Forum

FALLUJA, ARMI PROIBITE: PERCIO’ LA SGRENA DOVEVA MORIRE
07/03/2005
Maurizio Blondet

Dopo l’atroce battaglia di Falluja, l’armata americana vi è entrata con bull-dozer e autobotti. I bull-dozer hanno cominciato a scorticare il terreno tutto attorno ai crateri di esplosione delle loro bombe. Hanno asportato accuratamente 200 metri quadri di terreno attorno ad ogni cratere, caricato la terra su autocarri e l’hanno portata in località sconosciuta (1). La stessa cosa hanno fatto con alcune delle case bombardate. Hanno abbattuto gli edifici e portato via il materiale. Queste operazioni sono state compiute soprattutto nei quartieri di Julan e di Jimouriya, teatro dei più feroci scontri, ma anche a Nazal, Mualmeen, Jubail. Attenzione, solo “alcune” case sono state demolite. Quelle dove erano cadute le “bombe speciali” usate dagli americani. Le stesse che avevano formato i crateri accuratamente ripuliti.

Di che bombe si trattava? Tutti gli abitanti di Falluja che erano ancora in città durante i raid le hanno descritte così. “Facevano una colonna di fumo a forma di fungo. Poi, piccoli pezzi cadevano dall’aria, con una coda di fumo dietro ogni pezzetto”. Cadendo, questi “pezzetti” esplodevano con grandi fiammate che “bruciavano la pelle della gente, anche quando vi si gettava sopra dell’acqua. Molti hanno sofferto tanto per questo effetto, combattenti non meno che civili”.
E’ la descrizione esatta degli effetti di bombe al fosforo, molto usate dai liberatori anglo-americani contro Germania e Giappone. Ma vietate dalle convenzioni internazionali, e perciò sostituite dagli Usa con l’invenzione del Napalm, mistura gelatinosa e adesiva di celluloide sciolta in benzina che ha il “vantaggio”, come il fosforo, di appiccicarsi alla pelle mentre brucia, ed è molto più economico (brevetto Dow Chemicals). L’uso del fosforo però è più “efficiente” se lo scopo è di ridurre corpi umani a tizzoni ardenti carbonizzati, con un effetto terroristico aggiuntivo.
L’uso di queste armi è un crimine contro l’umanità. Ecco perché, dietro ai bull-dozer, il Pentagono ha inviato anche grosse autobotti: le quali hanno “lavato” con potenti getti forzati tutti i muri o quel che ne restava in piedi, evidentemente per dilavare il fosforo. E’ il tentativo di coprire il crimine, di farne sparire le tracce.

Ciò potrebbe spiegare anche parte della sciagurata avventura di Luciana Sgrena. Come si ricorderà, la giornalista stava andando a un appuntamento con alcuni profughi di Falluja quando fu, molto opportunamente per i criminali di guerra, “rapita” da “insorti”. Altrimenti avrebbe potuto raccontare di quelle bombe al fosforo, cosa che non hanno mai fatto “i grandi giornali” neocon ed ebraici, come il Corriere della Sera o il New York Times. Lo stesso discorso si può fare per la francese Aubenas di Libèration: sempre giornalisti di piccoli giornali no-global poco controllabili dalla nota lobby.
Naturalmente, la Sgrena non ha saputo nulla: ha recitato la parte che le è stata assegnata, “drammatizzando” in video, e ascoltando i suoi rapitori ripetere che in Irak “non vogliono nessuno”, nemmeno, anzi specialmente, giornalisti simpatizzanti con la guerriglia; frasi che acquistano un senso illuminante, se attribuite a “terroristi” dal Pentagono. La sua tentata uccisione dopo la “liberazione” con riscatto pagato dai contribuenti ai cosiddetti “insorti” (probabilmente la solita banda Al-Mossad, che ci ha fatto anche un guadagno) può essere interpretata forse come “una lezione” da dare agli italiani. E va ascritta anche ad errori da parte italiana. Il primo dei quali è non voler capire chi è, in Irak, il nemico principale.

di Maurizio Blondet

*La foto che accompagna l’articolo mostra un gruppo di abitanti di Falluja presso un cratere causato da una bomba sganciata durante un attacco aereo che, secondo quanto riportato dagli americani, mirava a colpire militanti coinvolti in rapimenti e attentati.

Note

1)Dahr Jamail, “Odd happenings in Falluja”, Electronic Iraq, 18 gennaio 2005.

SI PREPARA IL BIS DELL’ 11 SETTEMBRE?
05/03/2005

Maurizio Blondet

Sempre nuovi indizi che il gruppo di potere americano sta preparando un nuovo auto-attentato da infliggere ai suoi cittadini, per persuaderli alla nuova tornata di guerre in programma.
Primo indizio: il presidente George Bush è tornato a parlare di Osama Bin Laden. Dopo averlo trascurato per anni (del resto anche Osama non ha dato molti segni di vita) Bush lo ha ricordato di punto in bianco. Mettendo le mani avanti: “bloccare Osama è la più difficile sfida dei nostri giorni.Al Qaeda progetta ancora di attaccarci sul nostro suolo”, ha detto (1). Lo ha fatto il 3 marzo scorso alla cerimonia d’insediamento di Michael Chertoff, il nuovo capo della Homeland Security, cioè della sicurezza interna. Lo stesso giorno, recatosi alla Cia a salutare il nuovo direttore Porter Goss (un membro della società segreta di Yale “Skull & Bones”, da cui sono usciti quasi tutti i capi dell’Agenzia) il presidente è tornato sul discorso: “ogni giorno raccogliamo informazioni per localizzare Bin Laden. Non dormiamo sugli allori”.

Il motivo apparente di questo improvviso ritorno d’interesse per il tenebroso saudita sarebbe un “messaggio” che Osama avrebbe mandato ad Al-Zarqawi per incitarlo a colpire i suolo americano. Né sulle modalità di trasmissione (piccioni viaggiatori?) né sul contenuto del messaggio si sa nulla: l’unica fonte al proposito è una voce anonima uscita dalla Cia - ciò che nei tempi sovietici si chiamava dizinformazija o maskirovska.
Altro indizio. Il sindaco di New York Michael Bloomberg (ebreo) ha rivelato quanto segue: la “cellula di Al Qaeda colpevole dell’attentato alla metropolitana di Madrid aveva in progetto di fare un attentato esplosivo anche alla Grand Central Station, nel cuore di Manhattan (2). La scoperta sarebbe in un dischetto di computer trovato in un appartamento di Madrid che sarebbe stato occupato da un terrorista, tale Moutaz Almallah, ritenuto ‘un membro importante di Al Qaeda’”. Inutile dire che Moutaz s’era reso uccel di bosco già nel gennaio 2002, molti mesi prima dell’attentato di Madrid. A proposito dell’attentato di Madrid, bisogna ricordare che è avvenuto l’11 marzo 2004. Come mai il dischetto con il piano del nuovo attentato a New York è apparso solo oggi, non si sa. L’Fbi ha farfugliato che la polizia spagnola s’è resa conto dell’importanza del contenuto solo nel dicembre scorso, per via “della sua natura tecnica” (“c’erano delle piante della stazione di New York”). In ogni caso, perché la storia emerge ora?

Terzo indizio. E’ il più grave, e consiste nell’insediamento di Michael Chertoff a capo della Homeland Security col grado di ministro. Ora Chertoff (figlio di un rabbino, cittadino israeliano) ha avuto strani legami con un sospetto finanziatore dell’attentato dell’11 settembre, tale Magdy Elamir. E’ una vecchia faccenda, di cui diede notizia a suo tempo - il 20 giugno 2000 - The Record, il giornale della contea di Bergen, New Jersey. Magdy Elamir era stato accusato dallo Stato del New Jersey di ammanchi e malversazioni finanziarie per 16,7 milioni di dollari. Fra cui 5,7 milioni “trasferiti a beneficiari sconosciuti”. Elamir aveva una specifica connessione con il primo attentato alle Twin Towers, avvenuto nel 1993 e anch’esso di marca “islamica”. Infatti, l’attentato era stato architettato nella moschea di Al-Salam a Jersey City, dove predicava il mullah estremista Omar Abdel-Rahman, considerato il mandante di quel primo attentato. Come ebbe a dire l’allora poliziotto Allan Duncan, “alla moschea di Al-Salam era stato permesso di continuare ad essere un centro di attività terroristiche in Usa”. Inoltre, nel 1999, Elamir con suo fratello erano stati perseguiti dall’Fbi per aver cercato di comprare armi e munizioni da un informatore dello stesso Fbi, Randy Glass, ed era per questo stato condannato a 30 mesi.
Insomma, un tipo altamente sospetto. Ma chi ha difeso il losco Elamir davanti alla corte del New Jersey nel 2000? Sì, avete indovinato, proprio lui: Michael Chertoff, il figlio del rabbino (3). Che era allora avvocato.
Ma il brillante israeliano ha fatto una rapida carriera. Nell’estate del 2001 - attenzione alla data, poche settimane prima dell’11 settembre - Chertoff riappare come vice-Attorney General della sezione penale del ministero della Giustizia. La vicenda del tentato acquisto di armi del suo ex cliente capita proprio sotto la sua giurisdizione, come ha ricordato il solito poliziotto Allan Duncan. Ebbene, che cosa fa il nuovo vice-procuratore Chertoff? Blocca di autorità i capi d’accusa contro Elamir.

Ma non si creda che Chertoff fosse salito alla carriera di pubblico accusatore per salvare Magdy Elamir. A ben altri compiti lo destina quel posto. Come si ricorderà, l’11 settembre una cameriera nota cinque ragazzoni che, sul tetto di un camion di traslochi, si fotografano a vicenda sullo sfondo delle due Torri in fiamme, facendo il segno di vittoria con le dita. La cameriera segnala la targa alla polizia di New York, che ferma i cinque. Risultano tutti israeliani, esibiscono documenti falsi, uno di loro ha 4500 dollari in contanti in una calza. Parecchi di loro ammettono di essere membri del Mossad. Consegnati alla giustizia federale, i cinque vengono.espulsi perché il loro visto (sui passaporti falsi) risulta scaduto. Restituiti ad Israele. Chi è che li espelle? Ma lui, il figlio del rabbino Chertoff! Sempre Chertoff aveva, poco prima, espulso (cioè liberato) almeno un centinaio di agenti israeliani beccati in una gigantesca retata della Dia (antidroga) e dell’Fbi, alcuni dei quali abitavano accanto ai “terroristi arabi” indiziati per l’11 settembre.
Dopo queste belle imprese, Chertoff viene elevato ancora più in alto: giudice federale d’Appello, una carriera fulminante. Ed oggi, ministro della Homeland Security, che già dal nome (“Sicurezza della Patria”) promette di essere una sorta di Gestapo o di Stasi. La posizione giusta per coprire il prossimo mega-attentato e i “terroristi musulmani” che lo compieranno. Magari con un camion di traslochi.

Ad ogni buon conto, vale l’avviso ai turisti dato dai servizi segreti italiani ed europei (che certo hanno qualche indizio di ciò che si prepara): evitate Gran Central Station, state alla larga da luoghi turistici anche medio-orientali.
Quando avverrà, non dite che non vi avevano avvertito.

di Maurizio Blondet

Note

1)Joseph Curl, “Stopping Bin Laden is ‘greatest challenge’”, Washington Times, 4 marzo 2005.
2)Ben Sills, “Al Qaida plan to bomb Grand Central station”, Guardian, 3 marzo 2005.
3)Michael Chertoff è nato nel 1953 da Livia Chertoff, israeliana e dal rabbino Ghershon, di nazionalità sconosciuta. La madre Livia è stata una hostess della El Al e partecipò nel 1945 all’operazione Tappeto Magico, il trasporto forzato di 45 mila ebrei yemeniti messi ad occupare i territori dei palestinesi: un agente del Mossad dunque anche la mamma.

“les habituelles tentatives d apaisement chez les europeens ... voir le Figaro…”

Mais au fait Le Figaro n a t il pas ete “repris” en partie (entre autres par le biais et a l occasion du rachat de France-Amerique) par de celebres investisseurs americains ?
Bien sur ces politico-investisseurs n investissent qu a coup sur et apres moulte-etudes.
Alors qu en penser ?

juste le lien, bandes de paresseux !
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/03/08/night_flights/

le lien, en html ?

Vous vous inquiétez trop pour sa nomination. Vous vous méprenez totalement. C’est sa condamnation à mort. Car New-York est une ville definitivement radioactive depuis le 11-09.

L’Europe est assez riche d’expérience et d’idées pour affiner progressivement une nouvelle façon de se comporter collectivement, sans recourir à des formules qui ont été mises elles-mêmes au point en d’autres temps et autres lieux.
Cela demandera sans doute quelques décennies et l’épreuve d’un certain nombre de situations différentes à affronter ensemble. Par définition, cette nouvelle forme de pouvoir ne peut être précisée aujourd’hui et réclame la confiance dans les capacités de nos sociétés comme dans l’avenir (c’est en cela que pour beaucoup l’Europe d’aujourd’hui reste un sphinx). Entre le fédéralisme américain et l’empire pseudo-marxiste de la Chine, il y a certainement place pour une forme originale de développement “en commun” qui enrichira le monde en étant source renouvelée d’inspiration et, espérons-le, d’enthousiasme. Ce sera la fierté de nos enfants et petits-enfants que d’avoir su créer une nouvelle garde-robe avec les différentes étoffes nationales.

Pour etre clair, Vermont etait adimis comme le 14ieme etat en 1791 - apres avoir existe comme la Republic de Vermont autonome de 1777 a 1791 - donc une periode d’independance plus longue que celle-la de la Republique de Texas ( the Lone Star Republic) qui etait independent de 1836 a 1845.
John Mason

Juste un petit mot sur un detail historique qui pourrait etre plus qu’un detail. Ce n’est pas vrai que le Vermont est un des 13 etats originaux des Etats Unis. Le Vermont se considerait comme un Republic independent entre 1777-1791 et se rallie aux EU a ce moment la. Apres la fin de la guerre americaine de l’independance, certains ont penche tantot vers l’independence tantot vers un rapprochement avec l’Amerique Britannique -c’est a dire le Canada.
Interessant a noter, que face a la politique milirariste de l’Administration Bush et de l’emprise des neo-confederes sudistes sur l’ensemble du gouvernement federal, un groupescule de Vermontais ont fait un declaration unilaterale de l’independence de Vermont et declare la restauration de la Deuxieme republique de Vermont pour se rapproche avec le Canada.. Ce theme “nous sommes tous des canadiens” est assez repandue chez les liberaux du Nord qui cherche a realiser un espece de ‘secession interieure et suivre la strategie de gouverner leurs etats ” a bleu.”
Pour savoir plus va sur la site http://www.vermontrepublic.org. Sic transit gloria mundi..

Bravo !

Je propose donc de voter non au référendum; en cohérence. (France)
Une Union Europpéenne utile reste à créer, vous montrez la voie.

La nation représente une échelle politique de tout premier choix, en Europe particulièrement.
En dessous ce sont les communautés et les ‘villes provinces’, au dessus…

Ma conception de l’entité politique europpéenne, est celle d’une sorte de chambre haute, de sénat. Un ‘recourt’ au moins. Un appareil avec tout l’aéropage des compétences politiques, comme initiatives propres ou comme normalisations, chambres représentatives voire même un certain pouvoir personnel, mais non point de façon unique, mais en propositions qualifiées. Une réelle authorité n’étant octroyée qu’à la ‘chambre haute’.
Celà laisserait de laplce aux états-nations, seuls ou en groupes.

Vous avez fort bien perçus la chose, il ne faut pas construire une unise à lobbies, mais un champs de travail

Petit lecteur content
    l’Omnivore sobriquet

“Sept usines nucleaires pour l Iran” c etait le nombre de constructions envisagees sous le Shah et sur la recommendation des Etats-Unis.
On n en parle pas. Pourquoi puisqu en fait le chiffre de sept etait le resultat d une etude sur les besoins du pays.
On peut presumer maintenant que les besoins ont certtainement double.
Alors ?
Pourquoi ne calme t on pas tous les esprits en rappelant cette simple promesse, au lieu de faire sonner les trompettes de l apocalypse ?
Ou s agit il d une manipulation de grande envergure ?

Il faut certes éviter l’effet oeillère de toujours lire les mêmes choses, mais bon ...

Operations Could Bypass Envoys

Ann Scott Tyson and Dana Priest, Washington Post 24/2/05

The Pentagon is promoting a global counterterrorism plan that would allow Special Operations forces to enter a foreign country to conduct military operations without explicit concurrence from the U.S. ambassador there, administration officials familiar with the plan said.

The plan would weaken the long-standing “chief of mission” authority under which the U.S. ambassador, as the president’s top representative in a foreign country, decides whether to grant entry to U.S. government personnel based on political and diplomatic considerations.

The Special Operations missions envisioned in the plan would largely be secret, known to only a handful of officials from the foreign country, if any.

The change is included in a highly classified “execute order”—part of a broad strategy developed since Sept. 11, 2001, to give the U.S. Special Operations Command new flexibility to track down and destroy terrorist networks worldwide, the officials said.

“This is a military order on a global scale, something that hasn’t existed since World War II,” said a counterterrorism official with lengthy experience in special operations. He and other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the proposal is classified.

The Pentagon sees the greater leeway as vital to enabling commando forces to launch operations quickly and stealthily against terrorist groups without often time-consuming interagency debate, said administration officials familiar with the plan. In the Pentagon view, the campaign against terrorism is a war and requires similar freedom to prosecute as in Iraq, where the military chain of command coordinates closely with the U.S. Embassy but is not subject to traditional chief-of-mission authority.

The State Department and the CIA have fought the proposal, saying it would be dangerous to dilute the authority of the U.S. ambassador and CIA station chief to oversee U.S. military and intelligence activities in other countries.

Over the past two years, the State Department has repeatedly blocked Pentagon efforts to send Special Operations forces into countries surreptitiously and without ambassadors’ formal approval, current and former administration officials said.

The State Department assigned counterterrorism coordinator J. Cofer Black, who also led the CIA’s counterterrorism operations after Sept. 11, as its point person to try to thwart the Pentagon’s initiative.

“I gave Cofer specific instructions to dismount, kill the horses and fight on foot—this is not going to happen,” said Richard L. Armitage, describing how as deputy secretary of state—a job he held until earlier this month—he and others stopped six or seven Pentagon attempts to weaken chief-of-mission authority.

In one instance, U.S. commanders tried to dispatch Special Forces soldiers into Pakistan without gaining ambassadorial approval but were rebuffed by the State Department, said two sources familiar with the event. The soldiers eventually entered Pakistan with proper clearance but were ordered out again by the ambassador for what was described as reckless behavior. “We had SF [Special Forces] guys in civilian clothes running around a hotel with grenades in their pockets,” said one source involved in the incident, who opposes the Pentagon plan.

Other officials cited another case to illustrate their concern. In the past year, they said, a group of Delta Force soldiers left a bar at night in a Latin American country and shot an alleged assailant but did not inform the U.S. Embassy for several days.

In Pentagon policy circles, questions about chief-of-mission authority are viewed as part of a broad reassessment of how to organize the U.S. government optimally to fight terrorism. In this view, alternative models of U.S. military, diplomatic and intelligence authority—possibly tailored to specific countries and situations—should be considered.

Pentagon officials familiar with the issue declined to speak on the record out of concern that issues of bureaucratic warfare would overshadow a serious policy question.

Debate over the issue reignited last month, as Armitage and then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell departed and Condoleezza Rice prepared to replace him, said an administration official familiar with the matter. When the Pentagon refused to change language in the execute order, that put the issue before Rice.

In the past week, however, she has made it clear that she intends to protect the existing chief-of-mission authority. “Rice is resolute in holding to chief-of-mission authority over operations the way it exists now, for a very rational reason—you need someone who can coordinate,” said a senior State Department official.

Some officials have viewed the debate as an early test of how Rice will defend State Department views on a range of matters in bureaucratic infighting with the Pentagon.

The State Department’s concerns are twofold, officials said: Conducting military operations would be perilous without the broad purview and oversight of the U.S. ambassador, and it would set a precedent that other U.S. agencies could follow.

“The chief-of-mission authority is a pillar of presidential authority overseas,” said the administration official familiar with the issue. “When you start eroding that, it can have repercussions that are . . . risky. Particularly, military action is one of the most important decisions a president makes . . . and that is the sort of action that should be taken with deliberation.”

U.S. ambassadors have full responsibility for supervising all U.S. government employees in that country, and when granting country clearances they are supposed to consider various factors, including ramifications for overall bilateral relations. For example, one reason the U.S. military never conducted aggressive operations against al Qaeda in Pakistan was a fear that such actions would incite the local population to overthrow the fragile, nuclear-capable government of President Pervez Musharraf.

The rift between the Pentagon and State Department over chief-of-mission authority parallels broader concerns about the push to empower the Special Operations Command in the war on terrorism. The CIA, for example, has concerns that new intelligence-gathering initiatives by the military could weaken CIA station chiefs and complicate U.S. espionage abroad.

Without close coordination with the CIA, former senior intelligence officials said, the military could target someone whom the CIA is secretly surveilling and disrupt a flow of valuable intelligence.

NATO set: French offer one officer
By Elaine Sciolino The New York Times
Wednesday, February 23, 2005

BRUSSELS The North Atlantic Treaty Organization announced agreement Tuesday on a modest plan to train and equip Iraq’s new security forces, a symbolic display of unity but one that is unlikely to translate into a dramatic change on the ground in Iraq.

The agreement by the 26 countries of the alliance came after France quietly dropped its refusal to participate under a NATO umbrella. It pledged $660,000 to a NATO fund for military and police training in Iraq and has assigned one French midlevel officer to the training mission at NATO headquarters near Brussels, French officials said.

The deal was announced after a meeting between President George W. Bush and other leaders of NATO countries. The United States is anxious to get Iraq’s security forces whipped into fighting form both to restore stability to the country and allow the eventual withdrawal of the 150,000 U.S. troops there.

But the training mission is going much more slowly that expected. In testimony before Congress early this month, two senior Pentagon officials acknowledged that less than one-third of the Iraqi security forces who the Pentagon claims have been trained are capable of tackling the most dangerous missions in the country.

In addition, the officials said, Iraqi Army units have severe troop shortages, and absenteeism and even corruption in the security forces is a problem.

Certainly Bush was delighted to put aside the anger of the past because of the division within NATO over the U.S.-led war in Iraq and congratulate NATO on its commitment to move forward.

“Twenty-six nations sat around the table saying, you know, let’s get the past behind us and now let’s focus on helping the world’s newest democracy succeed,” he said at a joint news conference at the headquarters of NATO with its secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

Asked if he was satisfied with the token contributions, Bush said, “Every contribution helps.”

The French about-face has symbolic importance because France, which fiercely opposed the war in Iraq, had steadfastly refused to participate in any initiative to help Iraq that formally came under the NATO umbrella. Even a financial contribution to a special NATO training fund for Iraq had been rejected.

As late as Tuesday morning, French officials were saying that France would not participate in a NATO initiative on Iraq, with one French official criticizing the intense U.S. lobbying campaign of NATO members as an unseemly diplomatic “telethon.”

Even with the agreement, the training mission is hampered by the fact that six NATO countries - France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Greece and Spain - have refused U.S. and Iraqi requests to help train military forces and police officers inside Iraq, preferring to do training outside the country or to help pay for the mission.

At least three other countries, including Canada, have not refused outright, but neither have they committed trainers to the mission inside Iraq, a NATO official said.

The United States, which has watched several countries withdraw their combat troops from Iraq in the past year, had pushed hard to win unanimity of the world’s most powerful military alliance for the training mission, particularly after the recent elections in Iraq.

But as several NATO countries resisted U.S. appeals to put even one soldier or police officer on the ground, the United States curbed its aims, saying that paying for the transport of equipment was to be lauded as an important contribution.

Even those countries that have sent troops have sent small numbers.

Last October, NATO’s top general, General James Jones of the U.S. Marine Corps, said that up to 3,000 soldiers and police officers might be needed as trainers as well as security forces to protect them.

But the number was scaled back dramatically after a decision was made to do most of the training inside the relatively safe Green Zone in Baghdad that reduced the need for security. NATO now is aiming to recruit 159 security force trainers in the first phase of the mission.

As of now, however, there are about 111 trainers on the ground in Iraq; while more are on the way, there is still a shortfall of trainers, who are all volunteers, NATO officials said.

NATO hopes to expand the mission later this year to allow NATO to run a military academy outside Baghdad, if its members contribute the troops and money.

As a result of the intense U.S. lobbying campaign, 17 other member states have committed more than $5 million in the last two weeks for trust funds that will cover such expenses as transporting Iraqi officers to NATO training posts outside Iraq and for equipment purchases.

By contrast, the United States has already contributed more than $50 million since last summer for the training mission.

Jones and other senior U.S. military officers have complained about the lack of adequate funding for the training mission and the cumbersome NATO system of fund-raising.

In a speech at NATO headquarters Tuesday, President Jacques Chirac of France said nothing about the French decision to participate in the NATO plan, but he reminded his partners that France has offered to train 1,500 Iraqi police officers outside of Iraq, a program that would cost France $20 million.

“In Iraq,” Chirac told NATO leaders, “France wants to contribute to stability.”

Iraq has not responded to the French request, which is seen in NATO diplomatic circles as a rebuff of the French offer. With almost 3,700 troops on the ground, France is the second-largest troop contributor to NATO missions, behind Germany and ahead of the United States.

In addition to NATO, the European Union has launched its own training mission for Iraq, announcing on Monday that it will open an office in Baghdad to coordinate the training of Iraqi judges, prosecutors and prison guards. The program will train about 770 Iraqis outside of Iraq because of the precarious security situation there.

In another initiative, the European Union and the United States agreed Tuesday to play host to an international conference on Iraq’s reconstruction, Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg, whose nation holds the rotating EU presidency, told reporters after a U.S.-EU summit meeting with Bush.

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/02/22/news/nato.html

—-

For this President Bush, a new Germany
By Judy Dempsey International Herald Tribune
Wednesday, February 23, 2005

BERLIN When President George H.W. Bush visited Mainz in 1989, he made a landmark appeal for a special relationship between the United States and Germany, similar to that between Washington and London.

Eastern Europe was in flux, Germany was still divided and President Mikhail Gorbachev of the Soviet Union was introducing reforms that were sending shock waves through the communist world.

Despite all the uncertainties, the American president saw Germany as the staunch defender of European integration and the linchpin in the trans-Atlantic relationship.

Sixteen years later, his son, President George W. Bush, will visit Mainz on Wednesday. This time, Europe is united and there is a German chancellor who is prepared to speak confidently about Germany’s national and security interests - and who is seeking a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, convinced that his country deserves it because of its economic and political clout.

“Germany’s security culture is changing,” Karsten Voigt, the Foreign Ministry’s special envoy to the United States, said in an interview.

“Germany was traditionally a global player in terms of the economy but not in terms of security,” he said. “Until recently, global security was not on our horizon.”

Voigt, who spends his time crossing the Atlantic to explain how both sides see each other, added, “The U.S. will have to engage us on the security issue.”

Over the past few years, German thinking and acting over security have radically changed as the country shakes off the constraints of the cold war and its dependence on the United States for its defense, and has come to see a stronger, more integrated European Union as a way to influence U.S. foreign policy.

As a result, German officials close to Chancellor Gerhard Schröder said the United States and other countries should recognize that Berlin was now prepared to articulate and defend its interests - as Schröder did before the U.S.-led war in Iraq, when he used his opposition to the war to aid his re-election campaign in 2002.

“Germany is bringing more of its national interests into the European security and defense arena,” said Jens van Scherpenberg, U.S. expert at the German Institute for International Policy and Security in Berlin.

“Germany was used to playing second fiddle to France and Britain,” he said. “Schröder wants Germany to act on an equal basis. It wants to have the same ranking in the orchestra.”

With its European NATO allies, Germany is involved in peacekeeping missions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa - unthinkable in the early 1990s because of the pacifism generated by World War II.

The interior minister, Otto Schily, has increasingly worked closely with his European and American counterparts since the Sept. 11 attacks.

And on wider international issues, Germany, along with France, has been at the forefront in pushing the EU to lift its arms embargo against China, much to the annoyance of Washington, which believes that the move could lead to regional instability.

Bush is expected to raise the issue with Schröder, and to discuss Iran, where for months Berlin, London and Paris have been exploring every possible diplomatic path to persuade Tehran to cease its nuclear program.

German officials said Schröder was unlikely to be swayed by Bush to change his mind over China or Iran, since Berlin sees these issues as part and parcel of its attempts to carve out security and economic interests in a German and European context.

This desire to have a more assertive role in Europe, and for Europe to play a more assertive role on the international stage, was the main thrust of Schröder’s speech at the recent Munich Security Conference, where he said NATO was no longer the main trans-Atlantic forum in which to discuss political and security issues because such issues were not raised there.

“The speech was about how the Europeans could use NATO to influence U.S. policy,” said Klaus Becher, director of the independent Knowledge and Analysis consultancy.

U.S. senators and diplomats at the conference said the speech was Germany’s attempt at weakening NATO while strengthening the EU.

German foreign policy experts disagree with the U.S. assessment of Berlin’s views on NATO, China and Iran. They argue that if the United States wants Germany to be involved in global security, then it will have to engage Germany on the security issue.

“The point is that they, the Americans, should draw us into the security dialogue beyond Europe and in a much more global context,” Voigt said. “Take the case of China. The Americans do want us to consider the security element but that means engaging us.”

As a consequence, even the staunch supporters of a policy in which Germany would play a greater role in global security and be engaged by Washington admit that Berlin will have to spend more on defense.

“It is going to require more efforts and more resources,” Scherpenberg said. “And that means a stronger economy.”

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/02/22/news/germany.html

des précisions sur ce muselage seraient appréciées alors qu’il n’a jamais été tant publié en France

Il est heureux que personne n ait mentionne la lettre (volee a Paris en juin 1999) de Lafayette a Louis XVI ou il s excusait d etre alle combattre pour l Amerique du Nord.
(voir liste des objets voles sur le site de drouot).
Voila qui aurait relance le debat.

Que voila un beau texte.
Il m a fallu deux relectures pour en retirer la substantifique moelle.

Si je comprends bien vous voulez dire que la reunion des Grands Chefs et leur diner cordial* n etait que la conclusion d une “entente-desaccord” sur les points suivants:

- la question irakienne n etant maintenant qu une question de reconstruction, il etait necessaire

- que l ambassadeur Negroponte revienne au bercail et prenne le poste de DNI (qui supervisera les 14 autres agences de renseignements: d ou son surnom: “the 15th ghost”)car les problemes immediats de l Amerique sont:

- d une part la Chine et ;a Russie** car ces deux pays semnblent avoir decide unilateralement que la doctrine de Monroe etait
caduque***

- et d autre part le Venezuela et Cuba****

- et bien sur les questions nucleaires qui vont de la composition du Conseil de Securite au developpement civil du nucleaire** (meme reference que precedemment compte-tenu des competences de Condi en la matiere et de sa longue association avec les milieux du nucleaire et bien sur de la fascination du president Chirac pour ces questions).

Tout ceci pour simplement vous dire que j ai, maintenant, vraiment compris votre texte.

Notes:

* ... au fait quel etait le menu ? C est ce qui m interesse le plus .. car pour le reste ... tout etait deja prevu.

** ...ce pourquoi Condi a ete nommee Secretaire d Etat .

*** ... comme d autres considerent les Nations Unies “obsoletes”.

**** ... et les competences precedemment acquises par Negroponte offrent la technicite necessaire pour faire face a ce nouvel axe de menaces.