Informazione
[ "C'erano solo due ragioni credibili per invadere l'Iraq: il controllo
del petrolio e la difesa del dollaro..." Lo scrive John Chapman sul
Guardian. E specifica: la "vera colpa" di Saddam e' stata quella di
aver proposto, pochi anni fa, che il suo petrolio venisse pagato in
euro.
Tutti lo sanno, tranne il pubblico italiano: il petrolio oramai
scarseggia (siamo attorno al "picco di estrazione"), percio' e' sempre
piu' strategico: e' di ieri il superamento della soglia-record di 42
dollari al barile! E, di fatto, il valore del dollaro e' oggi fissato
solo dalla violenza militare, poiche' esso non corrisponde piu',
nemmeno alla lontana, all'effettivo stato dell'economia degli USA (vedi
il loro vertiginoso deficit).
Come nascondere questa semplice, devastante realta'?
Beh, per esempio inventandosi le "armi di distruzione di massa di
Saddam", come ha fatto Blair, oppure evocando la "spirale
guerra-terrorismo", come fa Bertinotti... (a cura di I. Slavo) ]
The real reasons Bush went to war
WMD was the rationale for invading Iraq. But what was really driving
the US were fears over oil and the future of the dollar
John Chapman
Wednesday July 28, 2004
The Guardian
There were only two credible reasons for invading Iraq: control over
oil and preservation of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Yet
the government has kept silent on these factors, instead treating us to
the intriguing distractions of the Hutton and Butler reports.
Butler's overall finding of a "group think" failure was pure charity.
Absurdities like the 45-minute claim were adopted by high-level
officials and ministers because those concerned recognised the
substantial reason for war - oil. WMD provided only the bureaucratic
argument: the real reason was that Iraq was swimming in oil.
Some may still believe the eve-of-war contention by Donald Rumsfeld
that "We won't take forces and go around the world and try to take
other people's oil ... That's not how democracies operate." Maybe
others will go along with Blair's post-war contention: "There is no way
whatsoever, if oil were the issue, that it would not have been
infinitely easier to cut a deal with Saddam."
But senior civil servants are not so naive. On the eve of the Butler
report, I attended the 40th anniversary of the Mandarins cricket club.
I was taken aside by a knighted civil servant to discuss my contention
in a Guardian article earlier this year that Sir Humphrey was no longer
independent. I had then attacked the deceits in the WMD report, and
this impressive official and I discussed the geopolitical issues of
Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and US unwillingness to build nuclear power
stations and curb petrol consumption, rather than go to war.
Saddam controlled a country at the centre of the Gulf, a region with a
quarter of world oil production in 2003, and containing more than 60%
of the world's known reserves. With 115bn barrels of oil reserves, and
perhaps as much again in the 90% of the country not yet explored, Iraq
has capacity second only to Saudi Arabia. The US, in contrast, is the
world's largest net importer of oil. Last year the US Department of
Energy forecast that imports will cover 70% of domestic demand by 2025.
By invading Iraq, Bush has taken over the Iraqi oil fields, and
persuaded the UN to lift production limits imposed after the Kuwait
war. Production may rise to 3m barrels a day by year end, about double
2002 levels. More oil should bring down Opec-led prices, and if Iraqi
oil production rose to 6m barrels a day, Bush could even attack the
Opec oil-pricing cartel.
Control over Iraqi oil should improve security of supplies to the US,
and possibly the UK, with the development and exploration contracts
between Saddam and China, France, India, Indonesia and Russia being set
aside in favour of US and possibly British companies. And a US military
presence in Iraq is an insurance policy against any extremists in Iran
and Saudi Arabia.
Overseeing Iraqi oil supplies, and maybe soon supplies from other Gulf
countries, would enable the US to use oil as power. In 1990, the then
oil man, Dick Cheney, wrote that: "Whoever controls the flow of Persian
Gulf oil has a stranglehold not only on our economy but also on the
other countries of the world as well."
In the 70s, the US agreed with Saudi Arabia that Opec oil should be
traded in dollars. American governments have since been able to print
dollars to cover huge trading deficits, with the further benefit of
those dollars being placed in the US money markets. In return, the US
allowed the Opec countries to operate a production and pricing cartel.
Over the past 15 years, the overall US deficit with the rest of the
world has risen to $2,700bn - an abuse of its privileged currency
position. Although about 80% of foreign exchange and half of world
trade is in dollars, the euro provides a realistic alternative. Euro
countries also have a bigger share of world trade, and of trade with
Opec countries, than the US.
In 1999, Iran mooted pricing its oil in euros, and in late 2000 Saddam
made the switch for Iraqi oil. In early 2002 Bush placed Iran and Iraq
in the axis of evil. If the other Opec countries had followed Saddam's
move to euros, the consequences for Bush could have been huge.
Worldwide switches out of the dollar, on top of the already huge
deficit, would have led to a plummeting dollar, a runaway from US
markets and dramatic upheavals in the US.
Bush had many reasons to invade Iraq, but why did Blair join him? He
might have squared his conscience by looking at UK oil prospects. In
1968, when North Sea oil was in its infancy, as private secretary to
the minister of power I wrote a report on oil policy, advocating
changes like the setting up of a British national oil company (as was
done). My proposals found little favour with the BP/Shell-supporting
officials, but Richard Marsh, the then minister, pressed them and the
petroleum division was expanded into an operations division and a
planning division.
Sadly, when I was promoted out of private office the free-trading
petroleum officials conspired to block my posting to the planning
division, where I would surely have advocated a prudent exploitation of
North Sea resources to reduce our dependence on the likes of Iraq. UK
North Sea oil output peaked in 1999, and has since fallen by one-sixth.
Exports now barely cover imports, and we shall shortly be a net oil
importer. Supporting Bush might have been justified on geo-strategic
grounds.
Oil and the dollar were the real reasons for the attack on Iraq, with
WMD as the public reason now exposed as woefully inadequate. Should we
now look at Bush and Blair as brilliant strategists whose actions will
improve the security of our oil supplies, or as international conmen?
Should we support them if they sweep into Iran and perhaps Saudi
Arabia, or should there be a regime change in the UK and US instead?
If the latter, we should follow that up by adopting the pious aims of
UN oversight of world oil exploitation within a world energy plan, and
the replacement of the dollar with a new reserve currency based on a
basket of national currencies.
· John Chapman is a former assistant secretary in the civil service, in
which he served from 1963-96
del petrolio e la difesa del dollaro..." Lo scrive John Chapman sul
Guardian. E specifica: la "vera colpa" di Saddam e' stata quella di
aver proposto, pochi anni fa, che il suo petrolio venisse pagato in
euro.
Tutti lo sanno, tranne il pubblico italiano: il petrolio oramai
scarseggia (siamo attorno al "picco di estrazione"), percio' e' sempre
piu' strategico: e' di ieri il superamento della soglia-record di 42
dollari al barile! E, di fatto, il valore del dollaro e' oggi fissato
solo dalla violenza militare, poiche' esso non corrisponde piu',
nemmeno alla lontana, all'effettivo stato dell'economia degli USA (vedi
il loro vertiginoso deficit).
Come nascondere questa semplice, devastante realta'?
Beh, per esempio inventandosi le "armi di distruzione di massa di
Saddam", come ha fatto Blair, oppure evocando la "spirale
guerra-terrorismo", come fa Bertinotti... (a cura di I. Slavo) ]
The real reasons Bush went to war
WMD was the rationale for invading Iraq. But what was really driving
the US were fears over oil and the future of the dollar
John Chapman
Wednesday July 28, 2004
The Guardian
There were only two credible reasons for invading Iraq: control over
oil and preservation of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Yet
the government has kept silent on these factors, instead treating us to
the intriguing distractions of the Hutton and Butler reports.
Butler's overall finding of a "group think" failure was pure charity.
Absurdities like the 45-minute claim were adopted by high-level
officials and ministers because those concerned recognised the
substantial reason for war - oil. WMD provided only the bureaucratic
argument: the real reason was that Iraq was swimming in oil.
Some may still believe the eve-of-war contention by Donald Rumsfeld
that "We won't take forces and go around the world and try to take
other people's oil ... That's not how democracies operate." Maybe
others will go along with Blair's post-war contention: "There is no way
whatsoever, if oil were the issue, that it would not have been
infinitely easier to cut a deal with Saddam."
But senior civil servants are not so naive. On the eve of the Butler
report, I attended the 40th anniversary of the Mandarins cricket club.
I was taken aside by a knighted civil servant to discuss my contention
in a Guardian article earlier this year that Sir Humphrey was no longer
independent. I had then attacked the deceits in the WMD report, and
this impressive official and I discussed the geopolitical issues of
Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and US unwillingness to build nuclear power
stations and curb petrol consumption, rather than go to war.
Saddam controlled a country at the centre of the Gulf, a region with a
quarter of world oil production in 2003, and containing more than 60%
of the world's known reserves. With 115bn barrels of oil reserves, and
perhaps as much again in the 90% of the country not yet explored, Iraq
has capacity second only to Saudi Arabia. The US, in contrast, is the
world's largest net importer of oil. Last year the US Department of
Energy forecast that imports will cover 70% of domestic demand by 2025.
By invading Iraq, Bush has taken over the Iraqi oil fields, and
persuaded the UN to lift production limits imposed after the Kuwait
war. Production may rise to 3m barrels a day by year end, about double
2002 levels. More oil should bring down Opec-led prices, and if Iraqi
oil production rose to 6m barrels a day, Bush could even attack the
Opec oil-pricing cartel.
Control over Iraqi oil should improve security of supplies to the US,
and possibly the UK, with the development and exploration contracts
between Saddam and China, France, India, Indonesia and Russia being set
aside in favour of US and possibly British companies. And a US military
presence in Iraq is an insurance policy against any extremists in Iran
and Saudi Arabia.
Overseeing Iraqi oil supplies, and maybe soon supplies from other Gulf
countries, would enable the US to use oil as power. In 1990, the then
oil man, Dick Cheney, wrote that: "Whoever controls the flow of Persian
Gulf oil has a stranglehold not only on our economy but also on the
other countries of the world as well."
In the 70s, the US agreed with Saudi Arabia that Opec oil should be
traded in dollars. American governments have since been able to print
dollars to cover huge trading deficits, with the further benefit of
those dollars being placed in the US money markets. In return, the US
allowed the Opec countries to operate a production and pricing cartel.
Over the past 15 years, the overall US deficit with the rest of the
world has risen to $2,700bn - an abuse of its privileged currency
position. Although about 80% of foreign exchange and half of world
trade is in dollars, the euro provides a realistic alternative. Euro
countries also have a bigger share of world trade, and of trade with
Opec countries, than the US.
In 1999, Iran mooted pricing its oil in euros, and in late 2000 Saddam
made the switch for Iraqi oil. In early 2002 Bush placed Iran and Iraq
in the axis of evil. If the other Opec countries had followed Saddam's
move to euros, the consequences for Bush could have been huge.
Worldwide switches out of the dollar, on top of the already huge
deficit, would have led to a plummeting dollar, a runaway from US
markets and dramatic upheavals in the US.
Bush had many reasons to invade Iraq, but why did Blair join him? He
might have squared his conscience by looking at UK oil prospects. In
1968, when North Sea oil was in its infancy, as private secretary to
the minister of power I wrote a report on oil policy, advocating
changes like the setting up of a British national oil company (as was
done). My proposals found little favour with the BP/Shell-supporting
officials, but Richard Marsh, the then minister, pressed them and the
petroleum division was expanded into an operations division and a
planning division.
Sadly, when I was promoted out of private office the free-trading
petroleum officials conspired to block my posting to the planning
division, where I would surely have advocated a prudent exploitation of
North Sea resources to reduce our dependence on the likes of Iraq. UK
North Sea oil output peaked in 1999, and has since fallen by one-sixth.
Exports now barely cover imports, and we shall shortly be a net oil
importer. Supporting Bush might have been justified on geo-strategic
grounds.
Oil and the dollar were the real reasons for the attack on Iraq, with
WMD as the public reason now exposed as woefully inadequate. Should we
now look at Bush and Blair as brilliant strategists whose actions will
improve the security of our oil supplies, or as international conmen?
Should we support them if they sweep into Iran and perhaps Saudi
Arabia, or should there be a regime change in the UK and US instead?
If the latter, we should follow that up by adopting the pious aims of
UN oversight of world oil exploitation within a world energy plan, and
the replacement of the dollar with a new reserve currency based on a
basket of national currencies.
· John Chapman is a former assistant secretary in the civil service, in
which he served from 1963-96
"Commissariamento globale e preventivo"
nel PRC in vista del Congresso
2: CALABRIA COMMISSARIATA
2allegato: Intervento di Claudia Cernigoi sulla sospensione di
Fulvio Grimaldi (vedi anche:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3669 )
---
DICHIARAZIONE DI VOTO DI CLAUDIO GRASSI
(SEGRETERIA NAZIONALE) ALLA
DIREZIONE STRAORDINARIA DEL 15.7.2004
SUL COMMISSARIAMENTO DELLA CALABRIA
Il commissariamento della regione Calabria è un fatto grave. Mai nella
storia di Rifondazione Comunista si era proceduto al commissariamento di
una intera regione. Questo crea un precedente grave, viene colpita la
democrazia interna del partito. Nessuno degli addebiti specifici che
sono stati sollevati per proporre il commissariamento riguardano
l’operato del segretario regionale che questo commissariamento fa
decadere o l’attività del comitato regionale. Sono addebiti che
riguardano singole federazioni o singoli circoli che, in quanto tali, e
come prevede il nostro statuto, andavano affrontati. Tra l’altro gli
elementi specifici che qui sono stati argomentati (rissosità, problemi
di tesseramento, ecc.) sono presenti, purtroppo allo stesso modo, anche
in molte altre federazioni di altre regioni. Mai però si è pensato di
commissariare un’intera regione.
La verità è che siamo di fronte a un commissariamento politico che
avviene a congresso nazionale avviato e dopo che, due mesi fa, in quella
regione era stato legittimamente eletto dal comitato politico regionale,
alla presenza del compagno Francesco Ferrara, un segretario regionale,
il compagno Rocco Tassone, che al congresso precedente aveva votato gli
emendamenti. Quindi viene commissariata una regione in pieno percorso
congressuale dove la minoranza della maggioranza è maggioranza.
E’ come se due mesi prima dello svolgimento dello scorso congresso
i Democratici di Sinistra avessero commissariato la Campania dove
il Correntone aveva la maggioranza. Come avremmo giudicato noi
una scelta simile se non il fatto che si voleva penalizzare una
minoranza interna?
E’ stato detto che in Calabria il Partito della Rifondazione Comunista
non è più un presidio democratico: le parole in questo caso sono pietre.
Sono stato in questi anni molte volte in Calabria ben prima dell’ultimo
congresso, quindi ben prima dell’articolazione politica dell’attuale
maggioranza. Il mio legame forte con quei compagni si è prodotto nel
1998 quando contrastammo sul campo una scissione durissima guidata dai
Tripodi, da Brunetti e De Paola, che sembrava dovesse spazzare via il
nostro partito. Non fu così. Grazie a quei compagni che oggi non
sarebbero più un presidio democratico. Non nego difficoltà, problemi ed
errori, li ho visti anch’io andando spesso in Calabria, ma questi non si
risolvono con un atto autoritario e repressivo quale quello del
commissariamento. Il commissariamento li aggrava. D’altra parte, se
vogliamo essere onesti, problemi ci sono anche in altre situazioni e
potrei fare un lungo elenco. Ma devo dire che andando spesso in Calabria
assieme alle difficoltà, ho visto anche un partito che lotta, attivo, in
mille battaglie, spesso fatte contro i poteri forti, contro la mafia,
contro i neofascisti, in condizioni di grandi difficoltà e con mezzi
inadeguati.
Rifondazione Comunista in Calabria è un grande presidio democratico.
Infine sulle mie dimissioni dalla Segreteria nazionale.
I compagni e le compagne che all’ultimo congresso hanno determinato le
condizioni perché io sia in quel posto, mi chiedono di rimanere e io lo
farò. Li ringrazio per quello che hanno fatto e detto in queste giornate
per me difficili. Non mollare, mi è stato detto e non mollerò. Ma vorrei
dire che le mie dimissioni non sono state né un colpo di testa e nemmeno
un ricatto. Sono in segreteria nazionale da 9 anni e mai ho posto –
anche in passaggi difficilissimi – questo problema. L’ho fatto perché ho
vissuto e vivo questa scelta come una scelta grave che colpisce la
nostra democrazia interna. La vivo come un sopruso, un’angheria,
un’ingiustizia. Una di quelle cose che ti spinge, almeno a me capita
così, a ribellarti istintivamente.
La scelta che si sta compiendo oggi è un grave errore. Ci sono problemi
in Calabria come in altre regioni. Ma gli interventi autoritari non solo
non li possono risolvere ma li acuiscono.
=== 2allegato ===
Cari compagni, alcuni giorni or sono ho inviato questo messaggio al
direttore di Liberazione, ma a tutt'oggi non ho avuto risposte.
Quindi ve lo giro e lo faccio girare
Saluti comunisti
Claudia Cernigoi - Trieste
Caro direttore, ho sentito (chiedo conferma o smentita) che Fulvio
Grimaldi sarebbe stato sospeso dal partito per sei mesi perché avrebbe
esposto uno striscione con la scritta Bertinot in my name o qualcosa
del genere ad una conferenza stampa del segretario. Chiedo notizie dato
che la cosa mi pare assurda, per un avvenimento che definirei nulla più
che una goliardata, visto che sono stati ben altri gli avvenimenti
all'interno del partito che non hanno mai comportato (almeno per quanto
ne so io) sospensioni o comunque provvedimenti disciplinari.
Altrimenti, se la notizia fosse vera, dovrei tristemente concludere che
il superamento del leninismo visto come progetto politico dal partito,
non porta contestualmente con sé anche il superamento dello stalinismo,
inteso non come sistema politico ma come modus operandi all'interno del
partito.
Saluti
Claudia Cernigoi Trieste
nel PRC in vista del Congresso
2: CALABRIA COMMISSARIATA
2allegato: Intervento di Claudia Cernigoi sulla sospensione di
Fulvio Grimaldi (vedi anche:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3669 )
---
DICHIARAZIONE DI VOTO DI CLAUDIO GRASSI
(SEGRETERIA NAZIONALE) ALLA
DIREZIONE STRAORDINARIA DEL 15.7.2004
SUL COMMISSARIAMENTO DELLA CALABRIA
Il commissariamento della regione Calabria è un fatto grave. Mai nella
storia di Rifondazione Comunista si era proceduto al commissariamento di
una intera regione. Questo crea un precedente grave, viene colpita la
democrazia interna del partito. Nessuno degli addebiti specifici che
sono stati sollevati per proporre il commissariamento riguardano
l’operato del segretario regionale che questo commissariamento fa
decadere o l’attività del comitato regionale. Sono addebiti che
riguardano singole federazioni o singoli circoli che, in quanto tali, e
come prevede il nostro statuto, andavano affrontati. Tra l’altro gli
elementi specifici che qui sono stati argomentati (rissosità, problemi
di tesseramento, ecc.) sono presenti, purtroppo allo stesso modo, anche
in molte altre federazioni di altre regioni. Mai però si è pensato di
commissariare un’intera regione.
La verità è che siamo di fronte a un commissariamento politico che
avviene a congresso nazionale avviato e dopo che, due mesi fa, in quella
regione era stato legittimamente eletto dal comitato politico regionale,
alla presenza del compagno Francesco Ferrara, un segretario regionale,
il compagno Rocco Tassone, che al congresso precedente aveva votato gli
emendamenti. Quindi viene commissariata una regione in pieno percorso
congressuale dove la minoranza della maggioranza è maggioranza.
E’ come se due mesi prima dello svolgimento dello scorso congresso
i Democratici di Sinistra avessero commissariato la Campania dove
il Correntone aveva la maggioranza. Come avremmo giudicato noi
una scelta simile se non il fatto che si voleva penalizzare una
minoranza interna?
E’ stato detto che in Calabria il Partito della Rifondazione Comunista
non è più un presidio democratico: le parole in questo caso sono pietre.
Sono stato in questi anni molte volte in Calabria ben prima dell’ultimo
congresso, quindi ben prima dell’articolazione politica dell’attuale
maggioranza. Il mio legame forte con quei compagni si è prodotto nel
1998 quando contrastammo sul campo una scissione durissima guidata dai
Tripodi, da Brunetti e De Paola, che sembrava dovesse spazzare via il
nostro partito. Non fu così. Grazie a quei compagni che oggi non
sarebbero più un presidio democratico. Non nego difficoltà, problemi ed
errori, li ho visti anch’io andando spesso in Calabria, ma questi non si
risolvono con un atto autoritario e repressivo quale quello del
commissariamento. Il commissariamento li aggrava. D’altra parte, se
vogliamo essere onesti, problemi ci sono anche in altre situazioni e
potrei fare un lungo elenco. Ma devo dire che andando spesso in Calabria
assieme alle difficoltà, ho visto anche un partito che lotta, attivo, in
mille battaglie, spesso fatte contro i poteri forti, contro la mafia,
contro i neofascisti, in condizioni di grandi difficoltà e con mezzi
inadeguati.
Rifondazione Comunista in Calabria è un grande presidio democratico.
Infine sulle mie dimissioni dalla Segreteria nazionale.
I compagni e le compagne che all’ultimo congresso hanno determinato le
condizioni perché io sia in quel posto, mi chiedono di rimanere e io lo
farò. Li ringrazio per quello che hanno fatto e detto in queste giornate
per me difficili. Non mollare, mi è stato detto e non mollerò. Ma vorrei
dire che le mie dimissioni non sono state né un colpo di testa e nemmeno
un ricatto. Sono in segreteria nazionale da 9 anni e mai ho posto –
anche in passaggi difficilissimi – questo problema. L’ho fatto perché ho
vissuto e vivo questa scelta come una scelta grave che colpisce la
nostra democrazia interna. La vivo come un sopruso, un’angheria,
un’ingiustizia. Una di quelle cose che ti spinge, almeno a me capita
così, a ribellarti istintivamente.
La scelta che si sta compiendo oggi è un grave errore. Ci sono problemi
in Calabria come in altre regioni. Ma gli interventi autoritari non solo
non li possono risolvere ma li acuiscono.
=== 2allegato ===
Cari compagni, alcuni giorni or sono ho inviato questo messaggio al
direttore di Liberazione, ma a tutt'oggi non ho avuto risposte.
Quindi ve lo giro e lo faccio girare
Saluti comunisti
Claudia Cernigoi - Trieste
Caro direttore, ho sentito (chiedo conferma o smentita) che Fulvio
Grimaldi sarebbe stato sospeso dal partito per sei mesi perché avrebbe
esposto uno striscione con la scritta Bertinot in my name o qualcosa
del genere ad una conferenza stampa del segretario. Chiedo notizie dato
che la cosa mi pare assurda, per un avvenimento che definirei nulla più
che una goliardata, visto che sono stati ben altri gli avvenimenti
all'interno del partito che non hanno mai comportato (almeno per quanto
ne so io) sospensioni o comunque provvedimenti disciplinari.
Altrimenti, se la notizia fosse vera, dovrei tristemente concludere che
il superamento del leninismo visto come progetto politico dal partito,
non porta contestualmente con sé anche il superamento dello stalinismo,
inteso non come sistema politico ma come modus operandi all'interno del
partito.
Saluti
Claudia Cernigoi Trieste
IL CLERO ORTODOSSO BENEDICE L'INVASORE
BALCANI: DA ORTODOSSI SERBI ONORIFICENZA A BRIGATA FOLGORE (ANSA) -
ROMA, 26 LUG - Giovedi' prossimo, alla presenza del generale Gaetano
Romeo, comandante del 1/o Comando delle Forze di Difesa, Sua Eccellenza
Amphilhius, metropolita di Montenegro (Massima Autorita' religiosa
serba), concedera' la decorazione 'San Sava di II Grado' alla Brigata
paracadutisti Folgore. E' la prima volta che l'onorificenza viene
conferita ad unita' di eserciti stranieri. L'onorificenza, tra le piu'
importanti per i Cristiano-Ortodossi, sara' conferita in virtu' di una
deliberazione di tutto il Sacro Sinodo dei Vescovi della Chiesa
Ortodossa Serba, riunitosi per l'occasione nello scorso mese di maggio.
Nella motivazione si legge che, sin dagli anni Novanta, durante il
sanguinoso conflitto che ha sconvolto i Balcani, gli uomini della
brigata Folgore hanno mostrato una particolare capacita' di
comprensione per gli aspetti religiosi dell'intera regione, ponendo
particolare attenzione alla tutela e salvaguardia dei monasteri e delle
chiese ortodosse. In particolare, in occasione dei recenti scontri che
nel mese di marzo hanno nuovamente insanguinato il Kosovo, l'intervento
dei militari si e' rivelato determinante per la cessazione delle
ostilita' e devastazioni ed il ripristino della legalita'. La cerimonia
di consegna si inserisce in un'altra, altrettanto importante per i
Paracadutisti: il cambio del Comandante. Proprio il 29, infatti, il
generale Marco Bertolini lascera' il comando dell' unita' al generale
Pietro Costantino. (ANSA). NE
26/07/2004 18:32
BALCANI: DA ORTODOSSI SERBI ONORIFICENZA A BRIGATA FOLGORE (ANSA) -
ROMA, 26 LUG - Giovedi' prossimo, alla presenza del generale Gaetano
Romeo, comandante del 1/o Comando delle Forze di Difesa, Sua Eccellenza
Amphilhius, metropolita di Montenegro (Massima Autorita' religiosa
serba), concedera' la decorazione 'San Sava di II Grado' alla Brigata
paracadutisti Folgore. E' la prima volta che l'onorificenza viene
conferita ad unita' di eserciti stranieri. L'onorificenza, tra le piu'
importanti per i Cristiano-Ortodossi, sara' conferita in virtu' di una
deliberazione di tutto il Sacro Sinodo dei Vescovi della Chiesa
Ortodossa Serba, riunitosi per l'occasione nello scorso mese di maggio.
Nella motivazione si legge che, sin dagli anni Novanta, durante il
sanguinoso conflitto che ha sconvolto i Balcani, gli uomini della
brigata Folgore hanno mostrato una particolare capacita' di
comprensione per gli aspetti religiosi dell'intera regione, ponendo
particolare attenzione alla tutela e salvaguardia dei monasteri e delle
chiese ortodosse. In particolare, in occasione dei recenti scontri che
nel mese di marzo hanno nuovamente insanguinato il Kosovo, l'intervento
dei militari si e' rivelato determinante per la cessazione delle
ostilita' e devastazioni ed il ripristino della legalita'. La cerimonia
di consegna si inserisce in un'altra, altrettanto importante per i
Paracadutisti: il cambio del Comandante. Proprio il 29, infatti, il
generale Marco Bertolini lascera' il comando dell' unita' al generale
Pietro Costantino. (ANSA). NE
26/07/2004 18:32
[ See at the original URL http://antiwar.com/malic/ for the several
useful hyperlinks.
On the same issue, of Kerry's foreign policy, see also:
D. Johnstone: Clinton, Kerry and Kosovo: The Lie of a "Good War"
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3626 ]
http://antiwar.com/malic/
July 29, 2004
The Choice: Bush's Empire or Kerry's
Empire's Failure in the Balkans
by Nebojsa Malic
With foreign policy becoming the big issue of the 2004 U.S. elections,
predictions that Democrats would invoke the "successes" of Clintonian
interventions, particularly in the Balkans, seem to be coming true. But
though Bosnia and Kosovo don't seem to figure prominently in convention
speeches just yet, with the assortment of Balkans veterans on John
Kerry's staff, that is only a matter of time.
Contrary to the belief of many anti-Bush activists, Kerry is hardly a
peace candidate. The Democrats offer America a vision of "good wars,"
fought with the enthusiastic support of the rest of the world – but
wars still, and fought nonetheless. "American foreign policy under
Kerry would not change dramatically," Philip H. Gordon of the Brookings
Institution told The New York Times.
Americans will get an Empire whether they buy George W. Bush's or John
Kerry's version. And while Bush's reign may make one nostalgic for the
Age of Clinton that Kerry promises to restore, it may not be a bad idea
to remember that Clinton's Empire – and Kerry's – is not all it's
advertised as being.
A Different Reality
Democrats, Republicans and the mendicant media can "package" Imperial
wars all they want, but they cannot change their true nature, which is
becoming increasingly obvious: widespread destruction, bitterness and
poverty among the invaded, along with callousness, cruelty and
corruption among the invaders. "Stopping genocide" sounds great, until
it is discovered the genocide was a fabrication. The gullible may be
fooled by photos of people cheering and throwing flowers at the
occupation troops – as many Albanians did in Kosovo – until someone
points out that they cheered the 1941 Axis invasion with the same
enthusiasm.
The claim that American intervention in the Balkans demonstrated good
will by defending Muslims has utterly failed to impress the Muslim
world. Indeed, many Muslims dismiss intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo
as "belated," and "helping the Serbs," despite evidence to the
contrary. Kosovo Albanians perhaps worship Bill Clinton and Tony Blair,
but the regime of Alija Izetbegovic never presented foreign assistance
as a favor, but rather as a moral obligation the West failed to
properly meet. Dozens of UN commanders in Bosnia were viciously smeared
by Muslims for the slightest refusal to support their cause.
Setting logic and principle aside, for the sake of argument, one fact
dooms the proponents of the Democratic empire as surely as lies about
Iraq ought to doom their Republican counterparts: none of the highly
praised interventions in the Balkans actually worked. Bosnia is a
protectorate misruled by a foreign tyrant. Kosovo is a concentration
camp for non-Albanians, and a haven for slavers, drug- and gun-runners.
And Macedonia is a simmering cauldron of resentment.
Misguided Symbolism
The grand reopening of the reconstructed Old Bridge in Mostar attracted
a lot of media attention last week, with travelogues describing its
beauty and state propaganda calling it a "symbol of hope." The bridge,
built by the Ottoman Turks in the 16th century, was destroyed by
Croatian forces in 1993, during their battles with Bosnian Muslims. It
was rebuilt as closely to the original as possible over the past two
years.
Unfortunately, and as with everything in Bosnia, the restored bridge
was far more important for its political symbolism than its truly
majestic beauty. Bosnia's viceroy Paddy Ashdown called its restoration
a "triumph of hope over barbarism." Both the Washington Post and the
Associated Press saw it as a harbinger of Bosnia's slow but certain
reunification. But if anything, the New Old Bridge is a symbol of
Imperial hubris. Bosnia is still divided, because its people want it
so. There are two Mostars now, Muslim and Croat, while the once-vibrant
Serb community has been destroyed.
For almost nine years, the Empire has sought to reinvent Bosnia from
the ashes of its civil war, pretending that the issues that caused the
conflict did not exist. Persisting in a belief that the right amount of
social engineering, threats and violence can persuade the divided
Bosnians to become one nation, it has erected an illusion of peace and
integration that is, if anything, fueling ethnic animosities. In their
ignorance or arrogance, no matter which, Imperial officials blame the
hatred on "war criminals" still at large. When uncomfortable truths
begin to emerge, such as that Bosnia is an attractive base for Islamic
militants, supporters of the Empire protest and complain. Bosnia has
become a myth cherished by social engineers of the Balkans. Perhaps it
always has been.
The Old Bridge was restored more for the sake of politicians and
princes. The peoples who reduced it – and Bosnia – to rubble would
likely do it again, given the opportunity. Modern Bosnia does not
deserve such an architectural treasure; it may some day, but not yet.
Defending Disaster
The next "successful" intervention, in Kosovo (1999), has been tainted
from the start by the naked aggression it entailed, brazen lies used to
justify it, and the ethnic cleansing that took place once NATO occupied
that Serbian province. Supporters of the Empire persistently ignored
the terror that has ravaged Kosovo since 1999, again pretending there
was "progress" where there manifestly couldn't be any. Then the pogrom
of March 17-18 took place, with some 60,000 Albanians attacking Serb
villages, churches and monasteries in an organized fashion, often
unhindered by NATO troops or UN police. Faced with such a damning
indictment of their occupation, what do the Empire's partisans do? Lie
and deny, again.
Four months later, with the pogrom already forgotten in Washington and
Brussels, Human Rights Watch, a frequent apologist for intervention,
issued a report condemning NATO and UNMIK for failure to protect the
Serbs from attacks. Apparently, it takes four months to state the
obvious. Not that it made any difference: NATO and the UN rejected
HRW's criticism out of hand. Besides, HRW only demanded a restructuring
of the occupation, not its end.
Visiting EU dignitaries continue to spout nonsense about Kosovo. Just
this week, Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot said he was "shocked by
the March events, but … encouraged by reconstruction."
What reconstruction?
Signs of Resistance
Macedonia, also a victim of Empire's intervention (2001), demonstrated
this week the consequences of impossible demands. Under immense
pressure from EU and NATO to enact a law on "decentralization" that
would give more power to local authorities (in effect, empowering
Albanian separatists in the western part of the country), the
government ran into a roadblock: its own people.
Open riots erupted in the town of Struga last Thursday, where angry
protesters chased off the visiting Defense Minister. A protest meeting
was scheduled for Tuesday in the capital, Skopje, and it took place
peacefully. Unfortunately, the political forces opposing the
fragmentation of the country not only failed to present a compelling
and principled argument against it, but merely recycled old and
discredited rhetoric. While the government desperately seeks approval
from Brussels and Washington, the opposition appeals to the people's
fear of losing their nationhood. In this bitter but futile infighting,
the only winners are Albanian separatists and the Empire.
However ineffectual Macedonians' resistance may seem, however, it is
worth noting that people are no longer willing to suffer the iniquities
of Imperial diktat in silence. Who knows, maybe the inevitable
rejection of their sentiments by the Empire will dispel the
Macedonians' illusions about the "international community," which are
largely the source of their current predicament.
Doomed to Failure
It is evident from looking at Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia – to take
just these three – that Empire's intervention in the Balkans is not a
success, but rather a disaster. The Pax Americana imposed on the region
in the last decade is unnatural, based on lies and violence. It has had
a considerable corrupting effect on people already suffering from
Communism and chauvinism. The results are in plain view: poverty,
apathy, despair, lingering hatred, violent crime and widespread
delusions.
Some may argue that the solution lies in fine-tuning the intervention;
however well-intentioned, they would be wrong. The best thing the
Empire can do for the Balkans would be to leave. A true peace must be
made by consenting parties, and as long as the Empire is around to back
any of them, there will be no political will for a settlement of any
kind.
Ninety years ago, a once-potent European empire embarked on a project
of conquering the Balkans. On July 28, 1914, Austria-Hungary declared
war on Serbia and started a chain reaction that became World War One.
What followed is sometimes described as the "suicide of European
civilization," resulting in a century of protracted agony. It was
certainly the end of Austria-Hungary, and its Hapsburg emperors.
Attempts to force an artificial order upon the Balkans – or anywhere
else, really – are doomed to fail. The more this pressure forces things
to bend to its will, the more violent the blowback will be. History has
shown this time and again. Does anyone really need another
demonstration?
useful hyperlinks.
On the same issue, of Kerry's foreign policy, see also:
D. Johnstone: Clinton, Kerry and Kosovo: The Lie of a "Good War"
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3626 ]
http://antiwar.com/malic/
July 29, 2004
The Choice: Bush's Empire or Kerry's
Empire's Failure in the Balkans
by Nebojsa Malic
With foreign policy becoming the big issue of the 2004 U.S. elections,
predictions that Democrats would invoke the "successes" of Clintonian
interventions, particularly in the Balkans, seem to be coming true. But
though Bosnia and Kosovo don't seem to figure prominently in convention
speeches just yet, with the assortment of Balkans veterans on John
Kerry's staff, that is only a matter of time.
Contrary to the belief of many anti-Bush activists, Kerry is hardly a
peace candidate. The Democrats offer America a vision of "good wars,"
fought with the enthusiastic support of the rest of the world – but
wars still, and fought nonetheless. "American foreign policy under
Kerry would not change dramatically," Philip H. Gordon of the Brookings
Institution told The New York Times.
Americans will get an Empire whether they buy George W. Bush's or John
Kerry's version. And while Bush's reign may make one nostalgic for the
Age of Clinton that Kerry promises to restore, it may not be a bad idea
to remember that Clinton's Empire – and Kerry's – is not all it's
advertised as being.
A Different Reality
Democrats, Republicans and the mendicant media can "package" Imperial
wars all they want, but they cannot change their true nature, which is
becoming increasingly obvious: widespread destruction, bitterness and
poverty among the invaded, along with callousness, cruelty and
corruption among the invaders. "Stopping genocide" sounds great, until
it is discovered the genocide was a fabrication. The gullible may be
fooled by photos of people cheering and throwing flowers at the
occupation troops – as many Albanians did in Kosovo – until someone
points out that they cheered the 1941 Axis invasion with the same
enthusiasm.
The claim that American intervention in the Balkans demonstrated good
will by defending Muslims has utterly failed to impress the Muslim
world. Indeed, many Muslims dismiss intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo
as "belated," and "helping the Serbs," despite evidence to the
contrary. Kosovo Albanians perhaps worship Bill Clinton and Tony Blair,
but the regime of Alija Izetbegovic never presented foreign assistance
as a favor, but rather as a moral obligation the West failed to
properly meet. Dozens of UN commanders in Bosnia were viciously smeared
by Muslims for the slightest refusal to support their cause.
Setting logic and principle aside, for the sake of argument, one fact
dooms the proponents of the Democratic empire as surely as lies about
Iraq ought to doom their Republican counterparts: none of the highly
praised interventions in the Balkans actually worked. Bosnia is a
protectorate misruled by a foreign tyrant. Kosovo is a concentration
camp for non-Albanians, and a haven for slavers, drug- and gun-runners.
And Macedonia is a simmering cauldron of resentment.
Misguided Symbolism
The grand reopening of the reconstructed Old Bridge in Mostar attracted
a lot of media attention last week, with travelogues describing its
beauty and state propaganda calling it a "symbol of hope." The bridge,
built by the Ottoman Turks in the 16th century, was destroyed by
Croatian forces in 1993, during their battles with Bosnian Muslims. It
was rebuilt as closely to the original as possible over the past two
years.
Unfortunately, and as with everything in Bosnia, the restored bridge
was far more important for its political symbolism than its truly
majestic beauty. Bosnia's viceroy Paddy Ashdown called its restoration
a "triumph of hope over barbarism." Both the Washington Post and the
Associated Press saw it as a harbinger of Bosnia's slow but certain
reunification. But if anything, the New Old Bridge is a symbol of
Imperial hubris. Bosnia is still divided, because its people want it
so. There are two Mostars now, Muslim and Croat, while the once-vibrant
Serb community has been destroyed.
For almost nine years, the Empire has sought to reinvent Bosnia from
the ashes of its civil war, pretending that the issues that caused the
conflict did not exist. Persisting in a belief that the right amount of
social engineering, threats and violence can persuade the divided
Bosnians to become one nation, it has erected an illusion of peace and
integration that is, if anything, fueling ethnic animosities. In their
ignorance or arrogance, no matter which, Imperial officials blame the
hatred on "war criminals" still at large. When uncomfortable truths
begin to emerge, such as that Bosnia is an attractive base for Islamic
militants, supporters of the Empire protest and complain. Bosnia has
become a myth cherished by social engineers of the Balkans. Perhaps it
always has been.
The Old Bridge was restored more for the sake of politicians and
princes. The peoples who reduced it – and Bosnia – to rubble would
likely do it again, given the opportunity. Modern Bosnia does not
deserve such an architectural treasure; it may some day, but not yet.
Defending Disaster
The next "successful" intervention, in Kosovo (1999), has been tainted
from the start by the naked aggression it entailed, brazen lies used to
justify it, and the ethnic cleansing that took place once NATO occupied
that Serbian province. Supporters of the Empire persistently ignored
the terror that has ravaged Kosovo since 1999, again pretending there
was "progress" where there manifestly couldn't be any. Then the pogrom
of March 17-18 took place, with some 60,000 Albanians attacking Serb
villages, churches and monasteries in an organized fashion, often
unhindered by NATO troops or UN police. Faced with such a damning
indictment of their occupation, what do the Empire's partisans do? Lie
and deny, again.
Four months later, with the pogrom already forgotten in Washington and
Brussels, Human Rights Watch, a frequent apologist for intervention,
issued a report condemning NATO and UNMIK for failure to protect the
Serbs from attacks. Apparently, it takes four months to state the
obvious. Not that it made any difference: NATO and the UN rejected
HRW's criticism out of hand. Besides, HRW only demanded a restructuring
of the occupation, not its end.
Visiting EU dignitaries continue to spout nonsense about Kosovo. Just
this week, Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot said he was "shocked by
the March events, but … encouraged by reconstruction."
What reconstruction?
Signs of Resistance
Macedonia, also a victim of Empire's intervention (2001), demonstrated
this week the consequences of impossible demands. Under immense
pressure from EU and NATO to enact a law on "decentralization" that
would give more power to local authorities (in effect, empowering
Albanian separatists in the western part of the country), the
government ran into a roadblock: its own people.
Open riots erupted in the town of Struga last Thursday, where angry
protesters chased off the visiting Defense Minister. A protest meeting
was scheduled for Tuesday in the capital, Skopje, and it took place
peacefully. Unfortunately, the political forces opposing the
fragmentation of the country not only failed to present a compelling
and principled argument against it, but merely recycled old and
discredited rhetoric. While the government desperately seeks approval
from Brussels and Washington, the opposition appeals to the people's
fear of losing their nationhood. In this bitter but futile infighting,
the only winners are Albanian separatists and the Empire.
However ineffectual Macedonians' resistance may seem, however, it is
worth noting that people are no longer willing to suffer the iniquities
of Imperial diktat in silence. Who knows, maybe the inevitable
rejection of their sentiments by the Empire will dispel the
Macedonians' illusions about the "international community," which are
largely the source of their current predicament.
Doomed to Failure
It is evident from looking at Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia – to take
just these three – that Empire's intervention in the Balkans is not a
success, but rather a disaster. The Pax Americana imposed on the region
in the last decade is unnatural, based on lies and violence. It has had
a considerable corrupting effect on people already suffering from
Communism and chauvinism. The results are in plain view: poverty,
apathy, despair, lingering hatred, violent crime and widespread
delusions.
Some may argue that the solution lies in fine-tuning the intervention;
however well-intentioned, they would be wrong. The best thing the
Empire can do for the Balkans would be to leave. A true peace must be
made by consenting parties, and as long as the Empire is around to back
any of them, there will be no political will for a settlement of any
kind.
Ninety years ago, a once-potent European empire embarked on a project
of conquering the Balkans. On July 28, 1914, Austria-Hungary declared
war on Serbia and started a chain reaction that became World War One.
What followed is sometimes described as the "suicide of European
civilization," resulting in a century of protracted agony. It was
certainly the end of Austria-Hungary, and its Hapsburg emperors.
Attempts to force an artificial order upon the Balkans – or anywhere
else, really – are doomed to fail. The more this pressure forces things
to bend to its will, the more violent the blowback will be. History has
shown this time and again. Does anyone really need another
demonstration?
