Informazione

(english / deutsch / français / italiano)


Dal Kosovo al Belgio. La dissezione (germanica) dell'Europa (1/2)


1) Anschlusspläne / Accession Plans
"... The ongoing current government crisis in Brussels is provoking discussions of
secession projects in Belgium's Germanophonic eastern cantons (...) The Germanophonic
community (DG), an administrative conglomeration, representing the 70.000
Germanophonic minority around Eupen and St. Vith (...) It has its own parliament and its
own government. Questions are being raised about the DG's future - if Flanders separates
from Wallonia. (...) "If Belgium splits, we, of course, have to keep all options open" ..."
(GFP 2007/12/11)

2) Das Ende von Belgien?
Kleinstaaten für das internationale Kapitalmonopol: Wie die »Zeitung für Deutschland« die
Landkarte Europas neu zeichnet
Von Andreas Wehr (junge Welt - 31.12.2007)

3) La Vallonia è preoccupata per le conseguenze dell'indipendenza kosovara
(Radio Serbia 13 dicembre 2007)

4) Hotbeds of separatism in modern Europe
Experts have calculated that in the 21st century more than 10 new states may emerge in
Europe
Russian Information Agency Novosti - December 19, 2007

5) Opponents of Kosovo Independence Fear Separatist Reaction
Will an independent Kosovo give rise to separatist movements elsewhere?
Deutsche Welle - December 11, 2007

6) Kosovo independence seen fueling nationalist movements in EU
EU Business - December 11, 2007


VEDI ANCHE / SEE ALSO:

Le foto della manifestazione per l'unità del Belgio /
Manifestation pour l'unité de la Belgique à Bruxelles, 18 novembre 2007
http://www.ptb.be/fr/nouvelles/article/manifestation-pour-lunite-de-la-belgique-a-
bruxelles.html

E' la fine del Belgio?
Un drammatico ma significativo allarme sui progetti di destrutturazione sociale e statuale
della borghesia nel cuore dell'Europa
di Herwig Lerouge
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/5705

The End of Belgium?
Door Herwig Lerouge
http://www.pvda.be/nl/nieuws/article/the-end-of-belgium.html

Belgique - Transferts Flandre-Wallonie: mythes et vérités
« Séparer le pays ? Non, mais il faut arrêter les transferts d'argent de la Flandre vers la
Wallonie», entend-on souvent au Nord du pays. Enquête sur les chiffres.
David Pestieau & Herwig Lerouge - http://www.solidaire.org/ mardi, 4 septembre 2007
http://www.michelcollon.info/articles.php?dateaccess=2007-09-
09%2015:51:02&log=invites

An uncertain future
The year that was: As an enlarged EU searched for a raison d'etre, Belgium spent much of
this year struggling with its own identity crisis
Khaled Diab, The Guardian, December 26, 2007
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/khaled_diab/2007/12/an_uncertain_future.html

German "Imperium" Europe
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/56041
http://www.freenations.freeuk.com/gc-63.html
Deutsches Imperium Europa
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/fulltext/56679
L'Europe, empire allemand
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/fr/fulltext/55940


=== 1 ===

(Der folgende Artikel ist auch auf Deutsch zu lesen:

Anschlusspläne
11.12.2007 - Angesichts der anhaltenden Regierungskrise in Brüssel werden
Sezessionspläne für die deutschsprachigen Ostkantone Belgiens diskutiert...
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/fulltext/57099 )


http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/56118

Accession Plans

2007/12/11


BRUSSELS/EUPEN/DUESSELDORF/BERLIN (Own report) - The ongoing current government
crisis in Brussels is provoking discussions of secession projects in Belgium's
Germanophonic eastern cantons. If the two large regions in Belgium, Flanders and
Wallonia, really separate, why should the Eupen and St. Vith region not reorient itself - is
a question being raised among the 70.000 Germanophones in eastern Belgium, who are
also discussing their region's possible accession to Luxemburg or Germany. Intensive
preparations by Germany's North Rhine-Westphalia, in close cooperation with the
Germanophonic administration in eastern Belgium, point toward the German option. The
two regions initiated new forms of cooperation last summer. Flemish separatism is at the
root of Belgium's current government crisis and could, eventually, lead to a breakup of the
country. In the past, Flemish separatism was strongly influenced by an anti-French
alliance with a westward spreading German hegemonic policy. Berlin's objective was
always to roll back French influence on its western neighbor.

Government Crisis

Belgium's current government crisis which has persisted for several months began during
coalition negotiations following the June 10, 2007 legislative elections, that were won by
Yves Leterme, from the conservative Partei Christen Democratisch en Vlaams (CD en V).
His efforts to form a government alliance failed because of demands advanced by Dutch
speaking Flanders. For years Flemish forces, demanding a halt to the flow of tax money
from this wealthier northern region to the poorer French-speaking region, Wallonia, have
been gaining strength. Included among them are also those seeking the secession of
Flanders from Belgium. Flemish separatism has its base in influential milieus. This year -
with the aid of the Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie (N-VA) political party - it was able to enter an
electoral alliance with the conservatives (CD en V), and play an important role in the
coalition negotiations. But the Wallonian partners in the negotiations refuse to meet the
demands to transfer powers from the central government in Brussels to regional
governments, as raised by the CD en V and N-VA - because of their well-founded fear of
the breakup of Belgium, as a nation.

Options

The persistent dispute around the formation of a government in Brussels has provoked
debates about Belgium's future, including its eastern cantons. The Germanophonic
community (DG), an administrative conglomeration, representing the 70.000
Germanophonic minority around Eupen and St. Vith, has been granted numerous
autonomous rights over the past decades. It has its own parliament and its own
government. Questions are being raised about the DG's future - if Flanders separates from
Wallonia. As Karl-Heinz Lambertz, the social-democrat prime minister in Eupen declared:
"If Belgium splits, we, of course, have to keep all options open." According to Lambertz,
several scenarios are currently on the table - ranging from sovereignty to unifying with
Luxemburg to the south or accession to Germany to the east.[1] In the DG one hears that
Luxemburg's prosperity is to its advantage, "salaries are excellent and pensions not
bad".[2] The long preparatory political work speaks in favor of Germany.

Project Promotion

For a long time, German influence in eastern Belgium was centered on cultural affairs,
through subsidies for Germanophonic Belgians paid, among others, by the Hermann-
Niermann-Foundation (Duesseldorf / North Rhine-Westphalia). In the late 1980s, this
foundation was heavily criticized because some of its personnel came from the extreme-
rightist milieu and because of contacts to terrorist circles in South Tyrol, which persisted
up to 1987.[3] At the end of 1994 the Hermann-Niermann-Foundation ceased financial
support for eastern Belgium, but successfully won lawsuits against east Belgian critics,
strongly protesting German financial interference in east Belgian cultural affairs. At the
time the suits was filed, an undersecretary of the German interior ministry, in charge of
the promotion of Germanophonic minorities abroad, was board chairman of the
foundation.[4] The critics resistance against Germany's interference collapsed with their
defeat in court. Today there is little protest heard against DG's close collaboration with the
Federal Union of European Nationalities, FUEN. FUEN, subsidized with German taxes, has
built a network connecting Germanophonic minorities all over Europe with officials of the
German interior ministry.[5]

Cooperation Treaty

The cultural lobbying, with financial aid for selected projects, was replaced by a
cooperation treaty between the DG in Eupen and the administration of North Rhine-
Westphalia. On March 4, 2004, the respective prime ministers signed a "common
Declaration" aimed at establishing "a close linkage between the two regions," including the
fields of "the educational system, art and culture, the media, recreation, sports and
tourism, youth, social security and health, professional training and employment, Europe
and regional structural policies as well as general administrative affairs." In all of these
areas, the DG has autonomous authority independent of the central government in
Brussels.[6] Too small to have their own sovereign policy, the east Belgian cantons are now
transferring these responsibilities to the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia. Just last
summer, ministries from eastern Belgium and North Rhine-Westphalia intensified their
cooperation in the fields of education and research. But independently from that, German
and Belgian communes are intensifying their cross border collaboration, mainly within the
so-called "Euregio Maas-Rhein" framework.[7]

Opposing Interests

If Flanders separates from Wallonia, Flemish separatism would release and irretrievably
detach the DG from Brussels. Throughout its history, Flemish separatism, especially its
radical variation, has been also influenced by Germany. When, in the course of World War I,
the government of the German Reich realized that its chances to win were fading away and
was preparing for a compromise peace, it intensified its so-called Flemish policy.
Strengthening Flemish collaborators, Germany was hoping to keep Belgium under its
influence after a peace accord. In 1917, to the advantage of Flemish nationalists, the
German occupying power divided Belgium into two administrative regions - Flanders and
Wallonia. This collaboration "gave birth to the notion of contradictory vital interests
between `Flanders' and `Belgium', which had been largely unknown to the Flemish
movement before the war," according to an analysis of the German-Flemish
relationship.[8] Flemish separatism is today still based on this notion.

Knowledge and Support

Following its defeat in 1918, the German Reich considered Flemish nationalism to be a
guarantee against France becoming stronger. As assumed by the historian Robert Paul
Oszwald (Potsdam) in 1927, Paris was struggling "with all its intellectual, economic and
military means to win influence in northwestern Europe, to take control over the German
lifeline, the estuary of the Rhine." Only the nationalist and radically Anti-French Flemish
came into question as a counteracting force.[9] Oszwald, who was "the key figure in the
relationship between German and Flemish nationalists during the Weimar epoch" [10]
served as advisor to the German foreign ministry in the 1920s. He functioned as a broker
between the German Reich and the "niederlaendischen Kulturkreis" (Dutch cultural circle)
"with the knowledge and support of the foreign ministry, up to 1932, when government
policy changed course" wrote Oszwald in a "report on the situation of the neutral western
states Belgium and Holland,"[11] in early February 1940 - just three months before the
German invasion of its western neighbors. But already in 1933, he was able to continue his
work - on behalf of Division VII of the Reich's Propaganda Ministry.

Against Paris

The anti-French posture is still an element of Flemish separatism. When the winner of the
June 10, elections, Yves Leterme, was asked by a TV reporter to sing the Belgian national
anthem, he chimed in the wrong melody. Rather than the Belgian national anthem,
Leterme, the known promoter of a greater autonomy for Flanders, began to sing the
Marseillaise. The candidate for the prime minister's office thereby underlined an important
element of his policy. It is directed against French influence in Belgium, thus favoring
Berlin.


Please read also: Autonomy for "German" Belgium, "Dissolve frontiers like a sugar lump in
tea", Anschluss an Deutschland: "Kein Fehlverhalten", German pressure group in East
Belgium, Brückenkopf im Westen, Identitätsfindung, Baldiger Anschluss, Gemeinsam mehr
erreichen! and Ethno-Netzwerk.

[1] Ostbelgier sehen die Regierungskrise noch gelassen; Aachener Zeitung 08.11.2007
[2] Eine Nation gerät ins Wanken; Südwest Presse 15.11.2007
[3] see also Baldiger Anschluss and Ethno-Netzwerk
[4] see also "Conspiracy against Belgium" and Fliehkräfte
[5] see also Aktionseinheiten
[6] Ministerpräsident Peer Steinbrück: "Zusammenarbeit zwischen NRW und der
Deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaft Belgiens vorbildhaft"; Landespresse- und
Informationsamt Nordrhein-Westfalen 04.03.2004. See also Ostbelgien im deutschen Netz
[7] see also "Die Potenziale des Nachbarn nutzen", "Raumordnung" um Aachen herum and
Stilles Wachstum
[8] Winfried Dolderer: Der flämische Nationalismus und Deutschland zwischen den
Weltkriegen, in: Burkhard Dietz, Helmut Gabel, Ulrich Tiedau (Hg.): Griff nach dem Westen,
Münster 2003
[9] Robert Paul Oszwald: Nordwesteuropa, in: Volk und Reich Jahrgang 3 Nummer 12,
Dezember 1927
[10] Winfried Dolderer: Der flämische Nationalismus und Deutschland zwischen den
Weltkriegen, in: Burkhard Dietz, Helmut Gabel, Ulrich Tiedau (Hg.): Griff nach dem Westen,
Münster 2003
[11] Stephan Laux: Flandern im Spiegel der "wirklichen Volksgeschichte", in: Burkhard
Dietz, Helmut Gabel, Ulrich Tiedau (Hg.): Griff nach dem Westen, Münster 2003



=== 2 ===

http://www.jungewelt.de/2007/12-31/052.php

31.12.2007 / Schwerpunkt / Seite 3
Das Ende von Belgien?

Kleinstaaten für das internationale Kapitalmonopol: Wie die »Zeitung für Deutschland« die
Landkarte Europas neu zeichnet

Von Andreas Wehr


Nun also Belgien! Die Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, die sich in ihren bisherigen
Berichten über das Auf und Ab in der sich nun schon seit einem halben Jahr hinziehenden
belgischen Regierungskrise mal belustigt, mal mäßig besorgt zeigte, sprach jetzt ihr
Verdikt: »Das Ende von Belgien«, ausdrücklich ohne ein Fragezeichen versehen, lautete die
Überschrift eines Zweispalters von Dirk Schümer im Feuilleton der »Zeitung für
Deutschland« Mitte Dezember (siehe auszugsweise Dokumentation unten). Ganz so, als sei
dieses Ende bereits eingetreten. Und genau so ist es auch gemeint. Zwar wird dem
Gesamtstaat eine Gnadenfrist eingeräumt, da diesmal »der landestypische Kompromiß«
wohl noch mal erzielt werde. Doch der kann nach Schümer nur »der letzte sein«. Und so
macht sich der Autor bereits Gedanken darüber, was aus Brüssel, dem Königshaus und der
»maroden Wallonie« anschließend werden soll.

Daß tatsächlich nur wenige im Land, bei aller Gereiztheit und Ratlosigkeit über die nicht
endenwollende Regierungskrise, ernsthaft über eine Scheidung nachdenken, ist für
Schümer nebensächlich: »Zwar spricht sich nur eine Minderheit von weniger als zwanzig
Prozent der Belgier für eine sofortige Teilung aus, doch dürfte die Spaltung auf mittlere
Sicht gar nicht mehr zu verhindern sein (...)«. Daß die in Europa einflußreiche Frankfurter
Allgemeine mit Sympathie über eine Auflösung des Nachbarstaats schreibt, wird von den
flämischen Separatisten aufmerksam registriert und als Ermutigung verstanden werden.

Wie bereits zuvor bei der Zerstörung Jugoslawiens, der Auflösung der Sowjet union und
der Teilung der Tschechoslowakei ist auch jetzt wieder die Rede von einem »Kunststaat«,
der zu Recht untergehe. Laut FAZ soll auch »Belgien als lukratives Kunstprodukt
erschaffen« worden sein und »zwar von einem kleinen Kreis reicher Kulturfranzosen«. Da
kann man nur staunen! Nicht etwa das von oben zusammengezimmerte, auf
mittelalterlichen Dynastien errichtete und mit Hilfe eines Krieges aus der Taufe gehobene
Bismarcksche Deutsche Reich war ein Kunststaat, nein, dies soll vielmehr das 40 Jahre
zuvor gegründete Belgien sein. Und so zählen die seinerzeit beispiellose liberale und mo
derne Verfassung und die dort gelebten Freiheitsrechte des 1830 gegründeten, ersten
wirklich bürgerlichen Staates Europas nichts. Ein natürlicher und eben nicht »künstlicher«
Staat ist nach Meinung Schümers offensichtlich nur einer, der sich durch einheitliche
Sprache, ethnische Geschlossenheit und auch Blutsverwandtschaft der Stämme
auszeichnet. Dies ist klassisch romantisch, durch und durch reaktionär und leider auch
sehr deutsch. Wir wissen, wohin das bei uns geführt hat. Erst nach dem Zusammenbruch
des Wilhelminischen Reiches konnte Deutschland – gut 90 (!) Jahre nach Gründung
Belgiens – an jene dort vorweggenommene Entwicklung endlich anknüpfen.

»Kunststaaten« wären nach diesem Maßstab übrigens die meisten Länder der Welt. Und so
ist das herbeigeschriebene Schicksal Belgiens denn auch nur ein Menetekel für
Kommendes. In der Ankündigung des FAZ-Artikels heißt es: »Ein Staat zerfällt. Dieses
Szenario werden wir bald noch häufiger erleben, bei den Schotten, den Kosovaren, auch
den Südtirolern.«

Was zerreißt nun auch westeuropäi sche Staaten in einem historischen Augenblick, in dem
sich doch Europa angeblich gerade vereint? Es ist genau jener europäische
Einigungsprozeß, der ja nichts anderes ist als ein Ein- und Unterordnungsprozeß in das
System der Globalisierung, der die Nationalstaaten sprengt. Lange war angenommen
worden, daß die Grundfreiheiten der EU, der freie Waren-, Personen-, Dienstleitungs- und
Kapitalverkehr allein die Mitgliedsstaaten in einen erbarmungslosen Standortnationalismus
treibt. Nun machen sich auch die reichen Regionen dieser Länder auf, die innerstaatliche
Solidarität aufzukündigen und notleidende Gebiete abzuschütteln. Im erbarmungslosen
Kampf der Regionen jede gegen jede wird innerstaatliche Solidarität zu einem Luxus. In
Belgien ist es Flandern, das dem »maroden Wallonien« angeblich »die Renten- und
Sozialkassen alimentiert«. Die Schotten wollen die Einnahmen aus dem Nordseeöl nicht
länger teilen, die Anhänger der italienischen Lega Nord nicht für den armen Süden zahlen,
und die reichen Katalanen fühlen sich eh als ein eigenständiges Mittelmeervolk. Die Liste
ließe sich um einige Kandidaten verlängern, auch um deutsche. »Aus deutscher
Perspektive zeigt der Verfall Belgiens, daß eine Nation mit eingebautem Wohlstandsgefälle
nur schwer überlebt«, resümiert Dirk Schümer. Und die FAZ weist schon mal den Weg:
»Diese wohlhabenden Entitäten, denen der Nationalstaat des vorigen Jahrhunderts zu eng
wird, eint der Wille, nach dem Loswerden der Zentralmacht und einer angepeilten
›Unabhängigkeit‹ schnellstmöglich der EU beizutreten.« Und so könnten statt der heute 27
bald 40 oder gar 50 Staaten diese Union bilden. Das internationale Monopolkapital wird es
freuen, sind doch solche Kleinstaaten Wachs in ihren Händen.

Der Kapitalismus neoliberalen Zuschnitts macht sich auf, die Landkarte Europas neu zu
zeichnen. Die nationalen Bourgeoisien sind an großen und einheitlichen Territorien immer
weniger interessiert, spielen doch Grenzen dank der EU-Binnenmarktfreiheiten für den
ungehinderten Kapital- und Warenfluß keine Rolle mehr. Doch Nationalstaaten sind nach
dem Ende des Zweiten Weltkrieges in harten Klassenauseinandersetzungen und unter dem
Eindruck des Vorbilds des Ostens auch Sozialstaaten geworden. In ihnen wird Solidarität
durch den Transfer erheblicher Mittel zugunsten notleidender Regionen geübt. Dafür ist
die EU kein Ersatz. Der Kampf für den Erhalt des Nationalstaats ist daher in erster Linie
eine soziale Auseinandersetzung. Traditionelle und liebgewordene antietaistische
Sichtweisen trüben in diesem Kampf nur den Blick auf die wirklichen Gefahren.

Der Autor lebt und arbeitet in Brüssel


MEHR AUS DER RUBRIK SCHWERPUNKT (31.12.2007)


Ein Nationalstaat zerfällt – Das Ende von Belgien

Auszüge aus dem FAZ-Artikel vom 14.12.07



=== 3 ===

www.radioserbia

La Vallonia è preoccupata per le conseguenze dell'indipendenza kosovara
13 dicembre 2007 15:24

I deputati di tutti i partiti politici della Vallonia, regione meridionale belga in cui si parla il
francese, hanno espresso una seria preoccupazione per la possibile indipendenza del
Kosovo, valutando che questo potrebbe avere un effetto-domino sul Belgio, di cui la parte
settentrionale, Flandria, in cui si parla la lingua olandese, tende a secedere. Dobbiamo
fermare la nascita di nuovi, artificiali stati in Europa, ha dichiarato il deputato del
principale partito di Vallonia, Movimento riformista, Francois Xavier de Donneas. Il
deputato del partito ecologista Josie Dubier ha dichiarato di temere che, come ha detto, si
stia accendendo una macchina infernale separatista, e il socialista Patrick Morieau ha
avvisato che esiste il pericolo del separatismo nel cuore dell'Europa. Il Belgio si trova in
una delle più profonde crisi politiche nella sua storia, perché i partiti politici della Vallonia
e della Flandria, a causa di insuperabili divergenze nelle posizioni sul futuro ordinamento
del paese, non riescono già da sei mesi a formare il governo.


=== 4 ===

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20071219/93261437.html

Russian Information Agency Novosti

December 19, 2007

Hotbeds of separatism in modern Europe


MOSCOW - The Kosovo issue has been forwarded to the UN
Security Council. The Russian Foreign Ministry
suggests that Belgrade and Pristina should have
another chance to come to terms. A decision on
Kosovo's cessation from Serbia will create a precedent
and violate international law.

Today, Europe is the venue of both integration and
separatist processes. Experts have calculated that in
the 21st century more than 10 new states may emerge in
Europe.

The Basque Country is the most traditional example of
European separatism.

In Spain, about two million Basques live in three
provinces of what is called the Basque Country.

It has broader powers than other Spanish regions; the
living standards are above the average; and Basque is
recognized as an official language. But despite this
devolution deal, the advocates of secession from Spain
(to be merged with the Basque-populated part of
France) are not going to stop at that.

Francisco Franco was responsible for the growth of
separatism - the Basques were not allowed to publish
books and newspapers; conduct instruction in Basque
(native name - euskara); give children Basque names or
put out their national flag.

Euskadi Ta Askatasuna or ETA (Basque for "Basque
Homeland and Freedom") was set up in 1959 as an
anti-Franco party. Franco has long been dead and the
Basque country has received autonomous status, but
this does not prevent the Basque terrorists from
fighting. More than 900 people have fallen victim to
the struggle for "independence."

Catalonia, an autonomous province in the northeast of
Spain, is also a headache for Madrid.

Having their own language and culture, the Catalans
have always stressed their separate identity in Spain.

Their province enjoys extensive autonomy in Spain, a
constitutional monarchy.

Relations with the central government in Madrid are
being regulated by a separate charter. In 2005, the
new version of the charter said that the Catalans are
a separate nation.

However, there are dozens of parties and public
organizations in the region, mostly left-wing, which
are advocating cessation from Spain. Their goal is to
hold a referendum on independence until 2014.

Another Spanish province, Valencia, received new
autonomous status in July 2007.

France has long-standing experience of resisting
separatism and extremism on its territory, above all
in the Mediterranean island of Corsica.

Corsican national groups clashed with the French army
in the middle 1970s.

The Corsican Nationalist Union and the Movement for
Self-Determination are the biggest and most
influential among these groups.

Both have combat units.

In the last 25 years, the island's status was upgraded
twice - in 1982 and 1990 the local authorities were
given increasingly broad powers in the economy,
agriculture, energy industry, transportation,
education, and culture.

Several years ago, the French parliament recognized
the existence of the Corsican nation. This decision
was later cancelled as contradicting the Constitution
of the French Republic.

The Breton Revolutionary Army (BRA) has operated in
Bretagne, a north-western French province, since the
early 1970s.

The descendants of the Celts, who once came from the
British Isles, do not identify themselves fully with
the French, or consider themselves special among other
French citizens.

During censuses, many of them call themselves Bretons
although put French as their native tongue. The BRA
(apparently named by analogy with the Irish Republican
Army - IRA) belongs to the extremist wing of the
nationalist movement Emgann, which is fighting against
the "French oppressors."

In Italy, separatist attitudes are strong in the
industrially advanced northern regions. The
influential League of the North has so far given up
its demand of secession and insists on Italy becoming
a federation. There are also people wishing to see
South Tirol [Tyrol], which Italy received after WWI,
reunited with Austria.

Belgium may separate into northern Flanders (whose
residents speak Dutch and are leaning towards the
Netherlands) and southern French-speaking Wallonia.

This confrontation between Belgium's two linguistic
communities is rooted in the beginning of Belgium's
independent history when the Walloons and the Flemish
formed a union against the Netherlands.

Having once united in the name of freedom, they have
been trying to break apart for almost two centuries.

Appeals for independence are growing stronger and
stronger - the economically advanced Flanders does not
want to "feed" the Walloon Region. Polls show that
more than 60% of the Flemish and over 40% of the
Walloons believe that Belgium may disintegrate.

In Britain, the separatist attitudes have moved from
Ulster [Northern Ireland] to Scotland.

The recent Scottish parliamentary elections were won
by the supporters of the formation of a new
independent state from the Scottish National Party
(SNP).

The head of the Scottish government Alex Salmond
declared that Scotland may become independent within a
decade.

So far, only 23% of Scots support the idea of their
independence (as compared with 30% a year ago).

However, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon
Brown (the current British Prime Minister) warned in
the press that Britain would be threatened with
"Balkanization" if the 300 year-long union between
England and Scotland continued weakening.

Denmark's Faroe Islands are a semi-autonomous
territory, living on the government's subsidies of
almost $170 million a year. This fact is a restraint
for the local separatists, although five years ago
they tried to conduct a referendum on independence.

Quiet Switzerland also has its own separatists. The
Front for the Liberation of Yura has been demanding
this canton's independence from the confederation for
over 30 years.

At one time, Yura, inhabited by French-speaking
Catholics, was transferred to the canton of Bern with
its predominantly German-speaking Protestant
population. The Front's leaders admit that their
chances of success are minimal.

Vojvodina is a Serbian autonomous region located some
35 km (22 miles) away from Belgrade.

The Alliance of Vojvodina's Magyars, whose
representatives control almost 70% of the region's
territory, demand a republican status for the region,
a referendum on secession from Serbia and a
confederation with Hungary.

Late last March, the Association asked the European
Union to send a mission to study the situation.

Hungarians now account for more than 40% of the
region's population.

A similar scenario is developing in Romanian
Transylvania (in 1940-1945 it belonged to Hungary; in
1919-1939 to Romania; and before that to
Austria-Hungary).

The percentage of Hungarians there already exceeds
45%.

The Union for the Revival of Hungarian Transylvania,
set up under Ceausescu, has already held referendums
on territorial autonomy in three Transylvanian
districts late last March. The local Hungarians
expressed themselves for the maximal autonomy from
Bucharest and independent relations with Budapest.

"Anti-colonial" raids have become more frequent in
Italian Sardinia, and in the Austrian provinces of
Stiria and particularly Carinthia, mostly populated by
Croatians and Slovenians.

The South Albanian Greeks and residents of the
Portuguese Azores have also become increasingly active
in demanding autonomy.


=== 5 ===

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2998982,00.html

Deutsche Welle - December 11, 2007

Opponents of Kosovo Independence Fear Separatist Reaction

Will an independent Kosovo give rise to separatist movements elsewhere?


The expected declaration of independence by Kosovo has
a number of nations on edge. Those who oppose Kosovo's
autonomy harbor separatists of their own. A free
Kosovo could be just the rallying call these movements
need.

With all the signs pointing towards a declaration of
independence from Kosovo after the UN-set deadline for
reaching a settlement passes on Monday, the European
Union is bracing itself for a wave of renewed calls
for autonomy from separatist movements across Europe.

If Kosovo declares independence from Serbia, it will
set a powerful precedent for movements from Spain to
Scotland, all wanting to rewrite the map of Europe and
form their own independent states, according to
experts.

"There is a real risk that the quasi-dogma of the
intangibility of borders which has existed since the
end of the World War II will fall," French political
scientist Jean-Yves Camus of the Paris-based IRIS
institute told AFP. "This would benefit movements
which seek to rewrite the map of Europe based on
ethnic, linguistic or cultural criteria," added Camus,
a specialist on separatist movements in Europe.

The emergence of similar lifestyles and English as a
common language in Europe, combined with the
disappearance of borders and the lack of democratic
legitimacy of EU bodies, had fueled "the development
of micro-distinctive identities," said Camus.

While Kosovo's ethnic majority leaders have vowed not
to unilaterally declare independence from Serbia
without US and European Union approval, they are
expected to announce their intentions to form a new
state in early 2008.

Opposition includes fear of own breakaway states

Many of the countries which oppose the creation of an
independent state of Kosovo have at least one
separatist movement working towards autonomy within
their own borders.

Serbia's ally Russia, which leads the opposition, has
problems with separatists in Chechnya and the Caucasus
region while Spain has had a long-running dispute with
the armed ETA movement. Other countries against
Kosovo's independence such as Cyprus and Greece have
ethnic minorities which demand more power.

"In the West, this [Kosovo] solution will set off
separatists in Europe," Russian President Vladimir
Putin said in an interview published in French
newspaper Le Figaro earlier this year. "Look at
Scotland, Catalonia and the Basque Country."

Spain is currently experiencing a period of unease as
its northern Basque Country and its wealthy
northeastern region of Catalonia have stepped up their
demands for more autonomy.

Last year Catalan voters overwhelmingly backed a new
charter which recognized the region as a "nation"
within Spain and grants it enhanced powers in taxation
and judicial matters.

Separatists claim EU structure makes autonomy possible

As in other separatist regions of Europe like
Flanders, the Dutch-speaking northern part of Belgium,
and northern Italy, supporters said Catalonia deserved
extra powers because it makes a bigger contribution to
the economy.

The armed Basque separatist group ETA ended a 15-month
ceasefire in June while the Scottish National Party,
which came to power in May, plans to hold a referendum
on independence in 2010.

Belgium meanwhile has been without a government for
six months after a general election on June 10
highlighted deep divisions between the nation's
majority Dutch-speakers and Francophones.

For many nationalists, membership in the 27-nation
European Union has only served to make separation seem
more viable.

"Europe can regulate our functionings and transfer
payments. Why must we maintain this intermediate roof
we call Belgium," the leader of the Flemish
nationalist party, Bart De Wever, told French daily Le
Monde last month.

Russia to block independence at UN level

Meanwhile, Russia stepped up its opposition Tuesday by
announcing that it would demand that the UN Security
Council annul any unilateral declaration of
independence by Kosovo.

"Russia will of course demand the annulment of such a
decision. We will demand a meeting of the Security
Council because it would be a violation of a Council
resolution," Russia's Interfax news agency quoted the
country's chief Kosovo negotiator Alexander
Botsan-Kharchenko as saying.


=== 6 ===

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1197337627.56

EU Business - December 11, 2007

Kosovo independence seen fueling nationalist movements in EU


MADRID - If Kosovo declares independence from Serbia
after Monday's UN-set deadline for reaching a
settlement has passed, a powerful precedent will be
set for separatist movements across Europe, from Spain
to Scotland, observers say.

"There is a real risk that the quasi-dogma of the
intangibility of borders which has existed since the
end of the Second World War will fall," French
political scientist Jean-Yves Camus of the Paris-based
IRIS institute told AFP.

"This would benefit movements which seek to rewrite
the map of Europe based on ethnic, linguistic or
cultural criteria," added Camus, a specialist on
separatist movements in Europe.

Kosovo's ethnic majority leaders are widely expected
to unilaterally declare independence from Serbia in
early 2008 but have vowed not to do so without US and
European Union approval.

Although the province formally remains part of Serbia,
Kosovo has been run by the United Nations and NATO
since 1999, when NATO airstrikes ended a Serbian
crackdown on ethnic Albanian separatists.

Serbia, backed by its ally Russia, opposes Kosovo's
plan and at least four EU nations - Cyprus, Greece,
Slovakia and Spain - are reluctant to recognise a
unilateral declaration of independence, in part
because of the precedent it might set for separatists
nearer to home.

"In the West, this solution will set off separatists
in Europe. Look at Scotland, Catalonia, the Basque
Country," Russian President Vladimir Putin said in an
interview published in French newspaper Le Figaro
earlier this year.

Kosovo's expected declaration of independence comes at
a time when Spain's northern Basque Country and its
wealthy northeastern region of Catalonia have stepped
up their demands for more authonomy.

Last year Catalan voters overwhelmingly backed a new
charter which recognized the region as a "nation"
within Spain and grants it enhanced powers in taxation
and judicial matters.

As in other separatist regions of Europe like
Flanders, the Dutch-speaking northern part of Belgium,
and northern Italy, supporters said Catalonia deserved
extra powers because it makes a bigger contribution to
the economy.

The armed Basque separatist group ETA ended a 15-month
ceasefire in June while the Scottish National Party,
which came to power in May, plans to hold a referendum
on independence in 2010.

Belgium meanwhile has been without a government for
six months after a general election on June 10
highlighted deep divisions between the nation's
majority Dutch-speakers and Francophones.

For many nationalists, membership in the 27-nation
European Union has only served to make separation seem
more viable.

"Europe can regulate our functionings and transfer
payments. Why must we maintain this intermediate roof
we call Belgium," the leader of the Flemish
nationalist party, Bart De Wever, told French daily Le
Monde last month.

The emergence of similar lifestyles and English as a
common language in Europe, combined with the
disappearance of borders and the lack of democratic
legitimacy of EU bodies, had fueled "the development
of microdistinctive identities," said Camus.

(english)


Dal Kosovo al Belgio. La dissezione (germanica) dell'Europa (2/2)


1) Independence for Flanders: Good for Democracy, Good for Europe
"... Powerful countries in the West worked actively for the break-up of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, and of course their efforts were successful. This is in spite of the fact that those states, unlike Belgium, were essentially united by a common language. Now, indeed, the European Union is actively supporting a sixteenth secession, that of Kosovo..." 
John Laughland (29/11/2007)

2) Brussels' End 
The Balkanization of Europe
by Nebojsa Malic (27/9/2007)


=== 1 ===


Brussels Journal
November 29, 2007

Independence for Flanders: Good for Democracy, Good for Europe

John Laughland

From the desk of John Laughland on Thu, 2007-11-29 13:40



The question of the break-up of Belgium is no longer taboo in the Western European press. On the contrary, it is discussed openly as a possible, even likely future event. Most recently in The Guardian on 13th November 2007, Jon Henley wrote that the break-up seemed inevitable (even though he personally opposes it) while of course The Economist had written a similar thing in September.

The independence of Flanders has therefore become a matter of mainstream political debate.
What will the attitude of the rest of Europe be to the break-up of Belgium? As one surveys the geopolitics of post Cold War Europe, one can say only that one is struck by the double standards with which the EU and the US treat the question of national independence.
On the one hand, since 1991, no fewer than fifteen new states have emerged on the European continent as a result of secessionist movements (Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Russia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia). Powerful countries in the West worked actively for the break-up of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, and of course their efforts were successful. This is in spite of the fact that those states, unlike Belgium, were essentially united by a common language.
Now, indeed, the European Union is actively supporting a sixteenth secession, that of Kosovo. Following the election victory of the PDK in Kosovo’s parliamentary elections on Sunday 18th November – a party led by the former head of the Kosovo Liberation Army, Hashim Thaci – it is inevitable now that Kosovo will declare independence at some point between 10th December, when the deadline expires for the talks with Belgrade at the UN, and the end of the year.
The West has egged the Kosovo Albanians on, saying that it will recognise an independent Kosovo if the Albanians do indeed proclaim their independence. Such a move will represent a flagrant breach of international law, since the status of Kosovo as part of Serbia is governed by a U.N. Resolution passed in 1999.
The independence of Kosovo of course follows the secession of Montenegro from Serbia-Montenegro in June 2006, even though Serbs and Montenegrins are one and the same people, speaking the same language and sharing the same religion and history.
On the other hand, the West opposes secessions when they do not suit it geo-politically. Bosnia-Herzegovina is a case in point. When the Prime Minister of Republika Srpska called in September 2006 for a referendum to be held on the secession of Republiak Srpska from Bosnia-Herzegovina, the international community’s “High Representative” said that he would sack him unless he backed down. He did, but there is even now a crisis in Bosnia, as the new High Representative is trying to abrogate important parts of RS’ autonomy. Bosnia is an EU colony – the 16,000 soldiers still stationed there (twelve years after the end of the war) are part of an EU military force – and the EU clearly does not want its territory to be divided.
The same goes for Transnistria in Moldova. Even though that territory voted by a massive majority in September 2006 for continued independence from Moldova, the West refused to recognise the results of that referendum. Indeed, Europe’s main election-monitoring body, the OSCE, refused even to observe the poll saying that “The OSCE does not support a unilateral referendum questioning Moldova's territorial integrity.” The author of that quotation is none other than the then OSCE chairman, the Belgian Foreign Minister Karel de Gucht. This is in spite of the fact that the legal reason why Moldova seceded from the USSR is that it revoked the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of September 1939, by means of which Bessarabia was annexed to the USSR. But that annexation also involved the annexation of Transnistria to what became the Moldovan Soviet Socialist Republic, to which it had never previously belonged.
Further afield, the West also opposes independence movements in Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia) and Azerbaijan (Nagorno-Karabakh) even though these territories, like Transnistria, have been independent for well over a decade.
So where does Belgium stand?
The reasons why the West opposes secession in Moldova, Bosnia and elsewhere are geopolitical and ideological. The EU wants to extend its writ deep into historic Russian territory and that is why it is not prepared to see Moldova divided. In the case of Bosnia, that artificial state was elevated, during the Yugoslav war, to an icon of multiculturalism (even though Yugoslavia itself had of course been a multi-ethnic state, as Serbia is today).
In my view, Europe will oppose the break-up of Belgium for the same reasons.
Of course there is no question that an independent Flanders could be a viable state. In terms of population, Flanders is bigger than the historic nation-states Denmark, Norway and Ireland, as well as than the more recently created states Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Cyprus, Malta – and obviously Luxembourg.
There is no question that Flanders has the requisite historic identity to constitute a sovereign state. It certainly has more claim to historical existence than Bosnia, an artificial state being held together as a last experiment in multi-nationalism. Flanders has exactly the same historic basis for a claim to independence as Slovakia, Cyprus or Croatia (and, as I say, it is bigger than all three states). The English often joke and say “Name ten famous Belgians” and the list usually peters out after the fictional characters Tintin and Hercule Poirot. But it is obvious that you would have difficulty keeping the list to ten if you were asked to name famous Flemings - Rubens, Van Eyck, Memling and Hieronymous Bosch, for starters. Compare this to the thin or non-existent historical background of Estonia or Slovenia.
The reason why the break-up of Belgium will be opposed by Europe is that it will not serve the cause of European integration. With the partial exception of Czechoslovakia, the break-up of multi-ethnic states in Eastern Europe has helped Europe integration – on the basis of “divide and rule”. Small bogus states with no real political existence provide good “lobby fodder” in the Council of Ministers – they take the EU’s money and vote how they are told. It is obvious that very few of the secessions in Europe since 1991 have occurred as a result of a desire for real independence, or else the new states would not immediately have joined the EU and NATO. You can see this very clearly in the case of Montenegro, which will apply to join the EU within less than two years after becoming independent. Having adopted the euro in 2002, Montenegro has just signed a “Stabilisation Agreement” with the European Union. This Stabilisation Agreement is itself 680 pages long - quite a lot of legislation for a country of barely 600,000 people (Montenegro is just one and half times the size of the city of Antwerp) but of course nothing in comparison to the 80,000 pages of primary EU legislation which Montenegro will have to adopt when it joins the EU, which it hopes to do very soon.
On the contrary, the break-up of Belgium would show that the fault-line which is at the heart of the European project runs right through the EU’s very capital. That fault-line is the contradiction between democracy and supranationalism. Flemings of course understand that a supranational state is inimical to democracy, and that it destroys it. The larger nations of Europe do not understand this because they are relatively influential within the EU and because the prominence of their national political life obscures the fact that they are, in fact, governed by the EU, which is a totally undemocratic and even anti-democratic organisation.
There is not time in a short speech to rehearse the arguments about why the EU is undemocratic. Everyone knows that the main decisions are taken in secret by the unelected Commission and the unaccountable Council of Ministers. National parliaments are systematically emasculated by the EU, which gives governments the right to make laws, in secret. The fact that the defunct European Constitution is even now being re-introduced, having been rejected in referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005 (two founder member states of the EU) shows that the EU is prepared to override the results of democratic direct polls in order to achieve its aims. Democracy is actively suppressed by European integration.
The break-up of Belgium would be a highly symbolic of this fatal flaw. The EU is of course based on the historic reconciliation between the old countries of the original Holy Roman Empire – France, Germany, Italy and the Low Countries. The specifically Franco-German aspect of this reconciliation is mirrored in microcosm in the coexistence of the Flemings and Walloons within Belgium. Many Belgian leaders including the late King Baudoin indeed said that the EU was a sort of Greater Belgium. The collapse of the Belgian model would be an event of immense significance and would, in my view, deliver a further blow to the already faltering project of European integration.
It would be essential, in my view, that an independent Flanders do not, therefore, immediately apply to re-join the EU, but that instead it negotiate its own terms of association, confining the ultimate deal to the obvious things which people like about the EU – free travel without passports, freedom of trade – and refusing to sign up to any of the EU treaties themselves. All of these treaties, starting with the Treaty of Rome, provide for the vast majority of legislative power to be transferred to the EU. All new member states have to adopt the totality of the so-called acquis communautaire (more than 80,000 pages of primary legislation) and therefore any state which signs such a treaty is no longer independent in any real sense. Of course the centralisation of power will increase only further with the reform treaty, in which states will lose further powers including over immigration. That treaty, indeed, contains a “enabling clause” which allows the EU to increase its own powers indefinitely and so further centralisation is inevitable.
There is therefore no point Flanders being independent of Belgium if it is not independent of the EU too, for otherwise it would only exchange the rule of Brussels for the rule of Brussels. The “Europe of the regions” model is a trap which would only make Flanders into a sort of Wallonia, the recipient of EU aid in return for political compliance in everything.
There are plenty of precedents in Europe for such a free association with the EU. For free travel, Norway and Iceland (neither of which belongs to the EU) both belong to the Schengen system which allows free travel without passports. Switzerland has signed extensive bilateral trade treaties with the EU which do not compromise its national sovereignty. As far as the currency is concerned, there are countries which belong to the EU which do not use the euro (the UK, Denmark and Sweden, plus the new member states except Slovenia which adopted it this year) and there are non-EU states which do, like Montenegro.
The European Union now displays all the worst characteristics of Belgium itself: an impossibly complicated institutional structure which is kept that way deliberately in order to serve vested interests; an opaque and deliberately undemocratic decision-making process; a vast system of internal financing which is used to pervert the political process by buying off certain powerful interest groups; and of course rampant corruption. By showing up the Belgian model itself as a lie, the independence of Flanders would provide a great service to democracy and to the whole of Europe. Flanders, indeed, could show the way for other countries whose people would also like to leave the EU.


===  2 ===

 

September 27, 2007
Brussels' End 

The Balkanization of Europe

by Nebojsa Malic

"The hour of Europe has dawned," declared pompously Luxembourg's foreign minister Jacques Poos in May 1991, as he led the negotiations that would begin the dismemberment of Yugoslavia. Sixteen years hence, Yugoslavia's mutilated corpse is still haunting Europe, this time in Mr. Poos' front yard.

Luxembourg's neighbor to the west, Belgium, has been without a government for over 100 days. Tensions between the majority Flemings and minority Walloons have reached an impasse, and there is open talk of the country's dissolution. Politically, Belgium is beginning to look like Bosnia in 1991, before it plunged into brutal civil war.

The irony, of course, is that Belgium is the headquarters of both the European Union (Brussels), and NATO (Mons). Thus the fountainhead of "Euro-Atlantic integrations," pitched to post-Communist countries as the panacea for all their ills, can hardly keep itself integrated any more. If Belgium, a model for artificial states everywhere for over 170 years, cannot stay together, what fate does that portend for the EU? Most assuredly a grim one.

One Land, Two Peoples

Belgium was established in 1831 by the British, following a Francophone rebellion in what was then southern Netherlands. The Dutch-speaking Flemings and the French-speaking Walloons have been ruled by a German dynasty (cousins of the British royals) ever since, but their cohabitation has always been restive at best.

The most recent Belgian crisis began in June, when following the general elections no party was able to form a government. According to the country's constitution, a government must be composed of equal parts Flemings and Walloons; since the Flemings are some 60% of the population, and French-speaking Walloons make up 30%, it is clear that no government can be established without Walloon approval. The gap in policies and beliefs between the major Fleming and Walloon parties is so wide, however, they have been unable to reach any sort of agreement for over three months now.

Flemish politicians are riding the wave of popular discontent with what most Flemings perceive as Francophone oppression. Flanders contributes 70% of the country's GDP, but the Walloons consume 60% of it in welfare and subsidies. While Fleming parties are largely conservative, Francophone politicians are mostly left-liberal, and often make alliances with Muslim immigrants – which is another bone of contention in Belgium.

A protest against the Islamization of Europe, scheduled for September 11, was the only political demonstration in recent history actually banned by Brussels mayor Freddy Thielemans. Brussels police savagely attacked the protesters. Many of the demonstrators were from Flanders, and were set upon by Francophone riot police. Arguably, the brutality with which the Brussels authorities treated the protesters has further inflamed ethnic tensions in Belgium.

All this has led to Flemish politicians openly considering the dissolution of Belgium. Maps have already been drawn, covering just about every possibility, from two independent states to Flanders joining the Netherlands while Wallonia joins France.

Troubles on the Horizon

Belgium is not the only Western European country dealing with ethnic/regional issues. Spain has had a particularly rough time as well, with the Basques and the Catalans in particular demanding more cultural, political and linguistic autonomy. Recent disputes about the proper display of the Spanish national flag (in relation to regional flags) and the lyrics to the national anthem has once again elevated tensions between the government in Madrid and the autonomy-demanding regions.

Things are not going so well on the British isles either. The current Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is Scottish, as are many other Labor cabinet members. His predecessor, Tony Blair, established parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; England, however, has no parliament of its own. The one at Westminster has members from all over the UK – meaning that Scottish MPs have direct input in decisions affecting England, but English MPs have limited or no influence in Scottish affairs.

As Scottish nationalists lobby for independence from the UK, English nationalists are increasingly resentful of this situation, also known as the "West Lothian Question."

It is a situation most resembling that of Serbia in 1987, when Slobodan Milosevic rose to power on the wave of popular discontent with the constitution that gave Serbian provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo power over Serbian affairs, while making them virtually independent of Belgrade.

The Balkans Threat

It is therefore ironic that the government in London supports the separatists in Kosovo, most likely the first to follow the U.S. in recognizing their unilateral declaration of independence. That Washington intends to do so was announced by the New York Times this week, quoting U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and an unnamed "European diplomat."

According to the anonymous diplomat, once the arbitrary deadline of December 10 arrives, the U.S. will recognize an independent Kosovo and "the Europeans, as far as they can remain united, will follow, too" The Albanian separatists don't need to negotiate, only run out the clock.

But how united can Europe remain? Formerly championed only by Washington and London, the independence cause has now been taken up by France's Sarkozy, and his foreign minister (and onetime viceroy of Kosovo) Bernard Kouchner. Several European countries – Greece, Cyprus, Romania and Slovakia in particular – have been opposed to the independence of Kosovo, mindful of possible conflicts of their own. Although dissenting voices inside the EU were suppressed earlier this year by threats from Brussels and Washington, the failure of the Empire to impose Kosovo's independence through the UN may have changed things.

She's Annoyed, He's Broke

France's cozying up to the U.S. is also causing troubles with Germany. Ever since the Treaty of Paris established the Coal and Steel Community in 1951, Western Europe has revolved around a Franco-German axis. However, with the election of Nicolas Sarkozy to French presidency, relations between Paris and Berlin have become significantly cooler. In mid-September, German magazine Der Spiegel reported on a series of surprises Sarkozy has thrown at the German leadership, claiming that the "hyperactive" president "has the tendency to approach sensitive diplomatic issues with all the finesse of an Energizer bunny," which flusters his German counterparts.

"Merkel, [Foreign Minister Frank-Walter] Steinmeier and German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrück have all been surprised, stymied, annoyed and flabbergasted time and time again by his proposals," says Der Spiegel, citing as the most recent Sarkozy's offer of nuclear weapons to Germany, which the Germans rejected straight away. From style to substance, disagreements between Paris and Berlin are multiplying.

Meanwhile, French Prime Minister Francois Fillon declared this week during a visit to Corsica that he was "at the head of a state that is in a position of bankruptcy." He was responding to a demand by Corsican farmers for more government subsidies. The exasperated PM explained that France hasn't had a balanced budget in 25 years, and is about to present a 2008 budget with a €41.5billion deficit.

Leaving the Sinking Ship

Weighed down by welfare statism, cultural Marxism, decline of traditional culture and the tides of Muslim immigrants, Europe is imploding. With the slow death of old identities such as British or French, communities that consider themselves distinct – Flemings, Basques, Catalans, Corsicans and Scots, to name just a few – are seeking statehood.

This may not happen for a while yet, or it might happen tomorrow. It is hard to tell. But all things remaining equal, it is inevitable. If Washington does go ahead and force the recognition of Kosovo, that will provide a precedent for any who wish to follow; then all there is left is the threshold at which separatism will move from speculation to reality.

There are many possible scenarios from there, two of which are very likely. One would be a "Sovietization" of the EU, with the newly separated states remaining inside the Union, much as ethnic "republics" were established by the Communists in the Soviet Union. The bureaucracy would stay in Brussels, bloat some more, and continue to attempt managing the continent until the EU eventually follows its Soviet exemplar. (Ironically, the introduction of the Euro may actually be promoting political Balkanization!) The second option is potentially more violent, with the new states refusing to join the Union and prompting its wholesale breakup. Attempting to preserve the Union by force will most likely fail, and be exceptionally bloody.

It is unwise to ignore or deny these possibilities, just as it was to ignore the 1990 portents of impending bloodshed in Yugoslavia, or the 2003 warnings concerning Iraq. The fate of Belgium may yet decide whether Europe can find a path of peace and liberty, or descend into the darkness of war.





Buon anno a tutti, la guerra continua


documentazione in ordine cronologico inverso:

1) Buon anno a tutti, la guerra continua
Italia su più fronti. Dal conflitto afghano al Libano, dallo scudo antimissile di Bush ai nuovi cacciabombardieri iper-tecnologici. La finanziaria del 2007 fissa la spesa militare a 21 miliardi di euro, il doppio di quanto spetta ad atenei e ricerca
TOMMASO DI FRANCESCO - il manifesto

2) Finanziaria in divisa
Ventun miliardi alla Difesa, Natale ricco per le aziende belliche italiane
di Luca Galassi - www.peacereporter.net

3) FINANZIARIA, ARMI, POLITICA: CHE VERGOGNA !
Alex Zanotelli

4) FLASHBACK: La Legge Finanziaria 2008 sarà targata N.A.T.O.?
Comunicato Stampa della Rete nazionale Disarmiamoli! Settembre 2007
 

--- 1 ---


IL MANIFESTO
30 DICEMBRE 2007

La Costituzione : «L'Italia ripudia la guerra come strumento di offesa alla libertà degli altri popoli e come mezzo di risoluzione delle controversie internazionali»

Buon anno a tutti, la guerra continua

Italia su più fronti. Dal conflitto afghano al Libano, dallo scudo antimissile di Bush ai nuovi cacciabombardieri iper-tecnologici. La finanziaria del 2007 fissa la spesa militare a 21 miliardi di euro, il doppio di quanto spetta ad atenei e ricerca

TOMMASO DI FRANCESCO

Buon anno, la guerra continua. La finanziaria del 2007 attribuisce alla spesa militare italiana 21 miliardi di euro: è il doppio del bilancio di competenza per l'università e la ricerca ma ci colloca al settimo posto mondiale come spesa militare. Partecipiamo alla mutazione genetica della Nato che, dopo la guerra umanitaria contro l'ex Jugoslavia, è diventata forza d'intervento in tutto il mondo, dove ha dislocato 50 mila uomini, dai Balcani all'Afghanistan al Mediterraneo. E i nostri soldati, recitano i documenti strategici delle Forze Armate, sono pronti non a difendere il paese secondo il dettame costituzionale (artt. 11 e 52), ma anche «aree di interesse nazionale» in tutto il mondo al fine di salvaguardare i nostri interessi, se necessario con interventi «di prevenzione anche lontano dalla madrepatria» (con buona approssimazione alla guerra preventiva), anche in difesa del Muro di Shengen dall'«invasione» degli immigrati. 
Così, di fronte al fallimento in Iraq, siamo venuti via da quella guerra fatta contro l'Onu e contro il popolo iracheno, ma esattamente pochi giorni fa nel Consiglio di sicurezza abbiamo votato a favore della continuazione della missione militare d'occupazione portata avanti dalla coalizione dei volenterosi capitanata dagli Stati uniti. E partecipiamo a una guerra, quella in Afghanistan, «con orgoglio», ha dichiarato a Kabul un inedito mascelluto Romano Prodi, nonostante la missione Onu abbia cambiato di segno da quattro anni e mezzo e sia diventata a tutti gli effetti della Nato. Ma c'è la svolta lessicale. Infatti non la chiamiamo guerra, pur partecipando ai comandi integrati che indicano all'aviazione Usa e Nato gli obiettivi «talebani» sul campo, con un numero così pesante di stragi fra i civili che quella guerra aerea, dalla quale dipende la fortuna delle truppe occidentali e quella del presidente Karzai, ha indebolito il governo afgano e allargato il seguito e l'influenza dei talebani che controllano più del 50% del territorio operando ormai dentro la cosiddetta «zona italiana» da sempre raccontata - chissà perché - come immune dal conflitto. Se dopo l'11 settembre l'obiettivo era fermare il terrorismo, di Al Qaeda o quant'altro ectoplasma, ora nell'area ad essere destabilizzato è addirittura il Pakistan - a partire dalle aeree tribali - dove i talebani sono stati inventati. Una destabilizzazione iniziata ben prima dell'estremo tentativo di Benazir Bhutto.
Siamo schierati in Libano dopo la guerra criminale di bombardamenti aerei israeliani dell'estate 2006, a seguito del rapimento sul confine di un militare israeliano. Avremmo dovuto schierarci alla frontiera, invece siamo dentro il territorio libanese con il dichiarato compito di tenere a bada la forza di Hezbollah e di influire positivamente sul processo democratico libanese. Hezbollah resta forte, il Libano è sempre nel caos. 
Ma il fatto più grave di tutti è che le chiacchiere sull'impegno verso la questione palestinese, quella sì bisognosa di una «forza di interposizione» per liberare i Territori occupati ancora dal 1967, chiacchiere erano e chiacchiere sono rimaste. Anzi se ne ricava l'impressione che, alla fine, ad avvantaggiarsi realmente della nostra missione in Libano sia stata proprio la leadership israeliana con la quale abbiamo continuato a gestire un Trattato militare che sostiene da anni le sue Forze armate: ha infatti ottenuto l'isolamento politico ma soprattutto materiale dei palestinesi, che nell'angolo e affamati, si sono divisi ormai in un conflitto intestino tra Hamas e Fatah. Ora i palestinesi, tutti i palestinesi, attraversati dal Muro, dispersi in milioni di profughi nelle baraccopoli del Medio Oriente impediti nel movimento e in ogni diritto elementare e sempre più frazionati dagli insediamenti israeliani, vedono la prospettiva dello Stato di Palestina come una favola. La favola raccontata al recente vertice di Annapolis che rimanda a data indefinita il destino di milioni di disperati. È questo il risultato, il 2007 è stato l'anno della scomparsa della questione palestinese nel silenzio quotidiano che non conta nemmeno più lo stillicidio di «uccisioni mirate» causate ogni giorno da parte dell'esercito israeliano.
Infine siamo con migliaia di uomini in Kosovo - dove dopo la guerra è andata in onda una feroce contropulizia etnica contro le minoranze serbe e rom, a garantire il rispetto degli accordi di pace di Kumanovo che posero fine alla guerra «umanitaria» contro l'ex Jugoslavia - fatta contro il parere delle Nazioni unite - assunti poi nella Risoluzione 1244 del Consiglio di sicurezza dell'Onu con cui si riconosceva il diritto alla Nato di occupare il territorio ma salvaguardando la sovranità della Serbia. Ora stiamo per costringere gli stessi militari a fare il contrario, vale a dire ad andare contro il quadro di legalità che ha istituito la missione dell'Alleanza atlantica. Perché arriverà la nuova missione «civile e di polizia» dell'Unione europea, con la quale si rileva l'amministrazione fallimentare dell'Unmik-Onu e si avvia la gestione «indolore» dell'indipendenza etnica del Kosovo - contro il Consiglio di sicurezza Onu, la Serbia e la Russia (e la Cina). Incuranti del fatto che la polveriera balcanica può riaccendersi subito.
Serviranno questi preparativi sui fronti di guerra, non chiamata tale ma così diventata in itinere, cambiando le carte in tavola, a «fermare il terrorismo« e a «difendere la democrazia»? 
In realtà accade il contrario. Nessuna guerra riesce a fermare il terrorismo. E accade che tutte queste missioni militari all'estero siano state in questi giorni «prorogate» d'ufficio dal governo senza discussione. E accade che il nostro parlamento non sappia nulla di come e perché l'Italia si sia avventurata in uno spregiudicato mercato di armi sofisticate e abbia allargato, invece che restringere come da promesse elettorali, le sue servitù militari. Così con il Pentagono abbiamo firmato il memorandum d'intesa nel programma, costosissimo, degli F-35 Lightning, il cacciabombardiere Usa Joint Strike Fighter avviando nientemeno che «il più grande e tecnologicamente più evoluto programma della storia dell'aviazione», secondo le parole del sottosegretario alla difesa Forcieri. Lo stesso vale per le basi americane. Chiudiamo la Maddalena ma, manco fossimo al supermercato, cash&carry, allarghiamo la base di Vicenza ben sapendo che diventerà per gli Stati uniti il trampolino di lancio per operazioni militari di proiezione in tutto il mondo, e ristrutturiamo quella strategica di Sigonella. E, dulcis in fundo, il 2007 è stato l'anno dello scudo antimissile che Bush a tutti i costi vuole disporre subito in Europa, nella Repubblica ceca e in Polonia, alla frontiera russa, con la motivazione, insensata perfino per l'Intelligence americana, del pericolo dell'atomica iraniana. 
Abbiamo apprezzato l'interrogativo del ministro degli esteri Massimo D'Alema, preoccupato delle reazioni russe all'imposizione dell'indipendenza del Kosovo: «Ma era davvero questo il momento di andare a piantare missili qui e là in Europa?». Sante parole. Ma allora perché, di nascosto dal parlamento, il ministro della difesa Parisi nel febbraio di quest'anno che muore è corso a Washington a firmare l'accordo quadro che dice sì allo scudo antimissile in Europa, in Italia e nel mondo? Perfino il presidente Napolitano dichiara che è ora che «ne parlino le Camere». Buon anno, la guerra continua.


--- 2 ---


www.resistenze.org - osservatorio - italia - politica e società - 13-12-07 - n. 207

Finanziaria in divisa
 
Ventun miliardi alla Difesa, Natale ricco per le aziende belliche italiane
 
di Luca Galassi - www.peacereporter.net

 

Le minacce del Ventunesimo secolo, evocate con forza sempre maggiore, dopo l'11 settembre, ad ogni vertice annuale della Nato, si chiamano terrorismo e armi di distruzione di massa. Entrambe hanno fatto della paura un elemento di strategia politica. E per contrastare la paura si affinano e si consolidano i sistemi di difesa. Ovvero: ci si arma. Secondo il Sipri (Istituto di studi per la pace di Stoccolma), nel mondo le spese militari sono cresciute nel 2006 del 3,5 percento rispetto all'anno precedente, superando i mille miliardi di dollari (quasi 680 milioni di euro). Nella classifica dei Paesi produttori di armi, l'Italia è al settimo posto, con 20 miliardi di euro. Il nostro Paese destina al settore difesa l'1,5 percento del proprio prodotto interno lordo.

 

Risorse sparse. Le spese militari rappresentano una delle voci più onerose nel bilancio del nostro Paese. Grazie alla Finanziaria, passata a fine estate al Senato per un pugno di voti e in attesa della votazione alla Camera, sono previsti stanziamenti per 23 miliardi e 352 milioni di euro (21 miliardi nel bilancio preventivo della Difesa, 2.424 aggiunti dalla Finanziaria). L'aumento rispetto al 2007 (la misura allora ammontava a 21 miliardi e 11 milioni) è dell'11,1 percento. Le previsioni di spesa per il comparto militare, invece di far capo solo al ministero della Difesa, sono disseminate nelle più disparate allocazioni: oltre alla Finanziaria e al bilancio della Difesa, come detto, i contributi spaziano dal ministero per l'Economia a quello dello Sviluppo economico. Essendo sparse in vari bilanci, le risorse rendono opaca la loro interpretazione. Vediamo di cominciare a far luce sulla loro allocazione, andando a verificare, punto per punto, dove e a cosa sono destinate le risorse stanziate nella Legge Finanziaria.

 

L'articolo 5, comma 12, stanzia un fondo di 107 milioni di euro per il pagamento dell'accisa (imposta) sui prodotti energetici delle Forze Armate.

 

All'articolo 21 del Disegno di Legge, il comma 1 cita: "Per l'organizzazione del vertice G8 previsto per l'anno 2009 è stanziata la somma di euro 30 milioni per l'anno 2008." Il vertice si terrà alla Maddalena, in Sardegna, da dove il mese scorso sono partiti 1.500 soldati Usa, nell'ambito della dismissione della base militare, che verrà definitivamente lasciata dalla Marina statunitense nel febbraio 2008.

 

L'articolo 22 integra con 30 milioni di euro il taglio del 15 percento della scorsa Finanziaria per la 'professionalizzazione' delle Forze Armate; stanzia inoltre 140 milioni di euro per 'garantire la capacità operativa' delle stesse. Venti milioni di euro vanno poi all'arsenale della Marina militare di Taranto e 40 per il funzionamento dell'Arma dei Carabinieri.

 

Nell'articolo 31 si propone l'allocazione di risorse per: 15 velivoli addestratori Aermacchi M346; 12 elicotteri Agusta Westland EH101; sistema di comunicazioni Sicote per i Carabinieri in funzione anti-terrorismo; progetto Soldato futuro; partecipazione, con la Francia, alla costruzione del satellite di comunicazioni Sicral 2. Per l'attuazione di tale piano sono autorizzati contributi quindicennali per un totale di 1 miliardo e 50 milioni di euro.

 

All'articolo 31, comma 2, figurano, per la partecipazione al programma del Caccia Eurofighter: 318 milioni di euro per il 2008, 468 per il 2009, 918 per il 2010, 1.100 per il 2011 e 1.100 per il 2012. Aggiunti a quelli già previsti dalla Tabella F della Finanziaria (importi da iscrivere in bilancio alle autorizzazioni di spesa delle leggi pluriennali), si raggiungono, per 5 anni, 4.884 milioni di euro. Al comma 3, si dispone l'erogazione di ulteriori fondi per il programma di sviluppo delle fregate multiruolo Fremm, in cooperazione con la Francia. Il totale è di un miliardo e 50 milioni in 15 anni. Sempre nella Tabella F della Finanziaria vi sono fondi aggiuntivi per le fregate Fremm di circa 800 milioni di euro.

 

Nell'articolo 93, per esigenze legate alla tutela dell'ordine pubblico, è previsto, per un piano di assunzioni, uno stanziamento di 50 milioni di euro per il 2008, di 120 per il 2009 e di 140 per il 2010. Risorse, queste, destinate all'Arma dei Carabinieri, alla Polizia di Stato, alla Guardia di Finanza, alla Polizia penitenziaria e al Corpo forestale.

 

L'articolo 95 destina 200 milioni di euro in più per 2008, 2009 e 2010 ciascuno per i rinnovi contrattuali e la 'valorizzazione delle specifiche funzioni svolte nella tutela dell'ordine pubblico e della difesa nazionale. Destinatari il corpo di Polizia e le Forze Armate. Nella tabella del ministero per l'Economia è inoltre iscritto oltre un miliardo di euro per il finanziamento delle missioni italiane all'estero.

 

In conclusione, le spese militari aumentano, a dispetto delle promesse del governo Prodi. Che nel programma pre-elettorale si era impegnato, "nell’ambito della cooperazione europea, a sostenere una politica che consenta la riduzione delle spese per armamenti". Promesse da marinaio.


--- 3 ---

FINANZIARIA, ARMI, POLITICA: CHE VERGOGNA !

Napoli,16 novembre 2007

Rimango esterrefatto che la Sinistra Radicale (la cosiddetta Cosa Rossa)
abbia votato, il 12 novembre, con il Pd e tutta la destra, per finanziare i
CPT, le missioni militari e il riarmo del nostro paese. Questo nel silenzio
generale di tutta la stampa e i media .Ma anche nel quasi totale silenzio del
"mondo della pace ".

Ero venuto a conoscenza di tutto questo poche ore prima del voto. Ho lanciato
subito un appello in internet: era già troppo tardi. La "frittata" era già
fatta. Ne sono rimasto talmente male, da non avere neanche voglia di
riprendere la penna. Oggi sento che devo esternare la mia delusione, la mia
rabbia. Delusione profonda verso la Sinistra Radicale che in piazza chiede la
chiusura dei "lager per gli immigrati", parla contro le guerre e
l'mperialismo e poi vota con la destra per rifinanziarli.

E sono fior di quattrini! Non ne troviamo per la scuola, per i servizi
sociali, ma per le armi SI'! E tanti!!

Infatti la Difesa per il 2008 avrà a disposizione 23,5 miliardi di euro: un
aumento di risorse dell'11 rispetto alla finanziaria del 2007, che già aveva
aumentato il bilancio militare del 13%. Il governo Prodi in due anni ha già
aumentato le spese militari del 24%!!

Ancora più grave per me è il fatto dei soldi investiti in armi pesanti. Due
esempi sono gli F35 e le fregate FREMM. Gli F35 (i cosiddetti Joint Strike
Fighter) sono i nuovi aerei da combattimento (costano circa 110 milioni di
Euro cadauno). Il sottosegretario alla Difesa Forcieri ne aveva sottoscritto,
a Washington, lo scorso febbraio, il protocollo di intesa.

In Senato, alcuni (solo 33) hanno votato a favore dell' emendamento
Turigliatto contro il finanziamento degli Eurofighters, ma subito dopo hanno
tutti votato a favore dell' articolo 31 che prevede anche il finanziamento ai
satelliti spia militari e le fregate da combattimento FREMM.

Per gli Eurofighters sono stati stanziati 318 milioni di Euro per il 2008,
468 per il 2009, 918 milioni per il 2010, 1.100 milioni per ciascuno degli
anni 2011 e 2012!

Altrettanto è avvenuto per le fregate FREMM e per i satelliti spia.

E' grave che la Sinistra, anche la Radicale, abbia votato massicciamente per
tutto questo, con la sola eccezione di Turigliatto e Rossi, e altri due
astenuti o favorevoli. Purtroppo il voto non è stato registrato
nominativamente! Noi vogliamo sapere come ogni senatore vota !

Tutto questo è di una gravità estrema! Il nostro paese entra così nella
grande corsa al riarmo che ci porterà dritti all'attacco all'Iran e alla
guerra atomica.

Trovo gravissimo il silenzio della stampa su tutto questo: una stampa sempre
più appiattita!

Ma ancora più grave è il nostro silenzio: il mondo della pace che dorme sonni
tranquilli. E' questo silenzio assordante che mi fa male. Dobbiamo reagire,
protestare, urlare!

Il nostro silenzio, il silenzio del movimento per la pace significa la morte
di milioni di persone e dello stesso pianeta. La nostra è follia collettiva,
pazzia eretta a Sistema. E' il trionfo di "O' Sistema". Dobbiamo riunire i
nostri fili per legare il Gigante, l'Impero del denaro. Come cittadini attivi
non violenti dobbiamo formare la nuova rete per dire No a questo Sistema di
Morte e un Sì perché vinca la Vita.

Alex Zanotelli

Le firme di adesione vanno inviate a:



--- 4 ---

settembre 2007

www.disarmiamoli.org
 
La Legge Finanziaria 2008 sarà targata N.A.T.O.?
 
Comunicato Stampa della Rete nazionale Disarmiamoli!
 
La Legge finanziaria 2008 entra in questi giorni nel vivo della sua realizzazione.
Scopriamo così dalla viva voce del Ministro della Difesa Arturo Parisi che il governo italiano“…..ha assicurato alla NATO che avremmo destinato alla Difesa il 2 per cento del PIL, quando oggi siamo solo all’1 per cento. Senza un buon aumento le missioni all’estero si troveranno in gravi difficoltà”
 
Stando alle richieste del Ministro la spesa militare per il 2008 dovrebbe raddoppiare , portando così i costi della nostra “proiezione bellica” da 18 a 36 miliardi.
 
Se a questo aggiungiamo il budget del Ministero degli Interni, che stanzia per le forze dell’ordine ben 24 miliardi, il quadro del costo complessivo della nostra “sicurezza” in terra, in mare e nei cieli è presto fatto.
 
Si conferma così l’orientamento alla progressivamente trasformazione del nostro sistema economico sul modello statunitense. In periodi di crisi profonda del sistema produttivo e finanziario internazionale l’unica industria che tira è quella bellica. Largo spazio quindi a Finmeccanica, Oto Melara, Beretta, Avio elettronica e alle tante industrie belliche tricolori che con tutta probabilità troveranno altri lauti finanziamenti nella Finanziaria 2008.
 
Mentre gli architetti della politica estera ed interna sono al lavoro per distribuire a guerra e polizie le risorse pubbliche, sul terreno del conflitto sociale il movimento ha ripreso a pieno ritmo la sua attività, a partire dalla mobilitazione vicentina con il campeggio in corso a Caldogno, pochi chilometri di distanza dall’aeroporto Dal Molin.
 
Il sindaco di Vicenza Enrico Hüllweck, anche in previsione delle prossime elezioni amministrative, risponde alla forza del movimento No Dal Molin cercando di coprirsi le spalle attraverso le massime cariche dello Stato.
 
Il Presidente della Repubblica Napolitano è stato invitato dal primo cittadino a visitare città berica . Le politiche bipartisan si trasformano così in vere e proprie “chiamate in correo” a sostegno delle scelte più indecenti. L’agenda di Napoletano al momento è piena, ma Hüllweck è riuscito a strappare una disponibilità per i prossimi mesi…..L’accoglienza del movimento è garantita.
 
La battaglia contro la base USA al Dal Molin è entrata così in una nuova fase, quella delle azioni dirette e della mobilitazione permanente. Tutto il movimento di resistenza politico, sociale e culturale presente nel paese a queste politiche belliciste ed antipopolari è chiamato a rispondere all’appello del Presidio permanente.
 
Ognuno dai suoi avamposti dovrà nei prossimi giorni sostenere attivamente le azioni pacifiche e di massa del Presidio, determinato a fermare i cantieri ed a contestare la presenza delle basi pre-esistenti sul territorio berico.
 
La Rete nazionale Disarmiamoli
 
www.disarmiamoli.org info@...


(italiano / english)

---


www.resistenze.org - osservatorio - mondo multipolare - 18-12-07 - n. 207

da Strategic Culture Foundation - http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=1108
 
I Clinton ed i Bush: gemelli politici
 
Pyotr Iskenderov*
10/12/2007

 

Recentemente una tendenza riconoscibile è riemersa dentro una parte dell’establishment politico russo: i Democratici degli Stati Uniti che lastricano la loro strada al potere con i cadaveri dei soldati statunitensi uccisi in Iraq sono visti con lo stesso genere di speranza con la quale B. Clinton, “il nostro amico Bill”, era visto negli anni ’90 da liberali russi con credenziali piuttosto oscure. Gente dei circoli politici e di affari vicini a Washington.

 

Costoro sembrano essere pieni di buone intenzioni mentre tentano di stabilire un contatto con le persone “ragionevoli” che probabilmente saranno nella futura Amministrazione Democratica. Tuttavia il problema è che, se si guardano da vicino le cose, la concentrazione di “ragionevolezza” fra i Dem non è più alta che tra le fila dei Repubblicani. E inoltre se ne possono trovare anche di molto più falchi di Bush, Cheney, e Co.

 

Questo è particolarmente chiaro quando si passa agli affari internazionali: disapprovano la sortita militare di G. Bush in Iraq ma sono ansiosi di fare un danno anche maggiore. Un esempio notevole di ciò è l'idea del carismatico Barack Obama di spostare le priorità della guerra al terrorismo dall'Afghanistan al Pakistan e di bombardare intere regioni del paese (che dal 1998 è una potenza nucleare).

 

Nel frattempo, la Senatrice Hillary Clinton ha improvvisamente preso a preoccuparsi dal problema del Kosovo. Si propone di portare a termine il lavoro cominciato dal suo piuttosto promiscuo marito nel 1999, quando, agendo senza un mandato dell’Onu, la Nato attaccò la Jugoslavia e privò praticamente Belgrado di ogni controllo sul Kosovo. Ora Hilary Clinton propone di perpetuare il risultato dell'aggressione e di riconoscere l'indipendenza del Kosovo: “Nel caso in cui Priština dichiari l'indipendenza, io esorterò fermamente gli Stati Uniti a riconoscere quel paese e inviterò l'UE a fare altrettanto”. Facendo commenti sui negoziati in corso all'interno della troika US-UE-Russia, ha detto: “Tenendo presente che la Russia sta minacciando di usare il suo veto per ogni proposta portata di fronte al Consiglio di Sicurezza, dobbiamo essere pronti a sostenere risolutamente la volontà della grande maggioranza delle persone del Kosovo.”

 

Non è un segreto che anche l'attuale Amministrazione degli Stati Uniti sostenga la dichiarazione di indipendenza del Kosovo. Tuttavia, né il Segretario di Stato C. Rice né il Presidente degli Stati Uniti G. Bush (anche durante la sua visita in Albania) hanno mai espresso l’opinione che l'indipendenza unilateralmente dichiarata debba essere riconosciuta con tale “prontezza”.

 

Ci sono inoltre informazioni che il Dipartimento di Stato gli Stati Uniti stia attualmente tentando, attraverso canali non ufficiali, di convincere gli albanesi a frenare sull’immediata dichiarazione di indipendenza. Questa deve essere la ragione per cui a Priština l'evento è stato procrastinato diverse volte. Mentre solo un paio di mesi fa il Primo Ministro del Kosovo Agim Çeku aveva indicato che l'indipendenza sarebbe stata dichiarata il 28 novembre (‘giorno della bandiera’ albanese), in seguito il leader del Partito Democratico Hashim Thaçi, che il 17 novembre vinse le elezioni in Kosovo, spostò la data a metà dicembre. Ora Agim Çeku dice che la dichiarazione sarà fatta all’inizio del prossimo anno, non più tardi che in marzo. Secondo i media kosovari albanesi almeno fino alla fine di febbraio o l’inizio di marzo non ci si dovrebbe attendere alcuna dichiarazione di indipendenza. Per certo, la tendenza è spiegata dalla pressione di Washington. Sembra che gli Stati Uniti stiano cominciando ad essere preoccupati di assumersi la responsabilità dei passi di Pristina- che verosimilmente porterebbero ad un'altra guerra balcanica- e che in qualche modo cerchino di spostare il carico sull'UE. Di qui l'impazienza della Sig.ra Clinton, che ha fiutato il cambio di filosofia in corso a Washington.

 

Probabilmente nemmeno le critiche dirette dai Democratici alla campagna degli Stati Uniti in Iraq dovrebbero essere prese troppo seriamente. In questi giorni, un buon numero di Dem ha definito ciò un errore ma sono le stesse persone, inclusa la Senatrice H. Clinton, che votarono per autorizzare G. Bush a lanciare il suo attacco discrezionale. Quello che i Democratici addebitano ai Repubblicani non è l'aggressione contro un paese arabo sovrano ma solamente la loro inottemperanza a fornire informazioni adeguate sui termini e i costi dell'operazione e sul livello del potenziale appoggio internazionale a questa.

 

Forse che il radicalismo e l'irresponsabilità dei Democratici sono selettivi e ad ogni modo non concernono la Russia, che sarà trattata come un partner? Forse H. Clinton e B. Obama daranno alla Russia il benvenuto nel WTO; o il Congresso degli Stati Uniti a maggioranza Democratica abolirà finalmente l'emendamento Jackson-Vanik? Forse la Nato accantonerà il suo progetto di espansione e gli Stati Uniti cesseranno l'attività anti-russa nei paesi confinanti con la Russia?

 

Ho fatto queste domande a N. Zlobin, direttore del Progetto Russia ed Eurasia presso l'Istituto della Sicurezza Mondiale con sede a Washington e persona insolitamente bene informata sul lavorio interno alla politica degli Stati Uniti. Lui ha reagito ironicamente all'idea che i Democratici sarebbero partner più facili per la Russia: “Dovremmo essere realisti. Criticando G.Bush per la sua politica estera, praticamente tutti i Democratici citano la Russia come un esempio del suo fallimento. Fanno cadere la responsabilità su Bush se nel corso della sua presidenza il paese con il più vasto territorio del mondo ha smesso di essere democratico ed è regredito all'autoritarismo, al cui ritorno hanno fatto scudo la stretta relazione dei due Presidenti e le loro dichiarazioni con l’effetto della fiducia reciproca e della reciproca ammirazione fra le parti. Quindi la politica di un nuovo Presidente degli Stati Uniti e del Congresso a maggioranza Democratica sarà più aspra con la Russia. L’attuale ed ancor più il prossimo Congresso saranno i centri di tendenze anti-russe per quanto concerne un’intera serie di questioni, come l’ammissione della Russia al WTO, la situazione nello spazio post-sovietico, l’espansione della Nato e specialmente la politica dell’energia del Cremlino”.

 

Questo è déjà vu. I tentativi fatti da alcuni politici russi di trovare “perfetti partner politici” sulle rive del fiume Potomac non sono in alcun modo congeniali agli interessi nazionali della Russia. Non basta ricordare che otto anni fa gli analisti politici di scuola nostrana dicevano che per Mosca sarebbe stato più facile trattare con il Repubblicano G. Bush che con il Democratico Al Gore. L’attuale riorientamento non è una novità nelle avventurose carriere dei voltagabbana. Una grande potenza come la Russia semplicemente non dovrebbe cercare appoggio strategico presso gli statisti sull'altro lato dell'Oceano Atlantico il cui comportamento è totalmente egoista e i cui obiettivi sono dettati da interessi politici o finanziari nazionali.

 

*Petr Akhmedovich Iskenderov, storico e Ricercatore Senior all’Istituto Studi Slavi dell'Accademia delle Scienze Russa.

 

Traduzione dall’inglese Bf per www.resistenze.org


 ---

Strategic Culture Foundation
December 11, 2007

The Clintons and the Bushs – Political Twins

Pyotr Iskenderov


Recently, a recognizable tendency re-emerged within a
part of the Russian political establishment: the US
Democrats paving their way to power with the corpses
of the US soldiers killed in Iraq are viewed with the
same kind of hope as Bill Clinton - "our friend Bill"
- was viewed by Russian liberals with rather murky
credentials in the 1990s. 

Seeking exposure, folks from the political and
business circles frequent Washington. 

They seem to be full of good intentions as they try to
make contact with the "reasonable" people likely to be
in the future Democratic Administration. 

However, the problem is that, if you look at things
closely, the concentration of the "reasonable" among
the Dems is not higher than in the ranks of the
Republicans. And even those who can be found are a lot
more hawkish than Bush, Cheney, and Co. 

This is particularly clear when it comes to world
affairs. 

While disapproving of G. Bush's military escapade in
Iraq, they are eager to make even more trouble. A
notable example of the kind is the charismatic Barack
Obama’s idea of shifting the priorities of the war on
terrorism from Afghanistan to Pakistan and bombing
entire regions of the country (which has been a
nuclear power since 1998). 

In the meantime, Senator Hillary Clinton suddenly got
preoccupied with the Kosovo problem. 

She suggests finalizing the job started by her rather
promiscuous husband in 1999, when, acting without a UN
mandate, NATO attacked Yugoslavia and practically
deprived Belgrade of any control over Kosovo. 

Now, H. Clinton proposes to perpetuate the result of
the aggression and to recognize the independence of
Kosovo: “In the event of Priština declaring
independence, I will firmly urge the U.S. to recognize
that country and I call on the EU to do likewise“. 

Commenting on the negotiations on the issue within the
US-EU-Russia Troika, she said: “Bearing in mind that
Russia is threatening to use its veto for any proposal
brought before the Security Council, we must be ready
to resolutely support the will of the vast majority of
Kosovo people“. 

It is no secret that the current US administration
also supports Kosovo's bid for independence. 

Nevertheless, neither Secretary of State C. Rice nor
US President G. Bush (even during his visit to
Albania) ever expressed the view that the unilaterally
declared independence must be recognized with such
"readiness." 

Moreover, there is information that it is the US
Department of State that is currently trying, via
unofficial channels, to convince Albanians to refrain
from declaring independence immediately. 

This must be the reason why the event has been
postponed in Priština a number of times. 

Whereas just a couple of months ago Kosovo PM Agim
Çeku indicated that independence would be declared on
November 28 (the Albanian Flag Day), later Hashim
Thaçi, the leader of the Democratic Party which won
the November 17 elections in Kosovo, shifted the date
to mid-December. 

Now Agim Çeku says that the declaration is due early
next year, no later than by March. 

According to the Kosovo Albanian media, no
independence declaration should be expected at least
till the end of February or early March. 

For sure, the tendency is explained by Washington's
pressure. It seems that the US is beginning to worry
about taking the responsibility for Priština's steps
that are likely to trigger another Balkan war, and
intends to somehow shift the burden to the EU. Hence
the impatience of Mrs. Clinton who has sensed the
ongoing change of philosophy in Washington. 

Perhaps the criticisms directed by Democrats at the US
campaign in Iraq should not be taken too seriously
either. 

These days, quite a few of the Dems call it a mistake,
but they are the same people, including Senator H.
Clinton, who voted for authorizing G. Bush to launch
the attack at his discretion. 

What the Democrats charge the Republicans with is not
the aggression against a sovereign Arab country, but
only their failure to provide the adequate information
on the operation's terms and costs, and on the
potential level of the international support for it. 

Maybe, the radicalism and the irresponsibility of the
Democrats are selective and somehow do not concern
Russia, which is going to be treated as a partner? 

Maybe, H. Clinton and B. Obama will welcome Russia to
the WTO, or the US congress with a Democratic majority
will finally abolish the Jackson-Vanik amendment?
Maybe NATO will drop its expansion plans, and the US
will cease anti-Russian activity in the countries
neighboring Russia? 

I asked the questions to N. Zlobin, director of the
Russia and Eurasia Project at the Washington-based
World Security Institute and a person exceptionally
knowledgeable about the internal workings of US
politics. 

He reacted ironically to the idea that Democrats would
be easier partners for Russia: 

"We should be realists. Criticizing G. Bush for his
foreign politics, practically all of the Democrats
cite Russia as an example of its failure. 

"They blame it on Bush that during his presidency the
country with the world's largest territory stopped
being democratic and reverted to authoritarianism, the
return being shielded by the close relationship of the
two Presidents, their statements to the effects that
the sides trust each other, and mutual admirations. 

"Therefore, the politics of any new US President and
the Congress with a Democratic majority is going to be
harsher on Russia. The current, and even more so, the
next Congress are going to be the centers of
anti-Russian tendencies in what concerns a whole range
of issues such as admitting Russia to the WTO, the
situation in the post-Soviet space, NATO expansion,
and especially the Kremlin's energy policy." 

That is déjà vu. 

The attempts made by some Russian politicians to find
"perfect political partners" on the banks of the
Potomac River are in no way congenial to Russia's
national interests. 

One can't help recalling how our home-grown political
analysts used to say 8 years ago that it would be
easier for Moscow to deal with the Republican G. Bush
than with the Democrat Al Gore. 

The current reorientation is not the first one in the
eventful careers of the turncoats. 

A great power such as Russia simply should not seek
strategic support from the politicians on the other
side of the Atlantic Ocean whose behavior is entirely
selfish and whose goals are dictated by domestic
political or financial interests. 
______________ 

Dr. Petr Akhmedovich Iskenderov is a historian and a
Senior Research Fellow at the Slavonic Studies
Institute of the Russian Academy of Science.