Informazione
A tous les journalistes
Une manifestation contre la sécession du Kosovo et pour la défense des droits de l’homme au Kosovo aura lieu
ce dimanche 2 mars place de la République à Paris.
Nous serions heureux que vous y assistiez.
Merci
Alexis TROUDE
Paris, le 27 février 2008
Organisation d’une manifestation de protestation contre la sécession de la province serbe du Kosovo-Métochie
Dimanche 2 mars 2008 à 12h44
Nous vous informons qu’un rassemblement pacifique se tiendra dimanche 2 mars 2008 à Paris, Place de la République à 12h44, à la l’initiative de l’Assemblée de la Diaspora Serbe (soutenue par les principales associations serbes de France) en vue de protester contre la sécession illégale de la province serbe du Kosovo-Métochie.
Cette manifestation aura pour principales missions de :
- Dénoncer la violation du droit international reconnaissant injustement le Kosovo-Métochie comme nouvel Etat souverain, notamment par le non-respect de la résolution 1244 des Nations Unies, de la Constitution Serbe votée le 29 octobre 2006, et du Traité d’Helsinki.
- Lancer un appel de paix et de respect des Droits de l’Homme au Kosovo-Métochie auprès de la communauté albanophone locale. La sécession de cette province conduirait à la création d’un Etat dirigé par des criminels de guerre et constituerait une porte ouverte à la corruption, au terrorisme et au trafic de drogue et des personnes vers le reste de l’Europe, tout en portant fortement préjudice à la sécurité des différentes entités nationales y résidant.
- Dresser le bilan catastrophique de l’occupation de l’OTAN depuis 1999. Une occupation perpétrée et imposée par le pouvoir impérial Etatsunien, et supportée par les principaux pays de l’Union Européenne malgré eux.
Nous vous informons que tous les discours prévus lors de ce rassemblement seront exclusivement en français et tenus par diverses personnalités spécialistes des Balkans. Toute une équipe de service d’ordre sera également déployée afin d’éviter tout débordement, le rassemblement se voulant pacifique et apolitique.
Un dossier de presse vous sera remis le jour de la manifestation. Pour cela, nous vous invitons à vous présenter avant le début du rassemblement afin de rencontrer certains membres du comité organisateur. Ce sera aussi l’occasion idéale d’interviewer dans les meilleures conditions les principaux orateurs si vous le souhaitez.
Nous comptons sur votre présence, et restons à votre entière disposition pour tout complément d’informations.
Dans l’attente de votre confirmation,
Cordialement,
Le comité d’organisation de la manifestation du dimanche 2 mars 2008
Assemblée de la Diaspora Serbe de France
Oggetto: Svetska ekonomska kriza
Data: 28 ottobre 2008 13:24:33 GMT+01:00
Neoliberalizam doživljava svoj krah posle dve decenije surovog ataka na slobodu i prava radnih ljudi sirom planete.
Aktuelna kriza koja je začeta u SAD krahom finansijsko-kreditnog sektora posledica je anarhičnog razvoja kapitalizma, produkt truljenja i parazitizma kapitalizma čiju je sustinu osvetlio veličanstveni um Vladimira Iliča Lenjina, čija marksistička analiza i kritika ni do danas ne bledi.
Kriza koja se javlja jasni je pokazatelj neizbežne sudbine svih kapitalističkih ekonomija sto je jasni dokaz da kapitalizam nije svemoguć uprkos pokušajima kapitalista da ogromnom mašinerijom ubede radne mase kako je kapitalizam savršen i da ga bespogovorno treba slediti.
Neoliberalizam je ideologija multinacionalnih kompanija. Njegova sustina je da oni koji su bogati budu još bogatiji, dok su siromašni postajali sve siromašniji. Tu svoju nakaradnu ideologiju su umotali u propagandu o globalizaciji, slobodnom tržištu i civilnom društvu tvrdeći da ce tako svetu doneti mir i blagostanje. Ipak svedoci smo da ekonomski poredak koji je svetu namentuo neoliberalni globalizam neumoljivo čovečanstvu naplaćuje žrtvama miliona ljudi u najsiromašnijim zemljama sveta.
Multi nacionalnim kompanijama trebalo je sve veće tržište, da bi one uvećavajući svoje poslove, ostvarivali veće profite. Neoliberalni kapitalizam rušio je sve prepreke pred sobom ne štedeći novac i silu. Kao prva žrtva direktne izdaje pala je prva zemlja socijalizma SSSR što je otvorilo vrata globalizaciji, vrata krvavom pljačkaškom pohodu kapitalizma sirom planete.
Od kraja 1990-tih, američki Bord Federalnih rezervi pokušavao je da predupredi veliku ekonomsku krizu plaveći američku i svetsku ekonomiju jeftinim kreditima. Radnička klasa čije su realne nadnice u većini glavnih ekonomskih sistema stagnirale ili opadale podsticana je da pozajmljuju kako bi održala potražnju za dobrima i uslugama.
SAD u cilju spasavanja od narastajuće krize pribegava socijalističkim metodama u cilju finansijskog oporavka. Odgovor vodećih kapitalističkih zemalja – a posebno Sjedinjenih Država – sadrži se u pokušaju obuzdavanja finansijskog sistema putem ogromnih državnih intervencija, tu uključujući i nacionalizaciju i spasavanja velikih banaka i ostalih finansijskih institucija koje organizuju njihove vlade. Cilj ovih intervencija nije zaštita zaposlenja, životnog standarda ili plata i penzija radnih ljudi, ove intervencije za cilj imaju da održe kapitalistički sistem koji je svet gura iz krize u krizu svojom kazino ekonomijom.
Kapitalističke vlasti nameravaju da prebace teret krize upravo na leđa radnih i siromašnih ljudi. Od sindikata se zahteva da ne traže povećanja plata koja bi kompenzovala rastuće troškove života.
Kritike koje danas čitamo ne ulaze u samu sustinu problema već pokušavaju da odbrane stajalište neoliberalizma.
Obezbeđivanje maksimalnog zadovoljenja stalno rastućih materijalnih i kulturnih potreba celog društva putem neprekidnog povećanja i usavršavanja socijalističke proizvodnje na bazi vise tehnike i tehnologije (J.V.Staljin) osnovni je zakon socijalizma. Iskustva su pokazala da snažna ekonomski jaka i nezavisna socijalistička ekonomija može mirno da se razvija uprkos cikličkim krizama kapitalizma. Setimo se recesije koje je 30-tih gurnula svet u bedu. Uprkos blokadi SSSR je bio jedina država na planeti koje je ostvarivala ogromne kapitalne uspehe na svim poljima.
Uprkos ogromnim preprekama verujemo u snagu jedinstva radničke klase i imamo poverenja u sposobnost za borbu za novi, slobodan svet – svet socijalizma!
Sekretarijat SKOJ-a
28. oktobar 2008. god.
Savez komunisticke omladine Jugoslavije SKOJ - The League of Yugoslav Communist Youth SKOJ
Nemanjina 34/III , 11000 Beograd - Nemanjina 34/III, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
web: www.skoj.org.yu *
web: www.youtube.com/user/skoj05 * e-mail skoj05@... * skoj@...
Peace Laureate Ahtisaari endorsed terrorism
0) IL PACIFISTA MONDIALE E’ FIGLIO DI UN NAZISTA / SVETSKI MIROVNJAK, SIN NACISTE
1) How the Nobel Peace Prize Was Won (G. Elich)
2) The conflicting Nobel Peace Prize (D. Kozyrev)
3) Peace Laureate Ahtisaari endorsed terrorism (Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research)
4) Ahtisaari after Gorbachev: Degradation of the Nobel Prize (P. Iskenderov)
5) "Kosovo state inevitable", says Ahtisaari
6) 2007: Ahtisaari received money for proposal on Kosmet's independence / Evidence of Ahtisaari Corruption on Kosovo Plan
2007: L'inviato particolare dell'Onu per il Kosovo Marti Ahtisaari aveva ricevuto soldi dalla mafia albanese...
7) 2007: Ahtisaari-Lavrov diplomatic dispute
Sulla figura di Marti Ahtisaari si vedano anche, dalla nostra newsletter, gli articoli in varie lingue / see also:
Premio Nobel contro la Pace
JUGOINFO 14 ottobre 2008
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/6196
Ahtisaari’s Collusion With Albanian Mafia Confirmed
JUGOINFO 22 luglio 2007
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/5577
Albanska mafija kupila Ahtisarija
JUGOINFO 28 giugno 2007
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/5540
SKOJ condemns Ahtisaari's antiserb racism
JUGOINFO 5 settembre 2006
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/5081
Martti Ahtisaari; Nepoznata biografija
SVETSKI MIROVNJAK, SIN NACISTE
www.nedeljnitelegraf.co.yu
IL PACIFISTA MONDIALE E’ FIGLIO DI UN NAZISTA
Sintesi:
Si trova anche tra i nomi elencati come membri del gruppo Bilderberg, almeno dal 1994, insieme anche alla Boniver, Bettiza, gli Agnelli... (CNJ)
Una lapide commemorativa dei nazisti
Durante i bombardamenti contro la Serbia, nel 1999, la Finlandia aveva deciso di commemorare con una lapide i nazisti finlandesi del battaglione Nord-Ost delle famigerate truppe SS Viking, morti in Ucraina. In questa divisione era in servizio anche "un certo" dottor Josef Mengele.
Questa iniziativa ha trovato un'aspra reazione presso la comunità ebraica finlandese, come anche tra gli ebrei in tutto il mondo ed in particolare dal Centro Simon Wiesenthal e dal Congresso ebraico a Parigi, che dichiararono unanimemente: "La commemorazione dei nazisti finlandesi da parte di Ahtisaari è un'offesa a tutte le vittime del nazismo e distoglie dagli obiettivi fissati dai paesi membri dell'UE nella lotta contro il razzismo e l'antisemitismo".
=== 1 ===
http://www.counterp unch.org/ elich10142008. html
October 14, 2008
For Services Rendered
How the Nobel Peace Prize Was Won
By GREGORY ELICH
The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari has been widely hailed in the West, where there has been an outpouring of praise for the man and his efforts. Generally seen as a tireless promoter of peace and reconciliation, Ahtisaari has another side that has not received sufficient attention.
Although his record is long, Ahtisaari’s role in the diplomatic end to NATO’s 1999 war against Yugoslavia is regarded as the key to his selection. In praising the man, Nobel committee secretary Geir Lundestad noted, “There is no alternative to an independent Kosovo.” This baldly political statement indicates why Ahtisaari’s selection is proving so popular among Western leaders, and it is Kosovo that shows just whose interests Ahtisaari has served.
During the 1999 war, NATO’s attacks were having little effect on Yugoslav forces. Through the use of extensive camouflage and decoys, Yugoslav troops had managed to emerge largely unscathed by the end NATO’s bombing campaign. U.S. General Wesley Clark led the NATO campaign, and he pressed military and diplomatic contacts from other NATO countries for agreement to widen the scope of bombing. Clark was a strong advocate of bombing civilian targets, and at one meeting he rose from his chair and banged the table with his fist, bellowing, “I’ve got to get the maximum violence out of this campaign – now!” (1) Under Clark’s direction, the air campaign rapidly took on the character of sustained terror bombing. I saw the effects myself when I was in Yugoslavia in 1999. Every town I visited had been bombed. Purely residential areas had been flattened. Cluster bombs struck civilian areas. Hospitals, schools, apartment buildings, factories, bridges, office buildings – there was no category of civilian targets that NATO had not seen fit to hit. It was impossible to avoid the conclusion that NATO’s strategy was to win its war through terror tactics.
Terror bombing paved the way for final negotiations. It was Yugoslavia’s misfortune that Boris Yeltsin was the president of Russia at the time. He selected former prime minister Victor Chernomyrdin to handle negotiations with Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. Always anxious to please the U.S., Yeltsin had Chernomyrdin essentially do little more than deliver NATO’s messages to Milosevic. This approach was not yielding fruit, so Chernomyrdin suggested to American officials that it would be helpful to have someone from a non-NATO Western nation join him when he next visited Belgrade. It was Secretary of State Madeleine Albright who offered the name of Martti Ahtisaari. Getting the Russians on board with the American insistence on NATO leading the occupation of Kosovo was the main sticking point. In the end, Yeltsin, as was his habit, gave the U.S. everything it wanted. (2)
Ahtisaari recalls that before departing for Belgrade, through “a major effort we achieved a final communiqué, signed by both the Russians and by the Americans.” Russian acquiescence, he correctly felt, would push Milosevic “in a corner.” It was the task of Ahtisaari and Chernomyrdin to deliver NATO’s final terms, and they visited President Milosevic on June 2. (3)
Ljubisa Ristic was president of the Yugoslav United Left (JUL), a party formed from 23 smaller communist and left parties. JUL was closely allied with the ruling Socialist Party and a member of the governing coalition. Ristic was also a personal friend of Milosevic’s. He explains what happened at the June 2 meeting. Ahtisaari opened the meeting by declaring, “We are not here to discuss or negotiate,” after which Chernomyrdin read aloud the text of the plan. (4) Ahtisaari says that Milosevic asked about the possibility of modifying the plan, to which he replied, “No. This is the best that Viktor and I have managed to do. You have to agree to it in every part.” (5) Ristic reports that as Milosevic listened to the reading of the text, he realized that the “Russians and the Europeans had put us in the hands of the British and the Americans.” Milosevic took the papers and asked, “What will happen if I do not sign?” In answer, “Ahtisaari made a gesture on the table,” and then moved aside the flower centerpiece. Then Ahtisaari said, “Belgrade will be like this table. We will immediately begin carpet-bombing Belgrade.” Repeating the gesture of sweeping the table, Ahtisaari threatened, “This is what we will do to Belgrade.” A moment of silence passed, and then he added, “There will be half a million dead within a week.” Chernomyrdin’s silence confirmed that the Russian government would do nothing to discourage carpet-bombing. (6)
The meaning was clear. To refuse the ultimatum would lead to the deaths of large numbers of civilians and total devastation. President Milosevic summoned the leaders of the parties in the governing coalition and explained the situation to them. “A few things are not logical, but the main thing is, we have no choice. I personally think we should accept…To reject the document means the destruction of our state and nation.” (7) For Ristic, acceptance meant one thing: “We had to save the people.” (8) Three weeks after Ahtisaari and Chernomyrdin delivered NATO’s ultimatum, Yugoslav Prime Minister Momir Bulatovich explained to both chambers of the Assembly why the government had accepted terms. “Our country was faced with a threat of total annihilation. Through diplomatic mediators and through the media, the aggressors spoke of the future targets to be bombed, including civilian victims counted in the hundreds of thousands.” (9)
It did not take NATO long to violate the peace agreement that Ahtisaari had delivered to Milosevic. While NATO dawdled over entering Kosovo, the secessionist Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) went on a rampage, looting and burning homes, murdering and expelling thousands of Serbs, Roma, Turks, Slavic Muslims, Gorans, Egyptians, Croats and pro-Yugoslav Albanians. Milosevic was livid, and shortly after midnight on June 17, he phoned Ahtisaari and complained that NATO’s delay in entering Kosovo had allowed the KLA to threaten the population. “This is not what we agreed,” he said. (10) It hardly mattered. Once NATO troops entered Kosovo, they did nothing to deter KLA attacks against the populace. The KLA had unimpeded freedom to carry out a pogrom. That summer in Yugoslavia, I heard many refugees tell how attacks had taken place in the presence of NATO troops, who invariably did nothing. On numerous occasions people were thrown out of their homes, threatened, their possessions looted and homes burned while NATO soldiers stood aside and watched.
Ahtisaari’s mission was a success. He “was sensational,” said a senior U.S. official. Chernomyrdin won praise for remaining silent while Ahtisaari threatened Milosevic. “Chernomyrdin did great,” an appreciative U.S. official noted. (11)
The final agreement between Yugoslavia and NATO was spelled out in UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which was implemented in a one-sided way. NATO got everything it wanted, but those aspects of the resolution not to its liking were never implemented. The required demilitarization of the KLA was a sham, with its members handing in obsolete weapons while retaining their arsenal. The resolution also called for the return of some Yugoslav forces to maintain “a presence at Serb patrimonial sites” and at “key border crossings,” as well as to liaise with international forces. NATO never permitted that. Most importantly, the resolution affirmed that the political process of arriving at an agreement on the status of Kosovo would take full account of the “sovereignty and territorial integrity” of Yugoslavia. (12) Instead, Western officials did everything possible to undermine that stipulation.
So pleased were Western leaders with Ahtisaari’s performance in 1999, that they called upon the man once again when it came time to negotiate a solution for the province of Kosovo. They saw to it that Ahtisaari was appointed as special envoy to the UN Secretary General to develop a set of recommendations for the final status of Kosovo.
U.S. officials were repeatedly promising secessionist Albanian officials in Kosovo that if negotiations with Serbian officials were to fail, then the province would be granted independence. This ensured that the Albanian delegation was unwilling to compromise or engage in serious negotiations. The Albanians’ maximal demands would be met as long as they could avoid a negotiated settlement. Ahtisaari’s role was to develop the plan for Kosovo’s final status that would be implemented if lieu of an agreement. In the end, secessionist Albanian leaders unilaterally declared independence, which was quickly followed by U.S. and Western European recognition. Yet much of Ahtisaari’s plan provided the basis for the agreement that was implemented between the province and the U.S.
Not surprisingly, Ahtisaari’s plan called for independence. This was to be supervised by “the international community,” that term that seems always to mean Western leaders and their interests and excludes the vast majority of the world’s population. Interestingly, the Ahtisaari plan required that Kosovo “shall have an open market economy with free competition.” (13) Already by this point Western officials in Kosovo had overseen the privatization of much of Kosovo’s socially owned property. Ahtisaari’s inclusion of the phrase “free competition” appears meant to protect the interests of Western investors. U.S. officials are never reluctant to push their own agenda, whatever noble-sounding themes they may trumpet. It may be recalled that the pre-war Rambouillet plan, drawn up by U.S. officials in order to sabotage any possibility of a peaceful outcome, required that “the economy of Kosovo shall function in accordance with free market principles” and allow for the free movement of international capital. (14)
Kosovo’s independence under Ahtisaari’s plan was be supervised and monitored by Western officials. Kosovo would be required to prepare its budget in consultation with the Western-appointed official responsible for managing the province. The plan called for NATO to maintain its military presence. There was to be “close cooperation” with the IMF, and in regard to the privatization of publicly owned entities Kosovo officials were called upon to “take appropriate measures to implement the relevant international principles of corporate governance and liberalization.” The governing Western official would be “the final authority in Kosovo regarding interpretation” of the plan, and positions would be filled through appointment by Western officials. (15) Under Ahtisaari-influenced plan as implemented by the Western powers, Kosovo has less control over its affairs then it would have had under the plan for full autonomy offered by the Yugoslav delegation at Rambouillet.
The selection of Martti Ahtisaari for the Nobel Peace Price was a reward for services rendered. This was a purely political statement, meant to underline an important principle in international affairs. The same Western nations that forcibly carved Kosovo from Serbia are vociferously complaining that independence for South Ossetia and Abkhazia violates international law and the territorial integrity of Georgia. This year’s Nobel Peace Prize affirms the lofty principle that it is only the West that will draw and redraw borders in the manner of 19th-century imperial powers.
Gregory Elich is on the Board of Directors of the Jasenovac Research Institute and on the Advisory Board of the Korea Truth Commission. He is the author of the book Strange Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem, and the Pursuit of Profit.
NOTES
[1] Dana Priest, “The Battle Inside Headquarters: United NATO Front was Divided Within,” Washington Post, September 21, 1999.
[2] “Getting to the Table,” Newsweek, June 14, 1999.
[3] Interview with Martti Ahtisaari by Riccardo Chiaberge, “Ahtisaari: This is How I Bent Milosevic,” Corriere della Sera (Milan), July 21, 1999.
[4] Interview with Ljubisa Ristic by Renato Farina, “Why We Serbs Have Given In,” Il Giornale (Milan), June 7, 1999.
[5] Interview with Martti Ahtisaari by Riccardo Chiaberge, “Ahtisaari: This is How I Bent Milosevic,” Corriere della Sera (Milan), July 21, 1999.
[6] Interview with Ljubisa Ristic by Renato Farina, “Why We Serbs Have Given In,” Il Giornale (Milan), June 7, 1999.
[7] Michael Dobbs and Daniel Williams, “For Milosevic, Internal Battle Just Starting,” Washington Post, June 6, 1999.
[8] Interview with Ljubisa Ristic by Renato Farina, “Why We Serbs Have Given In,” Il Giornale (Milan), June 7, 1999.
[9] “Yugoslav Prime Minister Momir Bulatovic Address to Both Chambers of the Assembly of Yugoslavia,” Yugoslav Daily Survey (Belgrade), June 24, 1999.
[10] Geert-Jan Bogaerts, “If Democracy Returns then Milosevic will be Gone,” De Volkskrant (Amsterdam), June 25, 2008.
[11] “Getting to the Table,” Newsweek, June 14, 1999.
[12] Resolution 1244 (1999), UN Security Council, June 10, 1999.
[13] “Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement,” UN Security Council S/2007/168/Add.1, March 26, 2007.
[14] “Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo,” February 23, 1999.
[15] “Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement,” UN Security Council S/2007/168/Add.1, March 26, 2007.
=== 2 ===
ANALYSIS
The conflicting Nobel Peace Prize
On Friday, former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari won the $1.4 million Nobel Peace Prize for his 30-year work as peace mediator on different continents and for his contribution to settling the Kosovo conflict. Naturally, millions of people in Russia, Serbia and dozens of other countries will be enraged because Kosovo is not a classic example of a peace settlement.
On the contrary, the conflict highlights a situation when the Kosovo Liberation Army, a terrorist organization, used the most brutal methods, including armed force, to expel the Serbs from their native lands. However, KLA attacks met with armed Serb resistance.
In 1999, the United States and several European countries decided to support the KLA and enabled it to establish control over Kosovo, thanks to a plan formulated by U.N. Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari in violation of international law. Now Kosovo is a Taiwan-style territory that is officially recognized by some nations and shunned by others. But at least there is no more warfare there.
In 1999, NATO launched air strikes against Belgrade and forced it to cede Kosovo to the Albanian diaspora. Had the Kosovo conflict erupted after Sept 11, 2001, the situation could have been different because the international community had changed its opinion of terrorism and armed separatism after the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington. Nonetheless, the issue is still being debated.
The awarding of the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize to Ahtisaari is probably the most scandalous decision in the past 10-15 years. However, the decision highlights all-out disagreements between the international community on some key issues, including war and peace, justice and legality. The Norwegian Nobel Committee's controversial decision has sparked a lively debate that will continue for a while.
This and other similar decisions will always be controversial because the losing side in a conflict will feel that it has been treated unjustly. Peace enforcement also served to aggravate the situation in the former Yugoslavia. The committee should therefore look for different approaches and promote other candidates, rather than career diplomats like Ahtisaari.
In the last few years, the Norwegian committee has awarded the Peace Prize to many people who have had nothing to do with peace-making or the prevention of wars. In 1996, East Timor's outspoken and often fiery Roman Catholic bishop Carlos Belo and an exiled activist, Jose Ramos-Horta, shared the Peace Prize "for their work toward a just and peaceful solution to the conflict in East Timor".
That was an obvious setback for the Nobel Committee because the East Timor conflict escalated into a bloodbath just three years afterward. Even today East Timor can hardly be called a normal country. Similarity between East Timor and Kosovo - Ahtisaari is obvious. The 1997 Peace Prize went to American teacher and aid worker Jody Williams for her work in the banning and clearing of anti-personnel landmines.
The United Nations and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan received the 2001 Peace Prize, seen by some as an obviously predictable and trivial gesture. In the last few years the committee was prone to improvisation. In 2006, the Nobel Peace Prize went to Professor Muhammad Yunus and his Grameen Bank for efforts to create the foundations of socioeconomic development.
Professor Yunus who invented micro-finance, namely, collateral-free loans, a powerful tool for fighting poverty worldwide, probably deserves a Nobel Economic Prize for this landmark achievement. The 2007 Peace Prize was awarded to former US Vice President Al Gore and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Although global warming is a major problem, it has nothing to do with peace-making.
It appears that the Nobel Peace Prize will soon be presented to international celebrity activists. The choice of Nobel Prize winners inevitably has a philosophical side. The Nobel Committee often faces the dilemma of awarding scientists who have discovered new killer bacteria or a potent medication. The painful choice may have far-reaching implications because the medication could prove useless within the next 50 years, while the discovered germ could prove a work of genius, because once discovered, it can
eventually be destroyed.
The Nobel Prize in Literature has even more profound philosophical implications because the Committee can either award a well-to-do bestselling novelist or some obscure author who can change public taste. However, the public may not be interested in changing its taste. Predictably, the Nobel Committee now prefers to award cosmopolitan writers preaching the global merger of cultures.
True, awarding the Peace Prize can be a difficult challenge, but not that difficult as to lose any relation to peace. Some prospective candidates are human-rights, rather than peace, activists. But modern human-rights activists are more like political and ideological fighters than selfless champions of peace. Although the Nobel Committee tried to select a classic peacemaker this time, its decision has caused discontent.
Let's not forget, however, that the decision was made by a group of individuals representing a rival global political philosophy. If the voting for the Nobel Peace Prize had been held at the United Nations, or better online on a global scale, the result would have been quite different. Let's hope this will happen in the future. For the time being let's be grateful for what we have today.
NOTE: Dmitry Kosyrev is a political commentator for the Russian News and Information Agency Novosti - MCT
Betreff: Peace Laureate Ahtisaari endorsed terrorism
Datum: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:58:46 +0200
Von: T F F PeaceTips <TFF@...>
An: TFF PeaceTips <TFF@...>
October 22, 2008
Lund, Sweden
*Four reasons why Ahtisaari does not deserve Nobel's Peace Prize*
**************************************************
*Here is one of the four arguments:*
*
*
*The Nobel Committee - literally amateurs about peace - implicitly gave
its Prize this year to the opposite of Nobel¹s will and vision as well
as the opposite of the UN Charter norm of peace by peaceful means.*
*
*
*It gave it to a man who worked for an organization committed in
practise to ³peace² by extreme violence and sheer terror (killing of
innocent for a political goal) and an extremely unjust far-too-late and
non-mediated solution to the Kosovo conflict.*
*
*
*Concretely: Ahtisaari brought the US/NATO terrorist ultimatum that
Belgrade would be flattened and 500 000 citizens would be killed in a
week/ if/...*
*
*
Media, political colleagues and peace people praise him as a peace mediator.
In addition, Ahtisaari also just received UNESCO's Peace Prize... It's
all well and good in a world in which peace means war and war means peace.
Read what others could have told you had they done a bit of research:
http://www.transnational.org/Resources_Treasures/2008/Oberg_Ahtisaari_2.html
/*TFF*/
/*- for peace with passion*/
Send TFF PressInfos and PeaceBrowser to a friend of mine
mailto:subscribe-TFFpressinfo@...
I don't want TFF PressInfo and PeaceBrowser
mailto:unsubscribe-pressinfo@...
If e-mails from TFF end up in your spam/junk e-mail folder please
whitelist them yourself or notify your ISP or spam filtering company
regarding their mistake. Also, if you have a Hotmail, Yahoo or similar
type of account, remember to adjust your settings to ensure that TFF
e-mails do get through to you.
Hvis e-mails fra TFF havner i din spam/junk-boks, så benyt dine
"indstillinger" til at sikre at de i stedet kommer til din in-boks eller
gør din leverandør opmærksom på fejlen. Hvis du bruger Hotmail, Yahoo
eller lignende, så gør de indstillinger, der sikrer at TFF's mails
faktisk går igennem til dig.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
TFF
Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research
Transnationella Stiftelsen för Freds- och Framtidsforskning
http://www.transnational.org
Vegagatan 25
S - 224 57 Lund
Sweden
Phone +46 46 14 59 09
Fax + 46 46 14 45 12
Email TFF@...
Public not-for-profit charity
Organisationsnummer 845001-4637
TFF Guide, News & Themes
http://www.transnational.org/sitemap.htm
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Strategic Culture Foundation
October 16, 2008
Ahtisaari after Gorbachev: Degradation of the Nobel Prize
The recent decision the Norway’s Nobel Prize Committee
had never been as biased and politicised as this year.
In recent years this award was given to statesmen,
activists of international organisations and other
candidates, the significance of whose contribution to
the cause of peace on the planet Earth could be
doubted by someone, but nevertheless, there was no one
doubting their positive aspirations.
Even the fact of giving the 2007 Nobel Prize to the UN
Expert Group on Climate led by former vice-president
Albert Gore for their contribution to combatting
global warming, the activities only remotely
corresponding to the goals and gist of peace-making,
could be comprehended given the importance of
environment problems.
But awarding Finland’s ex-president Martti Ahtisaari
with the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize for his achievements
in the settlement of international conflicts was a
rude violation of the seemingly firm and positive
trend.
In a nutshell, the chief moderator at the Kosovo
status negotiations acquired this award on October 10,
just two days after the ruling of the UN General
Assembly to make the UN International Court of Justice
verify the compliance to international law of the fact
of according to Kosovo the state of independence which
that Serbian province was given in line with “the
Ahtisaari plan.”
The collision in which a Nobel Prize winner’s
“achievement” was to be studied by an international
court could be laughed at but for the bitter thoughts
about the state of the rights and morals of the world
we all live in.
“Ahtisaari worked for peace and reconciliation” , reads
the text of the decision of the Norwegian Nobel Prize
Committee.
Meanwhile, the five experts selected by the Norwegian
parliament could not be unaware of the fact that in
his capacity as a special envoy of the UN General
Secretary since late 2005, moderating negotiations
between Serbia and the leaders of Albanian Kosovo
separatists, the new Nobel Prize winner failed to
broker the signing by Belgrade and Pristina of even a
generalised formal agreement on the province’s status.
In February of 2007 he proposed a plan that aimed at
giving Kosovo independence under international
control.
Belgrade’s authorities were absolutely right to assess
the plan as a direct violation of the UN Security
Council’s Resolution 1244 of June 10, 1999 that
stipulated that the status of Kosovo was to be worked
out taking into account “the commitment of all the
member-states to the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of all Balkan states."
As top level Russian diplomats told me at the time,
“the Ahtisaari plan” was devised by the European Union
and its nominal author had no say in adopting a single
decision without previously consulting Brussels.
And given the EU leadership’s resolve to give Kosovo
independence as early as 2006, Ahtisaari’s proposals
could never form the basis of a compromise agreement.
As a result, on the initiative of the US and EU the
“Ahtisaari plan” was tabled at the UN Security
Council, but after Vitaly Churkin, the standing
Russian ambassador in the United Nations said he would
use the right of veto, the voting was cancelled.
Nevertheless, ignoring Russia’s and Serbia’s strong
opposition to “the Ahtisaari plan”, Pristina and
Brussels continued to support it.
After Albanian separatists unilaterally declared
Kosovo independent in February of 2008, its provisions
became the basis of the province’s Constitution, and
soon after that the EU got down to the business of
installing its mission in Kosovo, another provision of
the ”Ahtisaari plan” that the UN never approved.
At present, Kosovo’s independence, nurtured by Martti
Ahtisaari, was recognised by only 50 countries out of
the 192 UN member states.
Incidentally, Norway recognised Kosovo’s independence
on March 28, 2008. Possibly, to give the Nobel Peace
Prize to the “architect” of the Kosovo independence
was exactly a way of making the unilateral illegal act
look weightier to provoke other countries to waste no
time recognising Kosovo’s independence.
As for Serbs in Kosovo, on June 28 they convened a
rally (scupschina) of Serbian communities in Kosovo
Mitrovica, where they declared their refusal to honour
Pristina’s decisions and preparedness to continue
their straight-out fight for safeguarding Serbia’s
jurisdiction of Kosovo.
That was the “reconciliation” that Martti Ahtisaari
brought to the long-suffering Kosovo land!
But who could expect that he would come up with some
compromise solutions after his statement as the UN
General Secretary’s Special Envoy that “Serbs as a
nation were to blame for the Kosovo crisis”, after
which Vojislav Kostunica’s government demanded that
the UN General Secretary withdraw his ungirdled
messenger.
However, the follow-up developments indicated that the
UN officialdom, too, shared Ahtisaari’s anti-Serbian
views.
Apparently, with an eye to at least saving its face,
the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee stated that the
prize was awarded to Martti Ahtissari “for a totality”
of peace-keeping activities, including Kosovo,
assistance to Namibia’s gaining independence in
1989-1990, as well as his role in organising in 2005
negotiations between the government of Indonesia and
separatists in the Aceh province that resulted in
signing a peaceful agreement.
Nevertheless, allusions of the sort can hardly
disguise the politically biased decision of the Nobel
Prize Committee.
Russia should also learn its lesson from the fact of
awarding a Nobel Peace Prize to one of the fiercest
persecutors of Serbs.
Martti Ahtisaari’s $1 million is the price of
trampling on the pre-2008 world order based on the UN
Charter and the Helsinki Final Act with their
guarantees of equal rights and territorial integrity
of states.
From now on, similar to the developments of the 19th
century, there are other principles to rule the world
on.
Russia’s task is to secure itself a place to suit its
genuine interests and influence.
The act of the recognition of the independence of
South Ossetia and Abkhazia on August 26 is an
indication that the right option was made.
18 years before Martti Ahtisaari, in 1990 the Nobel
Peace Prize was awarded to the grave-digger of the
Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev.
Russia no longer needs either blood-stained Nobel
Prizes or crooked brokers. It is again capable of
acting independently in the Balkans, the Caucasus and
other regions of its vital interests.
The Guardian
October 18, 2008
Kosovo state inevitable, says Nobel laureate
Martti Ahtisaari, the former Finnish president awarded
the Nobel peace prize for his mediation in Kosovo and
a string of other conflicts around the world, said
yesterday that Serbia would have no option but to
accept the new Balkan state.
In his first interview with a British newspaper since
being named Nobel laureate last week, Ahtisaari
shrugged off the apparent setback to his work in
Kosovo inflicted when Serbia succeeded in having its
declaration of independence referred to the
international court of justice.
The 71-year old also argued that it did not matter
that the former Serbian province had been recognised
so far by only 51 of the world's 192 countries. That
was less important than the economic clout of the
nations that did recognise Kosovo, including the US
and most of western Europe.
....
Ahtisaari was commissioned by the UN in 2005 to find a
compromise solution for Kosovo's status as a way of
ending the deadlock that followed the 1999 war and
Nato intervention.
His plan for supervised independence. ..was rejected by
Serbia and Russia last year. However, Kosovo - with
western backing - declared independence in February.
Belgrade has vowed never to accept Kosovo's
sovereignty, but Ahtisaari said Serbia would have to
relent if it wanted eventual European membership. "You
can't be poking the EU in the eye [while] saying you
want to join EU," he said.
He sent private messages to all parties soon after
taking his role as mediator, that Kosovo's secession
was inevitable. "[I said] in light of what had
happened in Kosovo, the return of Kosovo to Serbia is
not a viable option," Ahtisaari said. "So since March
2006 no one should have had any illusion what my plan
was going to be."
Russia furiously opposed Kosovo's independence, and
pointed to it as justification of its own recognition
of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, pro-Russian enclaves in
Georgia. Ahtisaari rejected the parallel.
"We did Kosovo within the UN framework. In Georgia
there was not even an attempt," he argued. "You cannot
go into an independent country and do whatever you
like. Even if you are Russia."
....
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
A proposito della situazione della stampa italiana - una segnalazione
di C. Cernigoi:
( si vedano le eloquenti illustrazioni che accompagnano il testo, alla
URL originale:
http://www.carmillaonline.com/archives/2008/10/002823print.html )
L'asso nella natica
di Alessandra Daniele
La stampa italiana in questi anni ha saputo costruirsi una solida e
meritata reputazione.
Una particolare sintesi di servilismo e sciacallaggio fra “L’asso
nella manica” e “Fantozzi subisce ancora”.
In questi giorni però alcuni giornali – o presunti tali – hanno
sentito il bisogno di dare un forte segnale di rinnovamento.
Grafico.
Hanno la faccia come L’Unità
Meno male che alla direzione de L’Unità c’è una signora come Concita
De Gregorio, altrimenti chissà che campagna pubblicitaria becera ci
sarebbe toccata per il lancio del restringimento del giornale. Magari
il solito culo di velina, con contorno di doppisensi tra L’Unità e la
figa, tipo “bella”, “libera”, “generosa”... quello stesso ticket culo-
figa che da quarant’anni tutti i più “originali” e
“innovativi”copyrighter usano per vendere qualsiasi cosa, dai jeans,
alla colla sigillante. Ci sarebbe toccato un culo sbattuto in faccia.
O forse qualcosa di molto più osceno: una faccia da culo del PD.
Quei bravi ragazzi
Insieme al restyling Il Riformista ha orgogliosamente esibito anche
due nuovi giovani e promettenti collaboratori: Giampaolo Pansa e
Francesco Cossiga. Sì, quel Cossiga che ha appena dichiarato:
“Il suono delle sirene delle ambulanze dovrà sovrastare quello delle
auto di polizia e carabinieri. Le forze dell'ordine dovrebbero
massacrare i manifestanti senza pietà e mandarli tutti in ospedale.”
Prossimamente Antonio Polito presenterà anche gli altri suoi nuovi
analoghi acquisti: Erich Priebke curerà la rubrica di politica
internazionale e diritti umani; Charles Manson si occuperà di cinema e
celebrità; e Hannibal Lecter ovviamente di cucina.
La torre di Guardian
La testata de Il Giornale viene adesso stampata in negativo, bianco su
blu, come quella del britannico The Guardian. Il bollettino dei
Testimoni di Silvio, diretto da Mario Giordano (noto doppiatore dei
Puffi - ecco spiegato il blu), che già svetta nel panorama
giornalistico mondiale, ne guadagnerà ulteriormente in stile e
autorevolezza. I suoi titoli e i suoi editoriali del tipo “I negri
puzzano”, “I comunisti sono tutti froci” o “Gli zingari vogliono
incularsi tua figlia” suoneranno di certo molto più equilibrati ed
eleganti. In arrivo anche una rubrica dal titolo: “L'Italia che ci
crede”.
Sottotitolo “Che imbecille”.
Pubblicato Ottobre 26, 2008 02:37 AM
U.S. Ambassador who left Yugoslavia in pieces now in Bolivia (+ several links to important articles therein)
JUGOINFO 21 giugno 2008: http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/6080
The secession of Bolivia's Eastern provinces is part of a US sponsored covert operation, coordinated out of the US State Department, in liaison with US intelligence.
The death squads armed with automatic weapons responsible for killing supporters of Evo Morales in El Porvenir are supported covertly by the US. According to one report, "USAID has an "Office of Transition Initiatives" operating in Bolivia, funneling millions of dollars of training and support to right-wing opposition regional governments and movements."(The Center for Economic and Policy Research, September 2008). The US also provides support to various opposition groups through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
The expelled US Ambassador Philip S. Goldberg worked under the helm of Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, who directly oversees the various "activities" of US embassies around the World. In this regard Negroponte plays a far more important role, acting behind the scenes, than Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. He is also known as one of the main architects of regime change and covert support to paramilitary death squads both in Central America and Iraq.
Philip S. Goldberg's mandate as ambassador to Bolivia was to trigger the fracture of Bolivia as a country. Prior to his appointment as ambassador in early 2007, he served as US Chief of Mission in Pristina, Kosovo (2004-2006) and was in permanent liaison with the leaders of the KLA paramilitary, who had integrated civilian politics, following the NATO occupation of Kosovo in 1999.
Supported by the CIA, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), whose leaders now head the Kosovar government, was known for its extensive links to organized crime and the trade in narcotics. In Kosovo, Goldberg was involved in setting the stage for the subsequent secession of Kosovo from Serbia, leading to the installation of an "independent" Kosovar government.
In the course of the 1990s, Goldberg had played an active role in the break up of Yugoslavia. From 1994-1996 he was responsible for the Bosnia Desk at the State Department. He worked closely with Washington's Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke and played a central role as Chief of Staff of the US negotiating team at Dayton, leading up to the signing of the Dayton Accords in 1995. These accords were conducive to the carving up of Bosnia-Herzegovina. More generally they triggered the destruction and destabilization of Yugoslavia as country. In 1996, Goldberg worked directly as Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott (1994-2000), who together with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, played a key role in launching the war on Yugoslavia in 1999.
The Central Role of John Negroponte
Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte plays a central role in the conduct of covert operations. He served as US ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985. As Ambassador in Tegucigalpa, he played a key role in supporting and supervising the Nicaraguan Contra mercenaries who were based in Honduras. The cross border Contra attacks into Nicaragua claimed some 50 000 civilian lives. During the same period, Negroponte was instrumental in setting up the Honduran military death squads, "operating with Washington support's, [they] assassinated hundreds of opponents of the US-backed regime." (See Bill Venn, Bush Nominee linked to Latin American Terrorism, Global Research, November 2001)
"Under the rule of General Gustavo Alvarez Martnez, Honduras's military government was both a close ally of the Reagan administration and was "disappearing" dozens of political opponents in classic death squad fashion.
(See Peter Roff and James Chapin, Face-off: Bush's Foreign Policy Warriors , Global Research, July 2001)
This did not prevent his nomination to the position of US Permanent Representative to the UN under the Clinton administration.
The Salvador Option
Negroponte became Ambassador to Iraq in 2004, where he set up a "security framework" for the US occupation, largely modeled on the Central American death squads. This project was referred to by several writers as the "Salvador Option".
While in Baghdad, Negroponte hired as his Counselor on security issues, a former head of special operations in El Salvador. The two men were close colleagues going back to the 1980s in Central America. While Negroponte was busy setting up the death squads in Honduras, Colonel Steele had been in charge of the US Military Advisory Group in El Salvador, (1984-86) "where he was responsible for developing special operating forces at brigade level during the height of the conflict.":
"These forces, composed of the most brutal soldiers available, replicated the kind of small-unit operations with which Steele was familiar from his service in Vietnam. Rather than focusing on seizing terrain, their role was to attack ‘insurgent’ leadership, their supporters, sources of supply and base camps." (Max Fuller, For Iraq, "The Salvador Option" Becomes Reality, Global Research, June 2005)
In Iraq, Steele was "assigned to work with a new elite Iraqi counter-insurgency unit known as the Special Police Commandos". In this context, Negroponte's objective was to encourage ethnic divisions and factional strife, by triggering covert terrorist attacks directed against the Iraqi civilian population.
Negroponte was appointed as the Head of the Directorate of National Intelligence in 2005, and subsequently in 2007 came to occupy the Number Two position in the State Department.
The Kosovo Option: Haiti
This is not the first time that the "Kosovo model" of supporting terrorist paramilitaries has been applied in Latin America.
In February 2003, Washington announced the appointment of James Foley as Ambassador to Haiti. Ambassadors Goldberg and Foley are part of the same "diplomatic stable". Foley had been a State Department spokesman under the Clinton administration during the war on Kosovo. He was involved at an earlier period in channeling support to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA).
Amply documented, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was financed by drug money and supported by the CIA. ( See Michel Chossudovsky, Kosovo Freedom Fighters Financed by Organized Crime, Covert Action Quarterly, 1999 )
At the time of the Kosovo war, the then ambassador to Haiti James Foley had been in charge of State Department briefings, working closely with his NATO counterpart in Brussels, Jamie Shea. Barely two months before the onslaught of the NATO led war on 24 March 1999, James Foley, had called for the "transformation" of the KLA into a respectable political organization:
"We want to develop a good relationship with them [the KLA] as they transform themselves into a politically-oriented organization,' ..`[W]e believe that we have a lot of advice and a lot of help that we can provide to them if they become precisely the kind of political actor we would like to see them become... "If we can help them and they want us to help them in that effort of transformation, I think it's nothing that anybody can argue with..' (quoted in the New York Times, 2 February 1999)
In other words, Washington's design was "regime change": topple the Lavalas administration and install a compliant US puppet regime, integrated by the "Democratic Platform" and the self-proclaimed Front pour la libération et la reconstruction nationale (FLRN), whose leaders are former FRAPH and Tonton Macoute terrorists. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, The Destabilization of Haiti, Global Research, February 2004)
Following the 2004 coup d'Etat which led to the downfall of the Aristide government, KLA advisers were brought into Haiti by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to assist in the country's reconstruction. (See Anthony Fenton, Kosovo Liberation Army helps establish "Protectorate" in Haiti, Global Research, November 2004)
Specifically, the KLA consultants were to assist in restructuring the Haitian police force, bringing into its ranks, former members of FRAPH and the Tonton Macout.
[In support of] the "Office of Transition Initiatives," (OTI) ... USAID is paying three consultants to help consult for the integration of the former brutal military into the current Haitian police force. And who are those three consultants? Those three consultants are members of the Kosovo Liberation Army." (Flashpoints interview, November 19, 2004,www.flashpoints.net )
USAID's "Office of Transition Initiatives" (OTI)
The Salvador/ Kosovo option is part of a US strategy to fracture and destabilize countries. The USAID sponsored OTI in Bolivia performs much the same function as a similar OTI in Haiti.
It is also worth noting that there was an Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) in Venezuela, where a plot, according to reports, was recently uncovered to allegedly assassinate President Hugo Chavez. The role of the OTI office in Venezuela is discussed in Eva Golinger's recent book "Bush vs. Chavez."
The stated purpose of US covert operations is to provide support as well as as training to "Liberation Armies" ultimately with a view to destabilizing sovereign governments. In Kosovo, the training of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in the 1990s had been entrusted to a private mercenary company, Military Professional Resources Inc (MPRI), on contract to the Pentagon.
Pakistan and the "Kosovo Option"
It is worth noting that in Pakistan, recent developments point towards direct forms of US military intervention, in violation of Pakistani sovereignty.
Already in 2005, a report by the US National Intelligence Council and the CIA forecast a "Yugoslav-like fate" for Pakistan "in a decade with the country riven by civil war, bloodshed and inter-provincial rivalries, as seen recently in Balochistan." (Energy Compass, 2 March 2005).
According to a 2006 report of Pakistan's Senate Committee on Defence, British intelligence was involved in supporting the Balochistan separatist movement. (Press Trust of India, 9 August 2006). The Bolochistan Liberation Army (BLA) bears a canny resemblance to Kosovo's KLA, financed by the drug trade and supported by the CIA.
Washington favors the creation of a "Greater Balochistan" [similar to a Greater Albania] which would integrate the Baloch areas of Pakistan with those of Iran and possibly the Southern tip of Afghanistan, thereby leading to a process of political fracturing in both Iran and Pakistan. (Michel Chossudovsky, The Destabilization of Pakistan, December 30, 2007)
---
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@...
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@...
© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2008
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10284
1) La destabilizzazione della Bolivia e l’”opzione Kosovo”
Michel Chossudovsky - Global Research 23/09/08
2) Profit und Autonomie
GFP 14.10.2008
3) Santa Cruz spaccata in due
BOLIVIA: U.S. Attempt to Balkanize South America (+ tutti i link ivi contenuti)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/6204
J. Petras: Separatismo e costruzione dell’impero nel secolo XXI
http://www.resistenze.org/sito/te/pe/im/peim8g15-003466.htm
oppure: JUGOINFO 17 luglio 2008
I MERCENARI DEI DIRITTI UMANI di Attilio Folliero
http://www.lapatriagrande.net/04_opiniones/attilio_folliero/vivanco.htm
oppure: JUGOINFO 3 ottobre 2008
Kosovo, Bolivia | Viva Bolivia
15 feb 2008 ... L'ambasciatore Usa Goldberg: dal Kosovo alla Bolivia. Rapporti burrascosi fra Stati uniti e Bolivia dal 2005 quando il cocalero Evo Morales ...
vivabolivia. splinder. com/post/ 16009010/Kosovo,+Bolivia - 50k - Copia cache - Pagine similiAgencia Boliviana de Información - ABI
- [ Traduci questa pagina ]Today Morales stated that Goldberg as diplomatic authority leads the division of ...Goldberg worked in Kosovo for separating Serbia and Montenegro states, ...
abi.bo/index. php?i=noticias_ texto&j=200809121024423x - 26k - 22 ore fa -Copia cache - Pagine similiSELVAS.org :: Occhi aperti sulle Ande :: Ojos abiertos en los Andes
19 gen 2007 ... 15 aprile 2006: Philip Goldberg posa, in Kossovo, ... Dopo essersi riuniti con il presidente Evo Morales, i movimenti sociali di Cochabamba ...
www.selvas.org/ newsBO0207. html - 28k - Copia cache - Pagine similiBlog from Bolivia: That Kosovo, Goldberg, Bolivia Thing
- [ Traduci questa pagina ]You could cite the fact that, until President Morales suspended the .... They didn't get the idea from Kosovo, or Phillip Goldberg, or the C.I.A. and they ...
www.democracyctr. org/blog/ 2008/05/that-kosovo-goldberg-bolivia- thing.html - 224k -Copia cache - Pagine similiNews ITALIA PRESS:Bolivia: Evo Morales, ambasciatore Usa “cospira ...
11 set 2008 ... Morales ricorda, infatti, che Goldberg, dal 1994 al 1996, lavorò per il ... fu uno degli strateghi della missione a Pristina, in Kossovo, ...
www.newsitaliapress .it/pages/ dettaglio. php?id_lnk= 6_144873 - 45k -Copia cache - Pagine similiEspulso l'ambasciatore Usa cospirazione contro il governo :: Enea ...
12 set 2008 ... Ricordando la carriera di Goldberg, Morales si è soffermato sulla partecipazione del diplomatico alla separazione del Kosovo. ...
www.rinascita. info/cc/RQ_ Mondo/EkkEkkFAAu AgElPYNH. shtml - 25k -Copia cache - Pagine similiIl Venezuela non riconosce l'indipendenza del Kosovo | Acthung ...
22 feb 2008 ... Il 13 luglio 2006, tre mesi prima della presentazioni delle credenziali diGoldberg a Evo Morales, il quotidiano boliviano El Deber ...
achtungbanditen. splinder. com/post/ 16048072/ Il+Venezuela+ non+riconosce+ l'i - 40k -Copia cache - Pagine simili(ami) Agenzia Multimediale Italiana
Lo stesso Morales ha rilanciato accuse rivolte dal senatore del Movimento al socialismo (Mas), Ricardo Diaz, secondo cui «il signor Philip Goldberg, ...
www.agenziami. it/ultime/ 6968/Bolivia+Morales+espelle+l+ambascia tore+Usa/ - 23k -Copia cache - Pagine similiil punto di Vista » Blog Archive » Viva Evo Morales, Pace per la ...
Evo Morales, il presidente eletto democraticamente, dal popolo boliviano, ... Dopo cheGoldberg si e’ incontrato con i Governatori delle regioni che ...
c234.net/info/ 2008/09/12/ viva-evo-morales-pace-per-la- bolivia/ - 14k - 20 ore fa -Copia cache - Pagine similiTra Usa e Bolivia è guerra diplomatica | l'Occidentale
12 set 2008 ... A Pando uno scontro tra sostenitori di Morales e ribelli ha ammucchiato 8 morti e 20 ... e tra 2004 e 2006 come capo di missione in Kosovo. ...
www.loccidentale. it/.../morales+espelle+l'ambascia tore+americano, + washington+risponde .+e'+guerra+ diplo... - 31k - Copia cache - Pagine simili...
A due settimane dal referendum revocatorio del 10 agosto in Bolivia un reportage da Santa Cruz di Barbara Meo Evoli
SANTA CRUZ, Bolivia - Per le strade del centro di Santa Cruz si vedono case, bar e locali pubblici con bandiere e insegne verdi con scritto “Autonomia Sì”, ma appena si oltrepassa la terza circonvallazione nella direzione della periferia, scompaiono e sono sostituite dalle scritte verniciate a mano “Evo adempie” alle sue promesse, “Bolivia cambia”.
Il 4 maggio scorso si è svolto nel departamento di Santa Cruz il referendum confermativo del nuovo statuto regionale approvato con l’85% dei voti favorevoli e promosso dall’oppositore al governo Ruben Costas, il presidente della regione più ricca della Bolivia. Santa Cruz, oriente del paese, infatti, oltre a essere produttrice dei sette decimi degli alimenti boliviani, possiede anche ampie riserve di petrolio. Il 10 agosto invece si terrà il referendum revocatorio dei mandati di presidente, vicepresidente e tutti i presidenti delle regioni, tra cui sette su nove sono dell’opposizione. I sondaggi hanno pronosticato una conferma del mandato del presidente Evo Morales che manterrebbe una popolarità maggiore del 50%.
Riguardo allo statuto, il vicepresidente della regione, Roly Aguilera, ha affermato che si fondamenta in una «rivendicazione storica di Santa Cruz, ossia una maggiore autonomia dal governo centrale di La Paz, così da poter concretare una democrazia più profonda». Secondo invece il Movimento al Socialismo (Mas, il partito governante), il referendum è stato un’ulteriore manovra per frenare il processo di rifondazione dello stato promosso dal governo.
Il presidente della potentissima Confederazione agraria dell’Oriente (Cao, con funzioni simili alla Confindustria italiana), Mauricio Roca, ha confermato la posizione delle autorità regionali rispetto all’autonomia, evidenziando che il prossimo referendum revocatorio «è invece illegale e porterà solo a un maggiore scontro fra chi sostiene il governo e chi si oppone». «Noi (dell’opposizione) – ha proseguito - vogliamo solo lavorare e desideriamo la pace per il paese». Ma l’assessore della Cao, Luis Baldomar, ha spiegato che in realtà «il referendum sull’autonomia è stato un meccanismo per non arrivare alla separazione di Santa Cruz dal paese» poiché la battaglia «è fra due modelli di stato: uno socialista e comunitario voluto dal governo, e uno neoliberale» voluto dalla destra che si concentra a Santa Cruz.
Lo storico e sociologo Humberto Vazquez Vania, spiega che l’autonomia regionale che si è raggiunta è un grande passo avanti, considerando che fino al 2005 i presidenti delle regioni erano nominati dal presidente della repubblica e non eletti, ma che deve essere resa ancora più incisiva. «La destra – afferma - si è appropriata dell’idea di Autonomia, quando invece è un’aspirazione di tutta Santa Cruz» e sottolinea che «lo statuto della regione è stato redatto secondo le direttive delle due grandi loggie massoniche di Santa Cruz: Toborochi e Cavalieri dell’oriente, che sono proprietarie delle società che gestiscono acqua, elettricità, telefonia e mezzi di comunicazione».
Un dato tristemente noto è che, da quando è stato eletto Morales, si sono ripetute non solo a Santa Cruz ma anche in altre regioni, aggressioni fisiche contro i “collas”, ossia i boliviani dell’occidente del paese con tratti somatici degli indi
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
Quelle sera demain la politique internationale des USA ?
Après Bush, chacun espère un changement ou craint le pire. McCain ou Obama ?
- est a lire sur le site: http://www.michelcollon.info/
ou à la page: http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/6170
---
What will the US foreign policy be tomorrow ?
MICHEL COLLON
When Bush goes, everyone will be hoping for a change - or fearing the worst. McCain or
Obama ? What will that change for Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Africa, Caucasia, Cuba and
Venezuela ? And for US relationships with the big powers : Europe, Japan, Russia, China ?
We don't believe that US foreign policy is decided at the White House. In fact, at the
moment the US elite is hesitating about the strategy to follow in the coming years. This
text analyzes the two possible options. The question of how does United States think to
remain the super power dominating the world becomes even more burning in view of the
economic crisis.
This text is extracted from our book « The 7 sins of Hugo Chávez » (Chapter 11 : [The
United States] Black gold and the wars of tomorrow), shortly to be published. The
preceding pages explained the reason for the rise and then decline of the United States.
Investig'Action felt it was urgent to publish this extract to shed more light on the
discussions under way during the elections in the United States of America.
Bush's Failure
What would be the balance sheet of this global war on terror led by the Bush
administration as from 11 September ? Negative. Virtually everywhere.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States has launched two wars which they are unable to
win and which they will never win. Bush wanted to launch a third war against Iran but, the
US being seriously weakened, he has had to renounce it. The aim of this war was to have
been to ensure Washington's control over oil. In five years, it has risen from 25 dollars to
over 100 dollars [per barrel], with very negative consequences for the US and world
economy.
In South America, the United States has lost, entirely or partially, control over almost all
their colonies : Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil. All
that remains to them, at the time of writing, are Peru, Chile and Colombia.
In Africa, too, resistance has made some advances. Kabila of the Congo refused to go on
his knees. And when Washington tried to find somewhere to set up their new military
command, AFRICOM, all countries politely refused.
Also in South Asia, there has been an increase in resistance over the whole region which
has alarmed US strategists, who propose reinforcing the US's 'projection capacity' in South
Asia. In their jargon, that means organizing military landings and bombardments, and
supporting « coups d'etat ». But the group emphasize that, given the unpopularity of the
United States in this region it will be impossible to find a country that will accept the
headquarters of such a US force.
Bush's policy has aroused resistance even among their European allies. Thus, at the NATO
summit in Bucharest in April, George Bush demanded further expansion of the
organization, this time to integrate Ukraine and George - which was like pointing a couple
of cannons at Russia. But there were firm and open refusals from Germany, France, Spain,
Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg, none of them wishing to make troubles
with Moscow which provides them with gas. Steve Erlanger and Steven Lee Myers, two
analysts close to the Pentagon, saw in this « a manifest failure of US policy in an alliance
normally dominated by Washington ».
Indeed Russia's attitude is hardening. Moscow rejects the installation on the European
continent of arms that the United States call an anti-missile shield :
« If part of the US nuclear potential is in Europe (...) we have to have targets in Europe .»
Moreover, in May 2008, Russia tested a new, multi-head intercontinental missile « in
response to unilateral and groundless acts by our partners » declared Putin. Washington
however stated that the anti-missile shield was not directed against Russia, only against
states like Iran. But Putin replied : « There is no Iranian missile that has a sufficient range.
It is therefore evident that this news concerns us Russians too . »
Like Russia, China has also refused to back down when confronted by numerous
campaigns and pressures exercised by Washington.
The US elite is divided
Ten years ago, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to President Carter
and the leading strategist in the United States, published his book « The Great Chessboard
». More or less « How to remain the superpower dominating the world » . He explained,
with the brutal frankness of someone no longer in official position, that Washington must
absolutely weaken its rivals : Russia and China, but also Europe and Japan, and prevent
them from allying with each other. Divide and rule.
Today, what is the balance sheet from George Bush using Brzezinski' criteria ? Has he
managed to weaken the great power rivals ? We would say : fairly well as concerns Japan,
fairly well (for the moment) as concerns Europe, but badly as concerns Russia and very
badly as concerns China.
Globally, Bush has provoked so much resistance that United States' domination has been
weakened. The business interests that had brought him to power - armaments, oil,
automobiles, defence, pharmaceutical companies - have seen that Bush's wars have not
brought great profits, or new areas for exploitation. In fact, they have cost more than they
have gained. And the Bush administration has been shown up as being a small, restricted
circle whose members thought a lot about filling their own pockets but who were incable
of tactical finesse and genuine long-term vision.
Once the failure had become obvious, the divisions among the US elite, and even in the
Bush administration, became exacerbated. As from 2006 the neocons had to cede
territory. They had to accept replacing the War Minister, Donald Rumsfeld, by Robert
Gates, a Trilateral man belonging to the Brzezinski tendency. The new minister had to
some extent admitted the weakness of US militarism in a speech he gave to the cadets at
the West Point Military Academy : « Don't fight unless you have to. Never fight alone. And
don't fight for long. » Then the bi-partisan Baker-Hamilton Commission condemned the
effort of Bush to reshape the 'Great Middle East' as being unrealistic. They advocated, on
the contrary, a more tactical approach towards Syria and Iran.
Even within the secret services and the army there are a number of revolts. In December
2007, when Bush wanted to prepare an attack against Iran under the classic pretext of it
having weapons of mass destruction, sixteen US intelligence services surprised everyone
by publishing a report stating that Iran had suspended its military nuclear programme
since at least 2003.
« The decline of the United States is inevitable »
(Zbigniew Brzezinski)
Brzezinski, in his book, proposed an agressive and machiavellian strategy to save the US
Empire. But even he, did he really believe it would work ? Strange as it may seem, it
appears not.
« In the long term, global politics are destined to become less and less favourable to the
concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of only one state. America is thus not only
the first global super power, it is very probably the last one. » (CH - p. 267)
The reason for this is the evolution of the economy : « Economic power also risks
becoming dispersed. In the coming years, no country will be likely to attain some 30 per
cent of the world GNP, a figure that the United States has maintained during most of the
20th century - not to mention the high point of 50 per cent that they reached in 1945.
According to certain estimates, America could still hold 20 per cent of the world GNP at
the end of this decade, which would then fall to 10 - 15 per cent from now to the year
2020. The figures for other powers - Europe, China, Japan - are expected to increase to
reach the approximate level of the United States ... Once the decline of the American
leadership has set in, the supremacy that the country now enjoys cannot be taken over by
any single state. » (CH - p. 267-8)
« Once the decline of the American leadership has set in ». Brzezinski is therefore not
talking about a possibility, but a certitude. He wrote that in 1997. Today it has become
clear that the decline is well on its way. The world is becoming multipolar.
But perhaps Brzezinski is an isolated pessimist ? Perhaps the neocons who inspired Bush
are more 'optimist', if one can use that word ? In fact, they are not much more optimistic.
In the founding text of the administration's whole policy, the Project for a New American
Century (PNAC), drawn up in 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz and his friends, the whole ideology of
a new militarist crusade is evident, but there is also a remark worthy of note : « At the
moment, the United States has no world rival. The overall strategy of America must aim at
preserving and extending this advantageous position as long as possible (...) Preserving
this desirable strategic situation in which the United States finds itself at the present time
requires predominant military capacities at the world level. » (CH)
« As long as possible » : here, too, there is no belief that the United States can remain the
masters of the world for ever. It is a real paradox. The whole world fears the United States.
But the rulers of the country themselves know that they are at the controls of the Titanic.
And to save the Empire as long as possible, they are divided between two options.
Two options for saving the Empire
What will be the foreign policy of the United States in the years to come ? The choice of
president will certainly give some idea. But it is not decisive. We should remember that,
during the presidential campaign of 2000, George Bush had promised a much milder
foreign policy and less interventionist than its precedessor ! And the other candidate, Al
Gore, had proposed a bigger military budget than that of Bush. We believe that the general
orientations of foreign policy are not decided by presidents but by the multinationals, in
function of their requirements of the moment and their evaluation of world power
relationships.
And, in fact, after the balance sheet of the Bush years that we have just described, the US
elite seems quite divided about the line to follow. How to resolve this delicate situation ?
The first possible option is the military one. Bush's neocons embodied this the last few
years with the Wolfowitz strategy, one of aggression and intimidation. Multiply the wars,
inflate to the maximum the orders to the military-industrial complex to promote growth
and the domination of the US multinationals, and also to intimidate allies and rivals.
The other option, which is defended by Brzezinski, is what he likes to call 'soft power'.
Others call it 'intelligent imperialism'. In fact it aims at the same objectives, but through
forms of violence that are less direct, less visible. It would count less on very expensive US
military interventions and more on secret services, destabilization manoeuvres and proxy
wars, as well as corruption.
Five NATO generals prepare a world government ...
The first option consists of militarizing political life still further and increasing the number
of wars. Bush squared, in fact.
In January 2008, five former NATO generals presented a preparatory document for the
NATO summit meeting at Bucharest. Their proposals reflect a terrifying tendency. And
what gives weight to their document is that, up until recently, all of them held very high
positions. General John Shalikashvili was US Chief of Staff and Commander in Chief of
NATO in Europe, General Klaus Naumann ran the German army and was president of the
military committe of NATO in Europe, General Henk van den Breemen was chief of the
Dutch Chief of Staff and Admiral Jacques Lanxade held the same post in France, while Lord
Inge ran the General Staff and was also Chief of the Defence Staff of Great Britain. This is
just the big shots - and very aggressive they are too, as we shall see.
Page 6 : « [The authors] propose ways how to overcome possible rivalry with the EU and
also how to enable NATO to have access to non-military instruments. » Two observations :
in fact, this rivalry is not only possible, it is completely real. In what way do they want to
overcome it ?;
· what does NATO mean by having « access to non-military instruments » ?
Is it a question of having more control over civil society in western countries ?
Page 7 : « In order to start off the process, they propose establishing a directorate
bringing together the United States, the European Union and NATO. Its mission would be
to coordinate all operations in the Atlantic sphere. » For what objectives ?
The Five explain this on page 42 : « What the Western allies expect is the pro-active
defence of their societies and their way of life maintaind over the long term. »
« Defending our way of life » has already been used as an argument by Bush senior to
launch the first war against Iraq. In fact, « way of life » is a hypocritical term that means
the domination of the multinationals over economic life : it is a domination that keeps half
of humanity in poverty. The aim of the Five is in fact to use military means to maintain the
gap between the rich and the poor. Anyone who doubts this should read, on page 92 : «
The objectives of our strategy are to preserve the peace, our values, economic liberalism
and stability. »
It is, therefore, to preserve the stability of the multinationals. Against what enemies ? The
authors give some examples of what is not to be tolerated in the Third World. Page 52 : «
We have less important examples of non-desirable aid, from Venezuela to the Cuban
regime. » The world gendarme takes upon itself the right to intervene everywhere against
countries that do things that the multinationals don't like.
But among the undesirables, who is the main enemy ? The answer is on page 44 :
« China is in a situation to wreak great harm on the US and the world economies, based on
its enormous reserves in dollars. » And, on page 52 : « China is in a position to use finance
to impose itself on Africa and acquire the capacity to utilize it on a much greater scale - if
it so decides. »
So here we have, well-defined, the good and the bad. Liberalism needs NATO to impose
itself on the whole world. And to carry out this economic war, what means does NATO
require ?
International law and the United Nations thrown overboard
In fact, the five generals feel frustrated. On page 76 : « One of the chief problems in the
current strategic conception of the Atlantic alliance is that its actions remain reactive
rather than preventive, and are limited to military means. On page 91 : « An ambitious
strategy must include the well-integrated use of all accessible means, political, economic,
military, cultural, social, moral, spiritual and psychological. »
So there we are ! The Gang of Five wants to move beyond its military tasks and exercise
control over the functioning of civil society. But will the law be respected at least by this
new world government ? It is very doubtful. On pages 94-95 : « Another principle to be
respected is legality. All action must be legitimate, authorized and respect international
law. That can be a considerable handicap when the adversary has no respect at all for any
law whatsoever, but to act differently would mean, in the end, applying the law of the
jungle and undermine our own credibility. Nevertheless this principle does not prevent
adapting existing international law in an international context that is constant evolution. »
In this quote, the first sentences serve as window dressing and the real content comes at
the end. « Adapting » the law means, in effect, violating it, denying the principles
proclaimed up until now. After Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, torture, the assassination of
heads of states, the extraordinary rendition flights and secret prisons of the CIA : are they
proposing to combat these violations of the law ? No, they propose to legalize them,
'adapting' the law.
Already two wars against Iraq and the one against Yugoslavia have violated international
law, the UN Charter and even NATO's own Charter. But it is precisely international legality
that the Five want to get rid of. Pages 104-105 : « The approval of the United Nations may
not be necessary according to Article 51 of the UN Charter (legitimate defence) and it is
perhaps possible to renounce it on the basis of the Convention on Genocide. »
« Long live preventive war ! » Even if it is nuclear.
Page 96 makes for reading that is just as disturbing : « What we need is a form of
dissuasion through pro-active refusal, in which the preemption is a form of imminent
reaction and prevention an attempt to take back the initiative and put an end to the
conflict. »
« Pro-active defence » in military jargon, means preventive war. The term is constantly
repeated in the document of the Five. George W. Bush had already invoked a 'preventive
war' against terrorism. As did Hitler in his time. Aggressors often take refuge in the
pretext of preventing danger. In actual fact, international law explicitly forbids wars
claiming to be preventive.
But our fears don't end there. On page 94 : « At first sight, the nuclear weapon might
seem disproportionate, but if one takes into account the damage that it prevents, it may
be reasonable. » Here the immorality of these five Gangits bursts out into the open.
Nuclear war is an atrocity and humanity has constantly demanded the dismantling of
weapons of mass destruction. Here it is claimed that they are justified. The hypocrisy is
flagrant : « to prevent damage ». This is completely vague and, without doubt, racist. The
lives of adversary peoples are not worth anything.
The truth is that these criminal generals, observing that classic bombardments are not
enough to break resistance, and that wars on land are expensive and dangerous for the
invaders, propose the nuclear weapon as a solution to the problem of the world hegemony
of the multinationals.
Preparing peoples' minds
As can be seen, the goods that the Gang of Five wish to sell us are completely rotten and
poisonous. This is the reason why they count on manipulating public opinion through
long-term propaganda campaigns. On page 104 : « These measures must be accompnied
by pro-active and coordinated efforts of communication through the media (,,,)
Furthermore, such a media campaign can prepare peoples' minds for an armed
intervention. »
« Prepare peoples' minds » ! Of course, this is nothing new. Drawing up the balance sheet
of the war against Yugoslavia, which was the most successful example of organized
disinformation, a NATO general admitted, after the war ended, that false information had
been systematically issued while embarrassing information was eliminated or
marginalized in order to « anaesthetize opinions ». He thus acted upon NATO's philosophy
that « Opinion can be worked upon, like other things. » In each war, Western generals
commission spin doctors to sell their war and manipulate public opinion. But this time,
this is taken much further : there is to be a long-term campaign to condition opinion.
Page 129 : « Therefore NATO must develop an information strategy that serves three
objectives simultaneously. It must persuade the world that NATO is a force for good. It
must move before its adversaries start to disseminate their information : that is, NATO
must impose its domination in public relations. It must win the hearts and minds of the
inhabitants of the NATO countries (convince them that the Atlantic alliance's position is a
correct one), but also the hearts and minds of the populations where the armed
intervention is taking place. »
« Impose its domination in public relations .» Information is seen as a war that is won by
eliminating the forces of the adversary. This is no idle accusation. The US army bombed
and imprisoned Al Jazeera journalists, NATO bombed Belgrade television station (17
killed), the Pentagon has prepared plans to eliminate embarrassing information on the
Internet, whose democratic character is upsetting it considerably.
A plan for world dictatorship
At the beginning of their document, the five generals announced « ways how to overcome
possible rivalry with the EU » How are they going to do that ?
In effect, they use the framework of NATO to organize the submission of the EU to
Washington's will :
Page 137 : « We consider that multinational forces are the key for a rapid and inexpensive
modernization of NATO's force, but we stress that this is not possible unless member
states accept without reserve that these forces will be at the disposal of NATO for all
operations authorized by the NATO Council. » Translation : the European armies will be
obliged to obey NATO decisions (currently unanimity is required).
The Five's plan would give three advantages to the United States : it would integrate
European forces into their own wars ; it would share the costs among the allies ; and it
would also share the unpopularity.
The antidemocratic character of the Five is shown clearly on page 139 : « We are not
formulating proposals for the reform of the EU in such detail as we have for NATO for two
reasons : first, a new 'smooth' treaty, that has just replaced the 'constitution' that had
been condemned, has now been adopted so as to avoid consulting the populations. »
Their plan will make it impossible to carry out any opposition. Page 144 : « In order to
avoid all sources of inconvenience, it could be decided that first of all an issue will be
treated inside NATO and then the NATO members who are also members of the EU will
undertake not to depart from the vote taken at NATO when the issue is brought up in the
European bodies. » Thus, once NATO has decided, no European country will have the right
to oppose its decision.
In conclusion, this plan of the Gang of Five, prepared by people who have been at the top
of world military power, exposes a significant tendency among the elite. Their plan for a
super world government by the three blocs (effectively dominated by the United States)
would relegate all vestiges of international law to the dustbin, legitimize preventive war
and nuclear weapons andorganize systematic manipulation of public opinion. The plan is
nothing if not fascist.
This is one of the two options that the elite in the United States are currently considering
for resolving their problems. The other is embodied by Zbigniew Brzezinski, whom we
spoke about earlier.
« Intelligent imperialism » ?
The US military strategists distinguish three types of war that they could launch :
high intensity wars between big powers such as the two world wars ; medium intensity
wars involving also the US military directly, but against much weaker powers, as in Iraq
and Yugoslavia ; low-intensity wars, in which there is not a direct US military involvement
but which are organized to defeat others. They provoke conflicts between neighbouring
countries, or through paramilitary and terrrorist movements.
The term 'low intensity' is misleading, as it could give the impression that there are fewer
damages. In fact there are fewer only for the United States. Thus the so-called « low
intensity » war that Washington launched against the Congo (through the armies of
neighbouring Rwanda and Uganda, and various militias) resulted in five million deaths and
it has paralyzed the development of the Congo.
Brzezinski's strategy is different from that of Bush in that it favours low-intensity wars. In
no way, therefore, is it more moral, but it claims to being more intelligent.
But Brzezinski also proposes other forms of intervention. We often think of military
intervention by the United States as the most visible form of aggression. But in fact they
dispose of a wide range of forms of aggression.. To establish a complete typology, it
would look like this, in order of ascending intensity :
corruption of local leaders ;
· blackmail of local leaders ;
· demonization media campaigns ;
· various destabilization actions ;
· embargos and commercial blockades ;
· coups d'état ;
· provoking separatist movements ;
· war by proxy ;
· bombardments ;
· territorial occupation.
As can be seen there is a wide variety of methods which, evidently, can be combined. But
they are all aggressions. Of course all US governments have had recourse to all these
methods, and not only certain ones. But the dosage and financing vary.
After the crimes committed by Bush, it is tempting to think that there will be a change of
method. However, if Washington decides to changes its tactics they will not be more
pacific but only less visible. Brzezinski, it should be remembered, was the man who
financed bin Laden in Afghanistan to tie the Soviet Union down in a long and costly war
and to break its alliance with the Muslim world. Brzezinski is very proud of his success and
never loses an opportunity to refer to it.
If the United States decide to apply the Brezinski strategy there will certainly be fewer
direct wars. And they will be carried out as often as possible in conjunction with allies.
This will help to take care of their media image and the manipulation of the public. And
above all the CIA will be more active : efforts will be made to replace wars carried out
directly by the United States by indirect wars, making neighbouring countries fight each
other, supporting 'the good war' and using all kinds of appropriate pretexts. This was the
method used successfully by Clinton against Yugoslavia.
The Brzezinski method has two advantages for the United States. They would regain a
more presentable image and re-establish their moral authority. And by paying less money
to the military-industrial complex the US economy would reinforce its competitive
position vis-à-vis Europe, China, India, etc.
In order to economize on wars the Brzezinski strategy would make more use of blackmail
as well as of clandestine activities. Blackmail, especially, can be channelled through world
economic organizations like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the
World Trade Organization. These are multilateral institutions but dominated by the United
States, who can dictate their wishes for the Third World in an apparently more objective
manner. But this will not be easy because the World Bank and the IMF have created such
antagonism among the countries they have dealt with that the latter are looking for
alternatives. The idea of a Bank of the South, launched by Chávez is making progress ...
More use would also be made of clandestine activities - in other words, the CIA. This
makes it possible to get rid of obstreperous governments at a lower cost.
That is why those who support Brzezinski's strategy call themselves partisans of 'soft
power' or 'intelligent imperialism'. But the danger with this soft power is that the Left will
be so glad that Bush has gone that they will reduce their vigilance because - for a certain
time - there will be fewer direct wars. Thus the international anti-war movement, which is
going through an evident crisis, will react even less strongly when confronted by the more
discreet strategies of the Empire.
At any rate, the Empire will not become more peaceful. Sooner or later it will launch more
Bush-type wars. This is because the US elite in fact practise the two options alternately.
Presidents come and go, the multinationals remain
These two options, militarist or 'intelligent' are not new. And it is not a question of the
opposition between republicans and democrats. These two parties do not represent 'war'
or 'peace' but only different electorates, different tactics, and are always at the service of
the multinationals. Hence it is not a republican but a democrat, Harry Truman, who
launched the war in 1950 against Korea and China. It was not a republican, but a
democrat, John Kennedy, who started the war against Vietnam in 1961.
And it is not a popular vote either, against the bourgeois vote. The US multinationals
always finance both candidates, putting their eggs in both baskets. But their preferences
can be judged by the amounts they contribute. At the beginning of the 1990s the
multinationals invested in both candidates, but gave 59 pour cent more to Clinton and the
democrats. Instead, from 1996 onwards they gave greater support to the republicans by
67 per cent. In the presidential elections of 2000 it was Bush who was massively financed.
And he was declared elected in spite of the fact that the ballots had given his rival Gore
the victory. On the other hand, in the presidential elections of 2008 the multinationals
have changed sides again and finance Obama more than his rival McCain.
However, the same president can change his own policy. After the fall of the Soviet Union
and the end of the Cold War, Bill Clinton reduced the military budget and the orders to the
military-industrial complex - for a while. By so doing, he had hoped to relaunch the US
economic machine in general. But, although the decision was almost unnoticed, at the end
of his mandate the same Clinton made a U-turn : « The military budget of the United
States must be increased by 70 per cent. » This just confirms what was said previously :
the great political decisions do not depend on the character of one president or another,
but on strategies decided higher up. Presidents come and go, the multinationals remain.
US policy alternates its methods
So we shall talk about alternative US policies. After each important setback, there is a -
temporary - return to 'soft power'.
After the defeat of Vietnam and the moral condemnation of the dictatorships installed by
Washington in Latin America, the US multinationals brought the nice pastor Jimmy Carter
to power, with his wonderful speeches on human rights. After the Cold War and the first
war against Iraq, President Clinton tried to involve the Europeans in his wars and gave
special attention to media presentation. In fact, the US bourgeoisie was in fact always
hesitating between the two options to solve its problems. Or, rather, it alternated between
them : a bit more stick, a bit more carrot. But its choices became increasingly difficult.
Neither method really solved the problems.
Now, after the disastrous results of the Bush regime, the US bourgeoisie is hesitating
between the two options. Either the headlong plunge into more wars or a tactical
withdrawal, moving back in order to get a better run-up. The question is not what
president they are going to choose, but rather what strategy.
At all events, it is not sure that the Brzezinski strategy is, when all's said and done, less
brutal than that of Bush. It is true that in 2008 he publicly criticized the president, saying
that he was stupid to want to attack Iran, because he could not win and that a war would
harm the situation of Israel and affect the price of oil, hence the US economy. Certain
analysts think that Brzezinski wants to domesticate Iran because he hopes to turn the
country around and make it participate one day in the encirclement of Russia. This is the
power that remains his bête noire, the obsession of the author of The Great Chessboard.
Some think that Brzezinski wants to completely encircle and weaken Russia, if not to wage
war on it, and we should not forget China, which has obviously become a major target
now. If this should happen, soft power will be transformed into Apocalypse Now.
Their solutions will only exacerbate the problems
That the US bourgeoisie is divided about which line to follow stems from the fact that, in
the final analysis, the United States are not so powerful as is believed, neither in the
economic field, nor in the military. Each time that the rulers thought they had found the
solution, it turned out, after a while, that the solution only made things worse.
For example, in the 1980s, in order to escape recession, the US multinationals fell upon
Latin America and other regions of the Third World, gobbling up their raw materials, their
businesses and their markets. But this neoliberal offensive so impoverished these
countries, provoking economic catastrophes and hence increasing resistance that Latin
America turned to the left. From 1989 Washington launched a global war to ensure its
total control over oil. But oil continues to escape it. As from 2001 Bush launched his war
against the so-called Evil Axis, but only succeeded in strengthening resistance in all
regions of the world.
The United States seem to be very strong, but are they really so ? With all their dollars, all
their technologies and all their crimes, they have lost the war in Korea (1950) and the war
in Vietnam (1961-1975), they have had to withdraw from Lebanon (1982) and from
Somalia (1993). They would not have won in Yugoslavia (1999) if President Milosevic had
accepted a land war. They have already lost in Iraq and in Afghanistan, even if they do not
yet recognize the fact. Are they not a 'paper tiger' ? In the long run, aren't people who
defend their wealth and their future stronger than dollars and missiles ?
The United States spend far more on their military budget than all the other nations of the
world together but that no longer succeeds in ensuring their world supremacy. One might
say that they are their own victims of their fundamental contradiction : everything that
they do is against the interests of the immense majority of the inhabitants of the planet,
so they themselves create the force that will destroy them.
An army cannot be stronger than the economy that finances it. And the basic weakness
that will prevent the US rulers from attaining their objctive is that the US economy is
sawing the branch on which it is sitting. By underpaying its workers, by delocalizing part
of its production, by ruining the countries of the Third World that should be its partners it
is ceaselessly impoverishing those to whom it should be selling. This problem cannot be
resolved by either of the two options, the militarist or the 'intelligent' one. The militarists
increase the expenditure and the resistance.
The 'intelligent'option, while reducing the terror disseminated by direct warfare, also
encourages resistance.
Whatever tactics are chosen the United States will continue to wage war throughout the
world in order to impose their economic system and their interests. It is urgent to recreate
a strong peace movement and for peoples' sovereignty.
1 September 2008
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The links between the economy and the war are analyzed in the book Bush le cyclone :
Bush le cyclone (in French and Spanish). This book is particularly concerned with the
question 'Who commands Bush ?' And, therefore, the next President.
These questions will also be tackled at the next seminar organized by Investig'Action in
Brussels (in French) on 8-9 November. For information :magali.investigaction@...
Other articles on the foreign policy of the United States, Russia, China, the European
Union, Iraq, Afghanistan, Brzezinski, Obama (in French) :
http://www.michelcollon.info/index.php
Jugocoord su Telegram
Jugocoord su Facebook