper course this country must take to “fight” terrorism.

This is not the first time that Rumsfeld has shown himself to be so out of touch, so contemptuous of America.  Rumsfeld as secretary of defense has displayed a contempt from long before 9/11 for anyone who disagrees with him, particularly in his initial wars against those in the uniformed military. 

Moreover, Rumsfeld’s declaration of war yesterday follows from his basic view that the Defense Department has to do it all: He has created an intelligence bureaucracy because he is distrustful and contemptuous of the CIA and all others.  He has built up a secret army and covert capabilities in special operations forces because he wants to control and to rely only upon his own warriors.  He has created a homeland security apparatus that looks over the shoulder of the Department of Homeland Security and is the ultimate arbiter of security.  He has created his own FBI in the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), and fought to ensure that the NSA stays under Pentagon control.  He has created his own law and his own human rights policy.  He has subverted Congress through unexamined supplemental budgets and super-secret programs.
Even as a military strategist, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld pushed a losing strategy in Afghanistan.  This is not just because he went to war with an initially small force.  After all, the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda began just weeks after 9/11 and that was what could be mobilized in that short period. The tragic error was that Rumsfeld continued to think that the terrorist threat existed in the form of a small army to be routed by his fabulous “transformed” warriors. 

It is Rumsfeld who declared “mission accomplished” long before President Bush stepped on to the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln.  Rumsfeld has been wrong in fighting and too quick to declare victory thereafter.

Rumsfeld declared victory in Afghanistan, in addition, because he was twitching to move on to the next enemy, and the next and the next.  But even when the weaknesses and problems became apparent about how the Afghanistan war had been fought, Rumsfeld still pushed an identical military strategy in Iraq, brushing aside any criticism as naïve and appeasing and out of touch with the new gathering storm of weapons of mass destruction.

And even as Iraq has become one of the biggest hornets’ nests in history, the secretary has convinced himself over and over that progress is being made and victory is just around the corner.  America, Rumsfeld says, is not to blame, conflating a just war with a preemptive American strike.  America is not to blame and therefore Rumsfeld is not to blame: no missteps, no errors of judgment.  The secretary just wants his soldiers to believe now that he anticipated all along that the enemy was totalitarian and fascist and that Iraq was part of the big plan.
If I were the conspiratorial type, I’d say Rumsfeld was a particular menace to America because in his view of a monolithic and totalitarian terrorist enemy, and in his analysis of the weakness of American society, he can only come to the messianic conclusion that he indeed needs to takeover the country in order to save it.  And this might even be worth speculating about were it the case that Rumsfeld reflected the views of those in the military leadership, or were it the case that Rumsfeld could actually engineer such a coup.

But alas, the secretary would get the intelligence wrong, employ too few troops and send tank columns on thunder runs through Manhattan and Hollywood, prematurely declaring victory and then being befuddled about the American desire to recover and preserve its way of life, which is not the Rumsfeld way.
“Can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America—not the enemy—is the real source of the world’s troubles?,” Rumsfeld asked yesterday.

This has got an easy answer: World troubles?  Rumsfeld is the source of troubles much closer to home.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/08/rumsfelds_declaration_of_war_o.html#more
By William M. Arkin |  August 30, 2006; 8:01 AM ET

Autant que je me souvienne il y a une espece de chauve-souris en voiie de disparition dans ces caves de l Indiana.

Le DOD avait deja eu des problemes concernant l utilisation du refuge de ces bebetes.

Esperons que cette espece en voie de disparition evitera les essais prevus par les (nouveaux) apprentis-sorciers et que l autre espece - bipede - aussi en voie de disparition reprendra ses esprits…..

US moots Cyprus plan to avert EU-Turkey clash
31.08.2006 - 09:26 CET | By Mark Beunderman

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The US is engaged in diplomatic efforts to avert a major crisis in Turkey’s EU accession talks over the Cyprus issue, proposing that the UN supervises trade with northern Cyprus in return for Turkey fulfilling its EU customs obligations.

Sources familiar with the issue confirmed reports circulating in the Cypriot press last week that Washington is proposing a trade-off deal which could remove a key obstacle to Turkey’s ongoing entry negotiations with the EU.
The idea is part of “various options” under consideration, the contacts told EUobserver.

The plan, also being considered by EU diplomats, would see ports and airports in the Turkish-occupied northern part of Cyprus placed under UN inspection.

UN supervision of air and sea traffic would pave the way for the Cypriot government in Nicosia to agree to direct EU trade with the North – something it has so far fiercely rejected as undermining its sovereignty over the whole island.

This in turn could lead Turkey to end its current embargo on vessels and planes from EU member state Cyprus – a key requirement by Brussels which Ankara has so far ignored.

EU enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn earlier this year predicted a “train crash” in the accession process if Ankara continues its blockade on Cypriot shipping and air traffic, referring to a customs agreement which precludes any trade obstacles with EU member states.

US strategic interests
EU diplomats characterise the Cyprus ports issue as “very difficult,” predicting a “major crisis” in Turkey’s EU accession process this autumn if the problem remains unresolved with Nicosia determined to veto the opening of new negotiating chapters.

The issue is set to be the dominant theme in the European Commission’s annual report on Turkey’s accession progress, due out on 26 October.

Washington’s diplomatic intervention is in line with its long-term strategic goal to integrate Turkey, a key NATO ally placed in the centre of the Muslim world, into western structures.

The US also intervened around this time last year, when the Cyprus issue threatened to derail the opening of Turkey’s accession talks which eventually took place on 3 October.

The trade-off solution proposed by Washington comes as a challenge to the official line of the European Commission, which has always maintained that Turkey’s customs obligations cannot be made dependent on trade to northern Cyprus.

But some EU officials privately admit that the two issues are “linked” adding a compromise solution is “possible” with weary Greek and Turkish Cypriot politicians likely to come under heavy international pressure to make concessions.

Recent Brussels seminars on the Cyprus issue suggest however that the parties are likely to stick to hard line positions as long as possible, with participants on all sides showing little sign of compromise.

http://euobserver.com/9/22302/?rk=1

—-

MEPs prepare critical report on Turkey
30.08.2006 - 17:39 CET | By Honor Mahony

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Almost a year after Turkey officially opened EU membership talks with Brussels, MEPs are preparing a report strongly critical of the country’s progress on human rights issues.

The 11-page draft report, drawn up by Dutch centre-right MEP Camiel Eurlings, says the the European Parliament “deplores the fact that only limited progress has been reported over the last year as regards fundamental rights and freedoms” and “deplores the absence of progress in the area of freedom of religion since parliament’s last report.”
It notes in the preamble that “freedom of expression is far from satisfactory” and that “corruption remains a serious problem.”

The resolution also stresses that EU member states’ negotiations with the country, opened last year in October, represent an “open-ended process and does not lead a priori and automatically to accession.”

Managing Turkey
Tapping into a hot discussion held earlier this year on whether the EU will manage to take on board the huge and poor country, the draft also states the “EU’s capacity to absorb Turkey while maintaining the momentum of integration is an important consideration…”.

The key topic of Ankara’s non-recognition of Cyprus also features with the report reminding Turkey that changing this remains a “necessary component of the accession process.”

However, it does also note some positive aspects of Turkey’s EU efforts saying that it “welcomes the adoption of the law on internally placed people” and “recognises the improvements in legislation … as regards the policy of zero tolerance towards torture.”

The report, which appears annually, is causing the usual ripples in the EU assembly with MEPs proposing 343 amendments - around 115 pages. Currently, they are trying to forge agreement on eight pages of “compromise amendments.”

MEPs from across the political spectrum are trying to get their view point into the report with comments on the new anti-terror laws in Turkey, on honour killings, on the genocide in Armenia and on changing the electoral threshold for representation in the parliament.

The Cyprus issue
The report is due to be voted on in the foreign affairs committee on Monday (4 September) and will then be put before the whole of the parliament, probably in late September.

The parliament is keen to get its vote and opinion on the table as quickly as possible so it can influence the European Commission’s annual report on Turkey’s accession progress - due out on 26 October.

For its part, the commission’s report is set to be highly critical of Ankara’s continued refusal to implement the Ankara protocol with the EU having repeatedly urged Turkey to lift its embargo on Cypriot-flagged vessels and aircraft as part of the country’s membership negotiations.

Turkey’s signature of the protocol extending a customs accord with the EU to the bloc’s 10 new states - including Cyprus - should result in the embargo being lifted.

Ankara has indicated that any concessions to Nicosia would be dependent on moves by the EU to end the economic isolation of the Turkish-populated north of Cyprus – a stance Brussels has rejected.

A critical report by Brussels and continued resistance by Ankara on the Cyprus issue is set to bring the whole issue to a political head later this autumn.

http://euobserver.com/9/22294/?rk=1

Ces responsables américains, au lieu de mettre ces milliers de dollars pour abattre Chavez ils feraient mieux de les donner aux malheureux citoyens victimes de l’ouragan Katerina et qui attendent depuis plus d’un an un aide. Dire que leur président leur a rendu visite ces jours ci les mains vides. Il leur a accordé juste une prière. Malheureusement une maison ne se construit pas avec une prière. Il faut du bois des briques et de l’argent. Il tape complètement à côté de la plaque.

En fait Obrador aurait pu être un élu tout à fait acceptable et même profitable pour les USA. Mais l’arrogance et l’aveuglement de l’administration étatsunienne n’en a pas décidé ainsi.
Votre image des jeux de barbichettes est tout à fait justifiée. L’option Obrador était l’issue minimale pour la gauche très modérée mexicaine, et voir Obrador privé de cette victoire ne pouvait qu’excacerber celle-ci et la pousser plus à gauche que la position d’Obrador lui-même.
C’est un exemple supplémentaire de contre-productivité du camp néocon et de ses défenseurs, aveugles (type Blair) ou simplement passifs (les autres politiques UE).
Priver Obrador de sa victoire et qu’Obrador décide ensuite d’en appeler à la rue, c’est un décours fantastique dont on ne connaît pas encore l’issue.
Votre image du jeu des barbichettes est excellent. Obrador ne pourra qu’être piégé par le mouvement qu’il a suscité dans la rue et les campagnes et on peut se demander comment il va pouvoir gérer les espoirs de changements que cette action a pu faire naître.
Ici comme au Proche-Orient avec la montée du Hamas et du Hesbollah, on pourrait voir un gain de légitimité du mouvement zapatiste sans même que le sous-commandant “zéro” n’aie eu à livrer bataille.
Et ce n’est pas pour me déplaire.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/756663.html  ( NII report: Number of poor in Israel climbs to 1.63 million, by ruth Sinai & Yoav Stern)

The poverty rate in Israel continued to climb in 2005 ... Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Wednesday the National Insurance Institute’s annual report on poverty does not adequately represent the changes that could come as a result of the government’s new social agenda.

... While tax reforms have decreased the expectations of a significant increase in poverty levels by raising the income of the upper classes, the “inequality index” measuring differences in income distribution between the rich and the poor indicated a rise in inequality in 2005.

Even though the inequality level in Israel is lower than that in the U.S., Mexico and Russia, it is higher than the level measured in all other developed countries.

Former Social Security CEO Yochanan Shtesman said Wednesday that governments have not done enough in recent years to reduce the number of poor people and that the stipend cutback has greatly worsened their situation.

( NB : L’américanisation ne concerne pas que l’armée “Shock & Awe” mais aussi ‘tax reform’ et pauvreté croissante. On peut craindre que les promesses de Peretz soient du “cut & paste from Bush about New-Orleans” ... “not done enough” avant la guerre mais ça ira mieux après ? )

( Semble significatif ... pas de commentaires ? Réelle surprise ? Poutine va exploser/unifier la “politique européenne” ? Il semble avoir des vues à long terme ... La Russie s’européannise plus ? Quand nos souris-nations dansent avec les cigales US ... Tiens le PIB de la Russie est il toujours inférieur à la Hollande ? Avec La population qui diminue le plus en Europe ...)

... Acquises à un prix avantageux au moment où le titre EADS avait perdu 43 % (entre mars et juin), les actions achetées par la Vnechtorgbank ne seront pas revendues, affirme Vedomosti. A Moscou, les analystes financiers interprètent unanimement cette acquisition comme le signe de la volonté russe de participer à la gestion d’EADS. “Pour l’instant il s’agit d’un investissement de portefeuille, mais cela pourrait évoluer de façon plus sérieuse”, a expliqué Ruslan Poukhov, directeur du Centre d’analyse des stratégies et des technologies, au quotidien anglophone Moscow Times.

... Soucieux de ranimer ce secteur très délité, M. Poutine a jeté les bases, en février 2006, de la création d’un consortium aéronautique unifié (OAK) où ont été rassemblées les principales unités de constructions civiles et militaires du pays (Soukhoï, MiG, Tupolev, Iakovlev, Irkout).
C’est à l’OAK, dont la création sera formalisée en septembre, que reviendront au final les actions acquises par la Vnechtorgbank. Fort de sa coopération avec la Russie, EADS est cité comme le groupe étranger le plus à même de prendre des parts dans ce consortium. Il y aurait donc des participations croisées.
A l’heure actuelle, EADS et sa filiale Airbus sont très présents en Russie. En 2005, EADS a acquis 10 % d’Irkout, constructeur russe d’avions de chasse et dispose d’un centre d’ingénierie local où travaillent 120 personnes.

... La prise de participation russe dans le groupe européen pourrait augmenter les chances d’Airbus de remporter le marché du renouvellement des longs-courriers russes.

... Au moment où les Russes arrivent par surprise chez EADS, le groupe a souligné, mardi, son intérêt pour l’Inde ... “L’Inde est en train de devenir un acteur majeur de l’industrie aéronautique”.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0%402-3234,36-807723%4051-807560,0.html

Félicitations pour votre jugement :
il faut en effet tenir compte du contenu des
analyses de ces gens, mais se méfier des conclusions
auxquelles ils arrivent.
C.D.

Il faudrait considerer un autre facteur qui va encore exarcerber la problematique de la governabilité du Mexique dans le futur prochaine. C´est la militarisation de la frontiere entre le Mexique et les USA que ne permettra canaliser les tensions sociaux via l´emigration.

Les chiffres sur l’enseignement supérieur britannique n’ont pas de quoi réjouir le gouvernement travailliste de Tony Blair, qui avait fait de l’éducation l’une de ses priorités dès 1997.

( NB : décidément ! Plus significatif que l’Irak et même résultat ? Mais un vieux problème, souvent “traité” et qui concerne tous les partis : leurs conceptions, leurs priorités et capacités d’action en longueur sur un secteur fondamental ... une bonne partie de notre UE est concernée ! )

Un étudiant sur quatre abandonne ses études”, titre le Daily Telegraph. “Près d’un quart des étudiants de première année ... Une très grande part des 71 000 étudiants qui abandonnent avant d’avoir terminé leurs études font partie des 43 % d’étudiants qui ne paient pas de frais. ...  cette “nouvelle culture” qui vise à pousser les élèves et étudiants à poursuivre à tout prix leurs études. ... C’est aussi le fait d’écoles et de parents ambitieux, ainsi que des universités elles-mêmes, dont le financement dépend du nombre d’inscrits.”

... The Independent plaide pour sa part pour que “les universités ouvrent plus grandes leurs portes”. ... “pour la première fois en cinq ans, le pourcentage d’élèves issus des lycées publics a baissé dans les universités”. ... Pour remédier à cela, le journal prône deux réformes, “l’introduction d’examens de sélection à l’entrée, comme aux Etats-Unis, et une modification du calendrier des inscriptions”.

http://www.courrierinternational.com/article.asp?obj_id=55380

+ Le malaise des universités européennes (Italie, Suisse ) par Béatrice Zaradez : ... L’inadéquation entre les cursus et les objectifs de compétitivité revendiqués par les Etats européens est criante.

+ A Bergen, les premiers pas du système universitaire européen, par Eva Queralt pour Café Babel :

... L’objectif ? Faciliter les comparaisons entre cursus et aboutir à un espace européen de l’enseignement supérieur. Malgré l’ampleur des changements, le processus de Bologne n’a pas provoqué de réorganisation drastique des universités dans tous les pays. Le Royaume-Uni et l’Irlande, par exemple, n’ont pas procédé à beaucoup de modifications étant donné que leurs systèmes d’enseignement sont à la base de la réforme. ( NB : *** l’échec britannique qui sert de base à LA réforme ? Paradoxal pour le moins ! ) ... D’autres pays progressent.

... L’avantage principal de l’harmonisation au niveau européen est qu’elle permet une reconnaissance des études, et aussi une mobilité des étudiants comme des professeurs. ...  Un des aspects contestés ne tient pas tant aux réformes prévues par le processus de Bologne qu’à l’usage que certains Etats en font pour introduire parallèlement des réformes nationales qui suscitent de nombreux malentendus et, bien souvent, des critiques.

Si presque la moitié des américains pensent qu’il y a complot,les sondages en Europe et dans le reste du monde n’ont pas été évalués; mais nous pensons que les chiffrent vont effleurer la maxima.Pourquoi ?
Loin des analyses élaborées, le simple terrien va trouver dans la chronologie des faits, une logique qui atteste bien qu’il y a eu complot. Une question n’a pas été beaucoup relevée dans les médias c’est la coïencidence de l’assasinat du Cd Massoud deux jours avant le 9/11. Massoud le pro-européen et combattant des talibans.Massoud le chef ,n’allait pas arranger les desseins des USA en afghanistan. etc…