Forum

GÉOPOLITIQUE - 11/05/2005

‘‘Great and Medium Powers in the Age of Unipolarity’‘

Recent developments in the international relations arena such as the new Sino-Indian cooperation agreements and the Russo-German strategic deals, both from April 2005, call for a theoretical interpretation in the context of the current phase of world affairs. These relationships are often defined as “strategic partnerships.” A strategic partnership can be explained as a bilateral relationship with the main function being to facilitate the increase of power (at first in absolute terms) of the two states involved. In this sense, it differs both from a classical security-oriented alliance and from political and economic integration processes such as the European Union.

Strategic partnerships are not necessarily directed against a common rival, contrary to classical alliances. The main reasons for forging these latter alliances have always been security concerns and the seeking of a balance of power. Security was, therefore, the elemental concept in this kind of relationship.

Strategic partnerships also do not involve any transfer of national sovereignty to a supranational authority, for example in political integration attempts such as the European Union. The E.U.‘s official goals are ones of common security, free market enhancement, shared sovereignty and the general underpinning of the role of states in the global context. Political integration is therefore aimed at both security and influence enhancement, but national independence is sacrificed in order to implement common monetary, fiscal and defense policies.

Instead, a strategic partnership is based upon the mutual goal of increasing individual power and independence, thus allowing the preservation of national sovereignty.

China, India, Russia and Germany

On April 11, two very significant events took place. The first took place at the Hannover Fair in Germany, where Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed on eight different deals regarding cooperation in nano- and bio-technologies, education, and oil and gas transportation from Russia to Germany (via the planned Baltic pipeline). Russia was already Germany’s most important non-E.U. commercial partner, but after these agreements, a new level of cooperation between the two countries is on its way to being accomplished.

This is an evident sign of the rise of Germany’s new foreign policy, more independent from France than in the past and a proof of Russia’s desperate need to counter its own geopolitical decline after years of successful Western penetration into Moscow’s former sphere of influence—culminated with the Ukrainian pro-Western stance of newly elected President Viktor Yuschenko. [See: “An Assessment of the Franco-German Axis and the United States”]

The second major event was the Sino-Indian Agreement for Peace and Prosperity, which established the basis for a peaceful resolution of long-time border tensions between the two Asian giants, and launched a new cooperation in economic and military affairs. The first deal (on the borders) is the logical premise of the strategic partnership. With the U.S. still determined to counter Chinese influence in the Asia-Pacific region by carrying out a U.S.-Taiwan-Japan alignment clearly aimed at containing Beijing, Chinese President Hu Jintao rapidly started to look west. A new course in the Sino-Indian relationship would have very important consequences for South Asia’s geopolitics, and for global politics as well. India’s success in computer science could soon work in favor of China’s military ambitions if the two countries appease and stabilize their geopolitical conflict. [See: “Sino-Indian Relations: Perspectives, Prospects and Challenges Ahead”]

The deals between China and India, and Germany and Russia, are not the only deals being formed. China is actually seeking out Iran (for oil and gas) as well as Indonesia, while at the same time trying to expand its economic influence in South America. France has tried to upgrade its relationship with Japan (Chirac was in Tokyo on March 28) proposing enhanced cooperation in high-tech research, ecology and energy, with further developments still to come.

All these bilateral talks, deals and agreements mark an emerging trend in the international system at a time of unipolarity. Unipolarity can be defined as the disproportion between the United States and all other great and medium world powers in terms of military might, technological innovation capability, diplomatic and cultural influence, economic prosperity and ability to provide security. The fall of the Soviet Union led many analysts to talk about a coming multipolarity in the 21st Century, but the 1990s saw the rise of the U.S. as the only global geopolitical superpower. Washington is today the only real regional hegemon because it is not only the premier military and economic world power, but also the only great power whose security is not threatened by neighboring states. Neither Canada, nor Mexico, nor any South American state can be considered as a serious geopolitical threat for the U.S. The same is not true for other potential regional hegemons like Germany, Russia, India or China.

A unipolar system is, of course, subject to change like any other polarity. A transition toward a bipolar or multipolar configuration is possible under certain conditions, so that one or more states accumulate enough power to emerge as “peer competitors” against the only global superpower. However, it is first and foremost important to understand how great and medium powers try to act under unipolarity in order to understand many of today’s crises and conflicts and to predict future ones.

The Decisive Role of the Global Superpower

In a unipolar context, the way in which the global superpower acts is decisive. Since states tend to enhance their power continuously to better compete in world politics, the U.S. is likely to seek hegemony. It is far from established, however, whether Washington will prefer a “liberal hegemony” predicated upon multilateralism and shared rules (as it appeared to do in the 1990s), or the consolidation of a unilateral, “imperial hegemonic” turn. Washington’s strategy will be crucial for slowing or accelerating other powers’ attempts to build a multipolar world because it will change—in one sense or another—these states’ perceptions of U.S. intentions. After all, hegemony is not merely a decisively superior military might, but also the ability to gain other states’ acquiescence to one’s leadership.

In order to be perceived as benign, a global leader must let its own goals appear as coincident with other powers’ ones. This has proved more difficult than before for Washington at the dawn of the 21st Century, especially because of widespread opposition to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Washington’s subsequent occupation and stabilization of Iraq. [See: “Testing the Currents of Multipolarity”]

However, in the present phase of international relations, great and medium powers cannot afford a direct confrontation with the United States, which is why classical balancing alliances are unlikely. Since potential regional hegemons (France, Germany, Russia, India, China, and Japan) are all placed in Europe and Asia, an overtly anti-American and power politics-oriented alliance between two or more of these countries could easily scare neighboring states, thus helping the U.S. to build a counter-alliance.

Moreover, U.S. military expenditure will likely equal all other great powers’ combined defense spending by 2007, which suggests the uselessness of such an attempt. Even more important is that the internal nature of the U.S. (liberal democracy) and its geopolitical position of “offshore balancer” helps Washington to be perceived as less threatening than other historical great powers: after all, even if France and Germany fear a diminution of their relative influence in the world because of U.S. hegemony over the “Greater Middle East,” they know they will not be militarily invaded and dominated by the United States.

Great and medium powers’ strategy to preserve their influence and to seek their interests is therefore a combination of engagement and balancing, whose dominating character (engagement with the U.S. or attempts to balance its power) is highly dependent upon Washington’s choices. Strategic partnerships like the Russo-German or the Sino-Indian ones are potentially excellent ways to increase one’s capabilities without directly confronting the U.S. while at the same time maintaining a high degree of independence.

The Origins of Political and Economic Integration Attempts

Political integration is nowadays often regarded as the most advanced strategy to build new powerful geopolitical actors. The European Union is the archetypical example of such a model, which is often quoted as a pattern to be replicated by other regions’ states (Latin America, Africa, Central Asia, etc.). The E.U.‘s history is, nonetheless, often misunderstood in idealistic or abstract terms. In fact, it should be remembered that the European Community was strongly supported by the United States because of the need to fully reintegrate West Germany into the Atlantic Alliance and to counter the Soviet Union’s expansion in Europe.

France, Great Britain, Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands all found their own reasons to build a united Europe, one of which was to keep the Americans “in.” In 1948, Washington pushed the Western European states to “take the first step” (by creating the Western European Union) in building their common defense. This fact is most of the time overlooked, just like, on the other hand, some French Gaullist’s ambitions of making a confederated Europe a superpower is often mistaken as a “European will” to rival the United States on a global scale.

Many commentators said during the 1990s, and still say today, that the European Union is soon going to be a world superpower. Fifteen years after the Maastricht Treaty’s negotiations, however, a Common Foreign and Security Policy (C.F.S.P.) of the E.U. states is still concretely missing. Although it exists officially and it also has growing military capabilities and institutional assets, C.F.S.P. lacks a common strategic concept—simply because E.U. member states do not always have clearly defined and shared geopolitical interests. Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, Belgium, and the Netherlands still have their agendas and their relative position to the United States, as the 2003 Iraq intervention undoubtedly displayed.

History can’t be “compressed” in a few years, and European history is a history of nations and nation-states. The paradox is that in 2005, with both the Euro and the newborn European political-military institutions in place, precisely the bigger supporters of European integration (France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands) are showing signs of malaise as the diminution of national sovereignty (especially in monetary and industrial policies) hasn’t been compensated by the promised benefits of continental unification.

Political and economic integration also appears to be a very specific geopolitical process that can’t be thoroughly understood if disconnected by the superpower’s policy. Two often compared national political economies such as the German and Japanese political economies are paradigmatic in this sense. Germany successfully obtained its goals of an institutionalized, regional economy, largely because American strategy for post-war Europe allowed it (and supported it), whereas Washington was much more cautious about a possible Asia-Pacific economic integration.

In fact, instead of an East Asian economic integration, Washington favored a Trans-Pacific regional (informal) entity because it feared that Japan could hegemonize an Asian-only organization at American expense. The United States is also actively supporting an all-American economic integration based upon the free market (F.T.A.A./A.L.C.A.), opposing concurrent projects of a common South American market (Mercosur) which could possibly benefit Brazilian or Venezuelan stronger influences in the region. [See: “Washington Loses Control of the O.A.S.”]

Washington, in effect, supports political integrations much more than it is usually thought, apart some important exceptions depending on its interests and security concerns, and the success chances of such integrating attempts by regional powers are heavily influenced by American support or hostility.

Conclusion

Strategic partnerships like those previously mentioned are a more and more frequent behavior characterizing great and medium powers since the decade began. The historically unprecedented configuration of the international system, dominated by American military and technological capabilities, pushes regional powers to act differently from what could be expected by just projecting past patterns of behavior into the new era.

If states like China, India or Germany privilege strategic partnerships in this phase, it is because they want to increase their energy and technology acquisition capabilities, thus creating conditions for a rapid accumulation of power. Compared to complex integration processes like the European Union, strategic partnerships do not involve national sovereignty transfers which more often than not damage a state’s capabilities, which is why they are preferable under many aspects.

Like all kinds of bilateral relationships, strategic partnerships are not static, but dynamic processes that can be reversed. We shouldn’t take for granted, therefore, that Russo-German or Sino-Indian agreements will last forever or grow linearly. Moreover, some states such as Germany appear to choose a complex combination between regional integration policies (the E.U.) and worldwide strategic partnerships (with Russia and possibly other states). But at a time of U.S. unilateral behavior and continuous military power display, we can expect these partnerships to consolidate for the near future.

Report Drafted By:
Federico Bordonaro

Voici un texte (de Stratfor) qui m’a franchement préoccupée, en tant que citoyenne française, sur le futur des relations Franco-Allemandes et les implications sur le defense européenne… Ce texte semble en contradiction avec le recent article d’un expert Allemand proche du CDU qui disait que la défense en Allemagne était désormais considérée comme une question qui regarde l’Europe, non plus les USA, et qui parlait de relancer l’Europe de la Défense autour d’une cooperation structurée renforcée dont le coeur serait l’Allemagne et la France. Ce texte semble confirmer une converstion que j’ai eue hier avec l’attaché armement de l’embassade Allemande de Rome, qui me disait que si Merkel était élue, cela signifirait la fin de l’axe Franco-Allemand… Qu’en pensez-vous?
__________________

The Next Chancellor?

Summary

Germany is on the verge of a change in government, which will probably result in conservative leader Angela Merkel taking power. When that happens, German foreign policy will change dramatically.

Analysis

Angela Merkel, leader of Germany’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), likely could become Germany’s next chancellor in snap elections scheduled for September. Such a development would dramatically change German policy. A Chancellor Merkel would represent a new pro-American direction not only for Germany, but for Europe as well. And with European politics currently in disarray, Merkel could be one of the only people in a position to take the reins, and her destination would be decidedly American.

Merkel grew up in former East Germany and had a history of pro-Western feeling so strong that the communist authorities barred her from teaching, her profession. As such, she became a member of Democratic Renewal, a pro-democracy group, in 1989. Merkel joined the CDU in 1990, two months before the reunification of Germany, and three months later became a surprise addition to Chancellor Helmut Kohl’s Cabinet as minister for women and youth.

When the Kohl slush fund scandal broke in 1999, she was the first former-Kohl ally to publicly break with Kohl, and in April 2000, she ascended to party leadership. As a Protestant East German, Merkel is an anomaly in a party dominated by Roman Catholics and West German men.

After (reluctantly) standing aside in favor of Edmund Stoiber’s candidacy in the 2002 elections, Merkel will now challenge German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. It is difficult to imagine a more contrasting pair. Schroeder is as pro-French, pro-state and pro-Russian as Merkel is pro-American, pro-free market and pro-NATO. About the only thing they do agree on is that the German economy is in the doldrums and needs a radical change to get it moving again. That has led Schroeder of late to propose policies that sound like the CDU manifesto.

In many ways, such half-hearted reforms have proven the worst of all worlds. The effort has not sufficed to jolt the German economy to life, yet has sufficed to trigger near-revolts in the Schroeder’s own Social Democratic Party and broad disaffection throughout the broader population. Unemployment, which Schroeder vowed to reduce, has risen by 1 million to 5 million since he took office in 1998, gross domestic product growth has exceeded 1 percent just once in the last four years, and Germany’s wealth distribution has become less—not more—equitable under Schroeder’s leadership.

Considering the anger among voters accustomed to cradle-to-grave state assistance, Merkel has shied away from noting precisely what she would do differently. Instead, she has settled for broad promises of simplifying taxes, overhauling pensions, reducing job protection and curbing the trade unions. As she often sums it up, Europe has succeeded in linking “economic performance with social justice,” but “we can’t disregard the laws of the economy.”

The real clashes between Schroeder and Merkel regard Germany’s place in the world.

Schroeder was Germany’s first truly independent chancellor since World War II. On his watch, the capital not only moved to Berlin, eliminating the last formal vestiges of the Cold War, but the post-World War II politics of apology ended. Germany finally became a “normal” country again.

As such, Schroeder had the greatest opportunities since the time of Adolf Hitler to strike out on a new path. Schroeder ultimately chose a path closely mirroring France’s route, the path of seeking the establishment of a European superpower that Germany (and France) could use to punch above their weight in the international arena. Such a paradigm viewed U.S. hegemony as a direct threat—and therefore something to be undermined whenever possible. It also viewed Russia as a potential partner—and therefore an entity to be brought into the inner circles of planning.

Merkel hates everything about that strategy.

At her core, Merkel is a Central European born and raised under Soviet occupation. As such she is a geopolitical—if less extreme—kinsman of Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga. Merkel distrusts Moscow, distrusts policies that place trust in Moscow, and views U.S. policy during the Cold War as the primary reason why she now has a political career that does not involve singing the Communist International on a regular basis.

That perception colors—if not outright dominates—her feelings on a wide array of German foreign relations issues. As she herself has often noted, “they [Germans] don’t realize that if we don’t help America, America won’t help us.”

As an East German who directly attributes her freedom to U.S. policy, Merkel takes a pro-U.S. stance on most issues.

·  While Schroeder worked at the end of 2004 and the beginning of 2005 to end the EU arms embargo against China, Merkel opposes lifting it, primarily because she fears it would endanger trans-Atlantic cooperation.

·  Whereas Schroeder has a relatively close relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Merkel feels it is critical to press Moscow on democracy and human rights violations.

·  Though Merkel opposed the Bush administration’s unilateral approach on Iraq, she offered support for Bush’s policies in Iraq before and during the war “in proportion to our means,” and backed the core American assertion that terrorism and Saddam Hussein were intrinsically linked and that Europe should adopt the American perspective. Moreover, while Schroeder spent the majority of 2002 and 2003 repeating his categorical refusal to be drawn into Iraq, in February 2003 Merkel ventured to Washington, D.C., to meet with Vice President Dick Cheney. In a 2003 Security Conference in Munich, Germany, Merkel whispered to the U.S. delegation that, had she been in power, she would have signed a statement of solidarity with the United States over the Iraq war.

In her enthusiasm for the American position—at least as relates to knocking down Schroeder’s government a notch—she has penned editorials in American papers attacking Schroeder’s policies and praising those of U.S. President George W. Bush. Some of her more famous lines include: “Anyone who rejects military action as a last resort weakens the pressure that needs to be maintained on dictators and consequently makes a war not less but more likely,” or “I know what it is when you don’t have freedom.”

Perhaps the sharpest break Germany would suffer under a Chancellor Merkel would be with France. Though she likes the idea of the European Union, she is more like British Prime Minister Tony Blair in wanting her country as part of Europe, but not run by Europe. And Berlin’s direct relations with Paris are another matter entirely. In Merkel’s own words: “Germany needs its friendship with France, but the benefits of that friendship can be realized only in close association with our old and new European partners, and within the trans-Atlantic alliance with the United States.” This is a far cry from directly lobbying to constrain U.S. options at the U.N. Security Council.

But before one gets too enamored of the idea of a pro-American Germany, bear in mind the place makes the person. Merkel’s personal history constitutes a leading factor explaining her Atlanticism. Once she becomes chancellor—which she probably will—she will be speaking for all of Germany, not just East Germany.

East Germany was an occupied corner of Europe seeking to escape Soviet domination. As such, East Germans view themselves as needing an external partner for protection.

Germany proper, however, has no need of protection as it occupies a rather benign security environment and boasts Europe’s largest economy and population. Emerging from occupation, it is now attempting to carve out a niche for itself in a changing world.

A Chancellor Merkel will face harsh resistance from a country experiencing its own internal geopolitical split. It is not an entity that will reflexively seek to subordinate its political and security desires to dictation from an entity on the other side of the Atlantic—no matter what the personal preferences of its leader.

Je ne sais pas si votre enthousiasme est d’à propos tant les idéologies sont fermement ancrés dans le cortex d’encore 45% de nos contemporains, et pas parmi les plus idiots.

Je ne sais pas si votre enthousiasme est de mise, tant la route à parcourir encore est grande et qu’il nous faudra beaucoup plus d’efforts individuels et collectifs pour faire vaciller le colosse.

Mais je sais en tous cas que votre enthousiasme, j’aimerai encore l’avoir, et que ça me fait beaucoup de bien de l’entendre chez vous avec un lyrisme qu’on ne trouve chez plus aucun éditorialiste.

Je salue un compagnon de route qui m’a bien l’air d’avoir compris ce que je comprends, et que j’espère comprennent beaucoup de français, quoi qu’on veuillent leur faire dire sur les raisons de leur vote.

Charles.

REFERENDUM FRANCAIS DU 29 MAI
Date: 05 June 2005 à 00:00:00 MSD
Sujet: Аналитика

LA SIGNIFICATION POLITIQUE DU NON
Yves BATAILLE

Les Français ne sont pas mécontents de la monumentale claque infligée à une «partitocratie» arrogante et coupée du peuple qui tient lieu de classe politique. Les partis-machine qui occupent le parlement(1), les syndicats réformistes, le patronat atlantiste et les intellectuels télévisés organiquement liés au show bizz…, ce «microcosme», cette «société de connivence» qui avait appelé au oui s’est réveillée lundi 30 mai avec une belle gueule de bois. Avec 70% de votants les 55% de «non» on apporté une réponse claire à une constitution qui ne l’était pas.

Les motifs du non sont multiples et plus cohérents qu’on ne le dit: en connaissance de cause ou par instinct certains ont d’abord dit non à une Constitution qui semblait vouloir donner le pouvoir à un aréopage anonyme; une partie de l’électorat a manifesté son refus d’une Europe libérale et anti-sociale marquée par les effets négatifs de la globalisation, d’autres (souvent les mêmes) ont rejeté une Europe ligotée à l’OTAN c’est-à-dire aux Américains; d’autres encore ont exprimé leur refus de la poursuite d’une immigration colonisation de peuplement qui, jointe au phénomène des délocalisations, grève l’avenir national et les budgets sociaux. On a voté non à la politique hésitante du gouvernement Raffarin, un ex giscardien hissé au poste de premier ministre pour satisfaire les libéraux. On a voté non à la dérive américaniste de «discrimination positive» évoquée par le dénommé Sarkozy. On a voté non parce que la Télévision et la presse écrite (Le Monde des fonds de pension US, Libération-Rothschild et Le Figaro-Carlyle) avaient appelé à voter oui. On a voté non pour dire oui à l’Europe mais pas à celle-là.

Se faisant le promoteur d’ une Constitution (conforme aux voeux des Atlantistes) qu’il pensait pouvoir interpréter à sa façon pour apparaître comme le maître d’œuvre de l’Europe en formation, Jacques Chirac s’est tiré une balle dans le pied. Il espère in extremis se sauver de ce faux pas en désignant comme nouveau premier ministre l’homme qui a porté le non de la France à la guerre américaine en Irak aux Nations Unies, son féal et peut-être successeur Dominique de Villepin mais le voici obligé de composer au sein même de son mouvement(l’UMP)et de son nouveau gouvernement avec Nicolas Sarkozy, le cheval de Troie de l’Amérique dans une France prise pour cible.

Dans le cadre d’une Europe sous sa coupe l’administration US souhaitait le oui. Le non embarrasse Washington qui veut une Europe unie par «l’intégration euro-atlantique». Cette intégration euro-atlantique est l’exact opposé de la Grande Europe des nationalistes européens et des Eurasistes. Elle vise à unifier sous ses «valeurs» (boursières) et son idéologie marchande les deux anciennes zones de l’après-guerre, l’Europe de l’Ouest et l’Europe de l’Est (New Europe et Old Europe)en une seule Zone d’Occupation Américaine (ZOA). Elle vise à empêcher non seulement l’unité continentale de l’Europe en un bloc géopolitique indépendant mais encore à détruire la Russie sur le mode yougoslave pour écarter le spectre de l’unité grand continentale eurasiatique de Vladivostok à Dublin qui entraînerait la fin de la domination US sur le monde. Le soutien américain à l’entrée de son pion turc actuel dans la petite Europe s’inscrit dans ce cadre.

«En France «libéral» est devenu la pire insulte» (André Glucksmann)

Par Europe les Américains entendent un espace géographique morcelé comme dans les Balkans en une multitude de micro Etats oblitérant le «noyau dur» franco-allemand, une zone économique dépourvue de colonne vertébrale et de direction politique, un chapelet d’entités dépolitisées fournissant des «alliés» (les vassaux) et susceptibles de commercer avec eux sur un mode inéquitable; un espace affaibli pour maintenir et renforcer l’ éternelle posture d’infériorité. L’exemple est fourni par les nouveaux Kollabos des ex démocraties populaires qui font assaut de servilité. Il faut pouvoir continuer à mettre sur orbite aux postes clé les zélés serviteurs atlantistes capables de mettre à disposition de «la seule nation indispensable au monde» (Madeleine Albright) l’infanterie coloniale de la guerre globale. C’est tout le contraire de ce que d’aucuns appellent désormais à Paris l’Europe puissance. Représentée à Bruxelles par l’ancien maoïste portugais Barroso (2)l’Union européenne de Bernard-Henri Lévy et des Tour Operators sort heureusement ébranlée par le non français du 29 mai (et le non hollandais qui a immédiatement suivi). Comme quoi l’argent et les moyens techniques, à certains moments, ne suffisent pas à faire la décision. Sans le vouloir l’écran ennemi peut devenir ami. C’est si vrai qu’un individu que l’on ne présente plus, qui a appelé et assisté avec délectation au crapuleux bombardement de la Serbie en 1999 et souhaite une Russie rayée de la carte, le résistant tchétchène parisien André Glucksmann, s’étranglait de rage le 30 mai dans le Corriere della Sera là où d’autres se réjouissent exactement pour les mêmes raisons:

Pour l’ancien «nouveau philosophe» cette union des pôles opposés – qui a pu être définie comme le «fer-à-cheval des partis pour la Nation » - ce faisceau des contraires du non à la Constitution, la convergence politique - sur l’urgence - de l’électorat socialiste, national et communiste traduit la force du courant «antilibéral et anti-américain» et la «haine de la bureaucratie cosmopolite de Bruxelles». L’extraordinaire et, il faut le souligner, le vrai, c’est que Glucksmann émet des doutes sur la sincérité de partisans du oui qui se seraient livrés pour l’occasion à une sorte de non-dit, Chirac en tête. Le lien est immédiatement fait avec la France chiraquienne qui a dit non à l’invasion anglo-américaine de l’Irak et demandé de se taire aux chaouchs de la New Europe ayant signé l’appel rédigé par l’américain Bruce Jackson du Committee to Expand NATO. C’est bien la diplomatie française qui a l’obsession de «l’Europe puissance» pour contrebalancer la «superpuissance» américaine qui est en cause. Dans le Non comme dans le non-dit, Gluckmann décèle l’idée-force qui tend une certaine France et exaspère Brooklyn, le mythe moteur de l’axe (de départ) Paris-Berlin-Moscou défini comme épine dorsale du Continent contre Bruxelles et Varsovie (qui rime avec Brzezinski).

Mais ce n’est pas tout: ce référendum prouverait que les Français «préfèrent Poutine à Bush», ce qui est un crime dans la mesure où quand Glucksmann dit Poutine il pense Staline. Et quand Jean Pierre Chevènement hurle contre les «oligarques de Bruxelles» il dévoile «l’origine poutinienne de son langage».(…) Les socialistes qui ont majoritairement voté pour le non ont fait «du chiraquisme sans Chirac» et sont coupables de «reprendre cette géopolitique à coup de populisme». Chose terrible, «en France, «libéral» est devenu la pire insulte» se lamente le maoïste recyclé publié par PNAC – Project for the New American Century. «En France, quarante pour cent de l’électorat est anti-européen et anti-démocrate» et l’on n’y parle que de protection sociale et de protectionnisme étatique. La social-démocratie allemande rejoint sa semblable française dans le rejet de l’économie ouverte et l’on n’y cesse pas «les vitupérations anti-américaines et anticapitalistes». Enfin «à Berlin comme à Paris, aucune force politique n’a reconnu que l’événement principal de ces derniers mois à été la Révolution Orange» en Ukraine (…). Pour Glucksmann, l’individu qui se réjouissait publiquement l’an dernier de l’assassinat du président tchétchène Khadirov et de l’érection du Mur de Sharon en Palestine «l’identité européenne est le vent de liberté qui souffle, plus vivace que jamais, entre Kiev et Tbilissi».(...)

Les paroles «à chaud» de Glucksmann traduisent bien le dépit atlantiste. Les Américains, qui ont de la difficulté à comprendre les subtilités du «reste du monde», saisissent mal la signification du non ou font semblant de ne pas comprendre. A la New Atlantic Initiative de l’American Enterprise Institute (AEI), le néocon polono-américain Radek Sikorski se félicite de l’affaiblissement du président français: «The results should be quite good for trans Atlantic relations because it weakens the most anti US politician in Europe, namely the French president Jacques Chirac». De quoi ce dernier est-t-il coupable?: de ne pas se plier suffisamment aux standards mondiaux «to educate his public about the demands of a competitive global marketplace». Mais à la Brookings Institution le son de cloche est quelque peu différent: Philippe Gordon soupçonne lui le non français de traduire une volonté d’indépendance européenne, de manifester la victoire des forces anti-globalisation, de marquer la rupture avec la partie du continent qui se vautre dans les plis du drapeau états-unien.

En conséquence la ligne de fracture française est double : elle se concrétise d’un côté par l’antagonisme gouvernemental entre le national-gaullisme représenté par Dominique de Villepin devenu premier ministre et la tendance atlantiste de Nicolas Sarkozy nommé ministre de l’intérieur, de l’autre par l’aspiration populaire à une alternative de rupture au Système bruxellois qu’aucun des partis en présence n’incarne à lui tout seul. L’avenir est au communautarisme national-européen et à l’Eurasisme quel que soit le nom que l’on donne à cette solution.

(1) Sauf le Parti communiste qui avait appelé au non tous les partis représentés au Parlement appelaient au oui. Les Verts liés au Parti socialiste ont montré qu’ils n’étaient qu’une salade américaine, ce que l’on sait depuis longtemps.

(2) José Manuel Barroso a été responsable du MRPP, un mouvement maoïste soutenu par la CIA après la «révolution des oeillets» (1974). Il s’agissait de contrer le Parti Communiste Portugais (PCP) soutenu par Moscou, jugé stalinien et dangereux.

Cet article provient de http://evrazia.org

L’URL de cet article est: http://evrazia.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2477

Puisque l’on reparle en mal des Serbes pour faire avaler le vol du Kossovo, il est bon de connaître les méthodes de guerre médiatique, psychologique…:

Disinformation: Operation Serbia

The war against Serbia actually began a long time ago, with the first attempts to manipulate the public opinion against Serbia, in the beginning of the 90’s. These manipulations have been carefully ordered, planned, organized, structured, scheduled and realized. Their generic name is “DISINFORMATION
OPERATIONS”.

Disinformation is an extremely powerful and formidable weapon. The successes of disinformation operations toward Serbia have led to several wars, huge destructions and sufferings, hundreds of thousands of killed, wounded, deported people, without noticeable reaction of the public opinion other than a more or less tacit and passive approval. I hope the following brochure will help to understand what is disinformation, how it works and how to fight against it. 

Disinformation: Bases

What is disinformation ? 
The disinformation is a manipulation of the public opinion, for political purposes, with an information processed by diverted means. 

What are its goals ? 
- at the enemy : to demoralize, weaken, disintegrate, destroy it. 
- at home : to neutralize and drive the masses in order to make them go in the desired direction at the desired moment without resistence. Success in this area is mandatory in any democracy, which is in fact nothing else than an apparent dictature of the majority. 

How to do it ? 
- Discredit the authorities of the opposing country, imply them into illegal operations, shake their reputation. 
- Discredit and hold up to ridicule everything which is good in the opposing country. Its traditions, its religion, its faith, its army, its history. The aim is to destroy the identity of a people. 
- Weaken the adversary. Encourage and make him a slave of his passions (sex, money, wealth, power) in order to make him paralyzed and without resistence.

- Destroy the adversary by dividing him. Excite some against others, young against old, women against men, political wing against political wing. 
- Accordingly, do exactly the contrary in your country. Make the nation united in the same spirit and having the same will, reinforce the trust in your power, your institutions, your leaders. 

With what methods ? (deals essentially with disinformation “at home”) 

1) Devilization (always say as much evil as possible about the potential enemy). 

2) Manicheism (present one side as 100% good, the other as 100% bad and evil). 
It is the principal characteristic of every violence apology : in a first step, the adversary is presented as a horrible monster, in order to produce a disgust reflex. Moreover, it has the advantage to make the fiction more appealing than the reality, because, not necessitating any reflection, the fiction becomes easier to understand and to assimilate. It works particularly well with primitive and low educated people.  This specific feature is characteristic of the american culture. Indeed, in practically every american movie, one find the following elements, based onto an appropriate use of human passions : 
- good guys
- bad guys
- baddies do appalling horrors, which excites in the audience various passions like hatred, disgust, desire of vengeance, revenge, violence, murder, etc… 
- When the audience is excited enough and dominated by its passions, goodies perform the so desired and long-awaited bloody massacre of baddies. Baddies die in horrible sufferings, the audience is happy and satisfied, and passively absorbs the thesis : “it is justice”. Snakes Pliskens, Ramboes, Rockies, die hards, Schwarzies, Charles Bronsons, judges Dredds, punishers, various warriors, cartoons, Batmans, Chucks Norris, dirty Harries, star wars, aliens, predators, independence days, etc.. are archetypes of such primitive scenarii (including Bill Clinton saying “It’s the war of Good against Evil” ! ). 

3) Repetition. “A lie repeated one thousand times remains a lie, a lie repeated one billion times becomes truth” (Goebbels). Repeat and repeat again what you want people to believe in. 

4) Hyperbolic inflation of the stakes. (Say that the entire Europa and probably later the whole earth will be transformed in a blood bath if you don’t intervene). 

5) Polarisation. (“If you are not with us, you are against us”, “if you refuse to kill, you will be a murderer”). 

6) Invoke God’s punishment. (“God bless America”). 

7) Metapropaganda. (The art of making suspicious everything coming from the adversary). Never call opposing media “informations source”, but always qualify them as “rough liars” and “propaganda tool”. 

8) Black propaganda. (Simulate a propaganda from your enemy, and subtly inject subversive ideas into it). 

9) Appropriate use of false facts (lies). 
- Make the adversary say what he didn’t say (“He is against the bombing, so he is for Milosevic”). 
- Make the adversary say what he didn’t say, but by using what he said elsewhere (hotchpotch) (“You said that you don’t hate Milosevic, so you like him”). 
- Make the adversary say what he didn’t say, but what you guess he would have said if he were fair. (For example, attribute to Milosevic violent anti-albanian speaches, while he never did any) 
- Publish false informations, fakes, rigged images. 
This method can be used extensively and without caution : indeed, only the first announcement does matter. Further denials have NO EFFECT on public opinion. Nevertheless, since it is always possible to bring a lie to the fore, and in order to maintain an impression of objectivity, denials are steadily published, generally in small letters and at a discreet place. 
- Suggest false or unproved things. 
In order to avoid the unpleasant impression left by too frequent denials, another similar technique consists of suggesting false events by using conditionals (would, could, should) and various adverbs like “perhaps”, “probably”, maybe”, “allegedly”, “supposedly”, etc.. that allow to say anything without having to deny afterwards. The use of quotes (”“), which allows to associate suspicion and doubt to anything, is abundantly used by written media. 

10) Appropriate use of true facts. 
The pursued goal here is not to inform, but to obtain a given effect. There are several ways to exploit a fact. It can be asserted/negated, magnified/minimized, approved/disapproved, or simply passed over in silence.

No mention of the fact (“What you dont speak about does not exist.” Goebbels). 
- Negation of facts (And accuse the other of lie. Say that civilian targets are military). 
- Inversion of facts (Present the torturers as victims. In our moralizing and victimophilic time, the compassion reflex is immediate). 
- True/false mixing, in various proportions (Multiply by xx 10,000 the number of supposed victims, the losses of the enemy, etc…) 
- Motif modification (“The goal of the operation is highly humanitarian”). 
- Circumstances modification (“This war is a defence operation against an aggression”). 
- Blurring (Flood the fact in a mass of other facts, overinform with useless information. Start a war in order to make people forget about the president’s lies, lack of honesty or sexual errings). 
- Camouflaging (Blow the ones up out of all proportion, minimize the others). 
- Interpretation (Use of highly appropriate and oriented wording). This technique allows to associate precise ideas to facts. 
- Generalization (Transform individual to collective. Find a couple of Serbian criminals, and say that all Serbs are criminals) 
- Illustration (Inverse of generalization. Say that in every war there are innocent civilian casualties, and that Serbian victims are just the unavoidable illustration of this axiom). 
- Quantitatively unequal parts. (Publish only interviews of Albanians, none of Serbs). (Organize a public “objective debate” with pro- and anti-, let pro speak 90% of the time, anti 10% and interrupt them permanently). 
- Qualitatively unequal parts. (Organize the same “objective debate”, make both parts speak equally 50% of the time, but… invite for pro an academician, PhD in psychology, having a deep knowledge of the situation and used to speak publically, and for anti a seller of hamburgers). 

How it works ? 
The very best disinformation service that ever existed, the “A” department of the First Principal Direction of the KGB, often followed this method : 
- collection of elements allowing to substantiate a given disinformation
- choice of a theme
- recruiting of relays to spread the disinformation
- action (with the help of “resonance chambers” (e.g. influent people), whose function is to maximize the effect of the disinformation) 
- creation of a psychotic hysteria leading people to perform “self-disinformation”. This last point, psychosis and hysteria, is the typical and specific feature of a successful disinformation operation, leading to a quasi-unanimity in the public opinion. Self-disinformation is a kind of quasi pathologic state where people voluntarily get, see, hear only the information which agrees with the disinformation theme. It is self-censure.

How it is realized ? 
A disinformation operation comprizes the following elements : 
- the agent (the actual realizer) 
- the customer (or beneficiary) 
- the marketing study (choice of best adapted supports) 
- the supports (facts or informations. True or false is not important) 
- the relays (to ensure information transfer and spreading) 
- the theme (“Serbs are not people like others”) 
- the processing of the theme (the actual methods used in the operation) 
- the resonance chambers (influence agents) 
- the target (e.g. the public opinion) 
- the psychosis (obtained if the operation is successful). 
The success of a disinformation operation is usually proportional to the ignorance of the population on a given subject, and to the amount of its prejudices. Obtaining psychosis and self-disinformation in the target is the supreme goal of any disinformator. One must have in mind that disinformation is only superficially aimed at intelligence. In fact, it is aimed at emotional centers, guts, instincts, irrational behaviours, primitive fears and reactions, emotional reflexes. Instinctive and emotion-driven behaviour automatically short-circuits the action of intelligence and reflection. It actually eliminates any critical analysis capability of the target, who ends defenceless in the hands of the disinformator. 
 

Disinformation: Examples

Example of different possible uses of the SAME true fact : 
Here is a demonstration of different ways to comment the SAME FACT. The fact is “the dog ate the meat” and the mission is to innocent the dog (I hope you will enjoy). 
- OK it’s the dog, but yesterday it was the cat. 
- What meat ? 
- It was only a small half-pound piece of the several tons of meat stored at this place. 
- It was a small piece of an old burned meat, forgotten in the refrigerator.

- The meat was placed in the dog’s plate, who BTW just licked it, despite of the fact that he didn’t eat for three days. 
- He didn’t eat it, he just gave it to his girlfriend. 
- It’s a five years old German shepherd, who last year saved his master from drowning. He watches the house, brings him the newspaper every morning, barks and eats a lot. 
- The plate of the meat was made of blue earthenware. It was a 4 pounds turkey. The dog was locked up inside the house because of the rain and cold. It is the neighbour who let him eat the meat. 
- Dogs are unhappy in flats because banks do not give low rate loans in order to build individual houses. 
- Noodles so-and-so allow to avoid this kind of problem. 
- It is pitiful, masters who let their dogs starving. 
- An eyewitness testified that a wandering dog ate it. 
- There has been a TV emission explaining that dogs are not responsible unless they have received a correct education. 
- Be careful ! One has already said that he bited somebody 3 weeks ago, while it was another dog. Were you here when the meat disappeared ? No ? So first find the meat, before accusing this poor dog with so many slanders. 
- The dog died : the meat was poisoned. 

The same, with “an Albanian killed a Serb”. 
- The day before, twelve gypsies have been killed at the same place. 
- What Serb ? 
- This war has made several tens of thousands of victims of both sides. 
- He was heavily wounded and dying. The Albanian felt pity for him and put an end to his sufferings. 
- He was under surveillance like the other prisoners, and then he tried to escape and began to run. One of the guards shot him at the legs, but unfortunately the bullet striked him at the head. 
- The Serb first shot at him, and he replied to enemy fire. 
- He is a very experienced officer. He belongs to one of the most famous elite units of the KLA. Those guys receive specific training for special reconnaissance missions in advanced enemy territory and are used to execute their mission in very small groups or even alone, in extremely severe conditions. 
- The Albanian stumbled and the shooting happened by mistake. 
- He saw that the situation was desperate, but he prefered to commit suicide rather than surrender. 
- A good equipment, an appropriate training and a commandment by experienced officers would have allowed to avoid this kind of incidents. 
- The KLA strength has been so much reduced after years of war, so they have even incorporated ex-convicts. 
- An eyewitness testified that he was killed by NATO peacekeeping forces, during a peacekeeping operation. 
- These people know only war since their birth. They have seen their entire family killed and their homes burned. To remove such a hatred will take years and years. 
- Be careful ! Were you here when he was shot ? No ? So first find the responsible, before accusing all the Albanians of being murderers. 
- He has not been killed : he just died naturally. 

Dictionary of “appropriate wording” : 
- assassinate = kill, when your enemies are killing. 
- mass grave = where your enemies have buried your friends. 
- war criminal = who makes war and is not of your side. Very often (and perfidiously) used to indicate someone indicted for war crimes and not yet sentenced guilty. 
- extremist = more extremist than you. 
- fascist = to be pronounced first by you, because it can be applied to you as well as to your enemy. 
- racist = who makes a difference between Islam and Christianity.
- terrorist = who uses violence and is not of your side. 
- deviationist = in a political group, who does not agree with you. 
- totalitarian = politics of your enemy. 
- fanatic = someone who believes in something different than you. 
- nationalist = who loves his country and is not of your side. 

Example of use of appropriate wording (interpretation) : 
In the following list, there are two different ways to describe the SAME FACT. Note that whatever formula is chosen, it can perfectly be inverted from pro- to anti-, and there is no way to be accused of lying or even distorting the truth. 
- Serbs are killed, Albanians are massacred or assassinated. 
- Serbs dig mass graves, Albanians dig tombs or communal graves. 
- A Serbian soldier with a Kalashnikov is a sniper, an KLA soldier with a Kalashnikov is a freedom fighter. 
- Serbian corpses have battlefield wounds, Albanian corpses have traces of tortures. 
- Serbian refugees are leaving Kosovo, Albanians refugees are ethnically cleansed from Kosovo. 
- A Serbian refugee convoy is a line of cars, an Albanian refugee convoy is a deportation. 
- Ethnical cleansing of Albanians is an atrocity, ethnical cleansing of Serbs is a logical payback. 
- A smiling serbian soldier is arrogant, a smiling KLA soldier is happy. 
- Serbian soldiers are slovenly-looking, KLA soldiers clearly suffer from equipment problems. 
- Serbian civilians killed by NATO are collateral damage, Albanian civilians killed by NATO are a terrible mistake. 
- Serbian civilians killed by Albanians are war casualties, Albanian civilians killed by Serbians are war crime victims. 
- Milosevic is Milosevic, Clinton is the President of United States Bill Clinton. 
- There are Albanian eyewitnesse’s concording testimonies reporting that…, there are Serbs saying that… 
- Serbs living near a military target are neighbour population, Albanians living near a military target are a human shield. 
- A successful Serbian attack is a slaughter, a successful KLA attack is a victory. 
- Serbian nationalists are extremists, Albanian nationalists are patriots. 
- Serbs commit atrocities, Albanians commit exactions. 
- Ten torched Serbian houses are a brutal reality, ten torched Albanian houses are evidence of Serb savagery. 
- Serbs insulting Albanians are making terror reign, Albanians insulting Serbs are angry people taking revenge for their humiliation. 
- Serbian soldiers take muslim enclaves, Albanian soldiers defend their homeland. 
- The Krajina is liberated by the Croats, the Bosnia is occupied by the Serbs. 

Disinformation: Operation Serbia

1) The agent. 
The public opinion manipulation agency in charge of the Serbia operation was Ruder Finn Global Public Affairs. 

From June to September 1992, Ruder Finn has : 
- had 30 meetings with the main press groups
- diffused 13 exclusive informations
- sent 37 last minute faxes
- sent 17 official letters
- submitted 8 official reports
- given 48 telephone calls to White House members
- given 20 telephone calls to Senate members
- given about 100 telephone calls to media influent personalities. 
Throughout their activity against Serbia public image, they actively participated in : 
- Islamic Conference emergency session on Bosnia-Herzegovina (Istambul June1992) 
- Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki July 1992) 
- Conference on Former Yugoslavia (London August 1992) 
- United Nations General Assembly (October 1992) 
- OIC in Jedda
- UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva
- meetings with State Department
- meetings with National Security Council officials
They also organized various private meetings between the Bosnia foreign minister and : 
- former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in London
- vice presidential candidate Senator Albert Gore in New York
- Saudi Ambassador to the US Prince Bandar in Houston
- President Bush
- Secretary of State Baker in Helsinki. 

2) The customer (or beneficiary) 
Officially, Ruder Finn had as customers the Republic of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as the albanian opposition in Kosovo. Such a unanimity is suspect, and it is probable that Ruder Finn has been suggested to them (and helped) by some kind of 4th customer, probably some US department (still not proven, but highly suspected after information publication about CIA role in Bosnia war). 

3) The market study
The original situation was very difficult, because : 
- Serbs fought heroically against nazis during WWII
- the nazis founded a Croat state, whose actual croats openly claim to have their roots in
- bosnian muslims have been massively engaged during WWII in the 13th SS division “Handschar”, known for its atrocities
- albanian muslims have been massively engaged in the 21th SS division “Skenderberg” 
- these SS and croatian ustashis performed a genocide of Jews, Serbs and Gypsies
- Franjo Tudjman wrote a book published in 1989, “Wastelands of historical truth”, clearly antisemitic. He also openly admires Ante Pavelic. 
- Izetbegovic published in 1970 an “Islamic declaration”, clearly racist and claiming a super-islamic state. The only positive point was the tremendous lack of knowledge of Balkan’s history in the population. This point has been fantastically exploited. 

4) The supports
The first support used by Ruder Finn was the publishing by the New York Newsday of articles about prisoner camps, where muslims were kept. 

5) The relays
The stroke of genius of Ruder Finn was to ensure a relaying by Jewish organizations. The single word “camp” was enough to disturb this community, and Ruder Finn immediately organized meetings with three Jewish organizations : 
- the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation League
- the American Jewish Committee
- the American Jewish Congress. 
Ruder Finn then suggested them to publish an article in the NY Times, and to organize a demonstration in front of the UN. To make Jews support muslims against christian Serbs was an extraordinary gamble, and it worked perfectly. From this moment, the media started to have a strong anti-Serb attitude and
to use a heavily emotion-loaded language : “ethnic cleansing”, “concentration camps”, “deportation”, etc… The disinformation theme was straightforward : 

6) The theme was : “Serbs = Nazis”. 
Despite of the incongruity of this theme (Serbs have been the most anti-nazi people of the Balkans), the absolute general ignorance about History made it work. This theme was so strong so that it has been assimilated immediately by the media (who love sensationalism), and it was IRREMEDIABLE. Everyone trying to defend the Serbs were depicted as pro-Nazi. This theme is used for almost 8 years now, and is still very successful. 

7) The processing of the theme (other supports) 
Seven other main supports have been used in this operation :

- Destructions
Emphasis has always been put on eventual destructions performed by Serbs. Since they were not sufficient, false information was used. “The city of Dubrovnik has been entirely devastated” (Paris-Match, November 29, 1991). Dubrovnik is actually intact. “Strategic point for the Serbs, the Vukovar bridge was an architectural marvel…” (Actuel, December 1993). There is no bridge in Vukovar, the photography was the bridge of Mostar, and it has been destroyed by the Croats. “The village of Cetekovak has been razed to the ground…” (L’evenement du jeudi, September 12, 1991). Cetekovak is intact. 

- Ethnic cleansings
The expressions “ethnic cleansing”, “deportation” have been intentionally used by the media in order to recall WWII atrocities and to reinforce the theme. While expulsions were practiced by all parts, no media ever reported that a half million Serb refugees have been “ethnically cleansed” from Bosnia and Croatia. 

- Camps
The Serbian camps were absolutely ordinary and had nothing in particular. This required the use of fakes and bogus information. “The picture that fooled the world”, a photography of an emaciated man, behind barbwires, was the first fake (made by Penny Marshall (ITN) and Ian Williams (Chan4), worldwide published August 6, 1992). On the original image, the emaciated man is surrounded by not-emaciated ones. The man, Fikret Alic, was not a prisoner, but a refugee. The Trnopolje camp was a refugee camp and not a prison. The refugees were outside barbwires, the reporters inside. There were no barbwires around the camp, and the barbwires were those of a neighbour pasture. 

The publishing of this picture produced: 
- a huge hysteria campaign in the media (“Belsen 92”, “The Proof”, “The picture of the Holocaust and concentration camps”, “Survivors of Auschwitz”, “Evidence mounts on executions and beatings in Serb-run camps”) 
- an emergency meeting of the cabinet of British prime minister John Major, at which it was decided to send British troops to Bosnia. 
- Democratic Party candidate Bill Clinton and running mate Al Gore asked president George Bush to take military action against Bosnian Serbs. 
- Nato staff (in Brussels) started to plan a military intervention in the Balkans. (The fake was denounced by Thomas Deichmann. ITN admitted the truth in the High Court in April 1997 - five years later). Image of “Muslim prisoners in a Serbian detention camp”, with a skeletal man (Time cover photo, August 17, 1992). The man, Slobodan Konjevic, 37, was Serb and has been arrested and confined on charges of looting. He was skeletal because of suffering from tuberculosis for 10 years. The 1992 BBC filming of an ailing, elderly “Bosnian Muslim prisoner-of-war in a Serb concentration camp” resulted in his later identification by relatives as retired Yugoslav army officer Branko Velec, a Bosnian Serb held in a Muslim detention camp. 

- Rapes
The idea of “rape camps” was positively outstanding. The media hysteria was general (titles : “Rape by order”, “Rape horror”, “Rape camps”, “A pattern of rape”...), and people started to believe in the existence of a “systematic rape plan”. In reality, rapes happened not more than in any war, and have been performed by all sides. In 1992, the Bosnian government claimed that 50,000 muslim women have been raped, information abundantly relayed by the media. After investigation, Amnesty International published in January 21, 1993, a report where the issue of rape was qualified as a “propaganda weapon”. Later on, the UN Commission of Experts on War Crimes identified only 800 victims - Muslim, Serb and Croat -. The hyperbolic inflation of numbers is well illustrated by the following testimony: “When I was at 50 kilometers from Tuzla, I was told ‘go to Tuzla high school ground, as there are 4,000 raped women’. At 20 kilometers, this figure dropped to 400. At 10 kilometers, only 40 were left. Once at the site, I found only 4 women willing to testify.” (French television reporter Jerome Bony, Envoye Special, quoted in French magazine Le Point). 

- Gasses
The April 10, 1995, “Le Soir”, a belgian newspaper, published that Serbian police have used tear-gas. This information has been relayed and transformed as follows: 
“Serbs use gasses” (Die Welt, April 10, 1995). 
“American spokesmen established that in Zepa, Serbs have used chemical weapons” (NBC Handelsblad, July 28, 1995). 

- Mass graves
The expression “mass grave” has something frightening and has been extensively used. Its emotional content overcomes the fact that there are people killed in every war, and these people must be buried somewhere. 

- Massacres
The amount of casualties was dementially inflated, and every death was attributed to Serbs. In February of 1993, the Bosnian government, relayed by the international media, published the estimated number of 250,000 victims. The International Red Cross later on estimated the figures at 20-30,000. Not published. It is interesting to note that the Sarajevo massacre, very probably performed by Bosnian muslims (UN analysis report by Reuters, Feb. 18, 1994 and David Binder article Oct. 2, 1995, “The Nation”), has been willfully and deliberately used as a pretext for NATO operations against Serbia, with FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS (Publishing of a talk between M. Jean Daniel and M. Juppe, French prime minister “Le Nouvel Observateur”, August 31, 1995). 

8) The psychosis. 
The psychosis and hysteria became total. Some titles and expressions found in the media : 
“the daily horror”, “the criminal madness of Serbian commanders”, “horrors without equivalent in Europe since at least a half-century”, “particularly bestial rapes”, “there are, on Serb side, war criminals”, “the terrible confession of the atrocities committed by a young Serb”, “the black part which is in every human being [...] is here, in all its horror”, “rape is actually a crime against humanity”, “Bosnia the shame”, “everything indicates a deliberate will of humiliation, annihilation of beings where Serbs have been the principal actors”, “Serbs created a hell”, “ordinary cetnik : repeater rapes and murders”, “Serbs reached a new step in war horror”, “the damned of Europe”, “at the end of hatred”, “silence, one kill”, “back to the hell”, “shame camps”, “Mladic butchers”, “the mad psychiatrist”, “the most terrifying action the UN ever participated to”, “the greatest betrayal of UN”, “the ultimate step of an aberrant politics devoured by its own logic”, “Satan himself could not have imagined a so cruel thing”, “a monster of horror movie that you believe dead and in pieces, and whose each tentacle inflates and get autonomous life”... 

The gigantism of the “Operation Serbia” gave rise to number of false notes. 

- A child killed by a sniper in a bus (Sarajevo, Aug 1992) called “muslim” by the TV. The funerals show Orthodox ritual. 
- A 1992 TV report showing Serb victims in Vukovar, reprinted with the caption “Is there any way to stop Serbian atrocities in Bosnia?” (Newsweek, Jan 4, 1993) 
- Reports of massacres of 14 muslims and then 10 muslims supposedly killed by Serbs (CNN March and May 1993). The victims later turned out to be Serbs.Not corrected. 
- Photo of a Croat woman from Posusje grieving for a son killed in Serb attacks (NY times Aug 1993). Fightings in the Croat village of Posusje were between Muslims and Croats and have caused 34 Bosnian Croat deaths, including the son of the woman in the photo. 
- A photo of a woman in front of the grave of her son, presented as Croat. The name is written in cyrillic, she is Serb. 
- A photo of a tortured man with the 3 main fingers cut, presented as muslim. He has his wedding ring at the 4th finger of its right hand, he is a Serb. 
- Armed paramilitary men, particularly sinister, presented as Serbs. They wear the Croat check pattern insignia (Corrected and apologized by “Le Nouvel Observateur”, No 1470 and 1473). 
- Testimony of Anisa, a child, saying that she saw Serbs cutting noses and ears in Tuzla. Tuzla has never been occupied by Serbs. 
- Images of a fragments of a downed “Mig-29” (CTV Mar 26, 1999, 22h42). There is a mention in english “ANNUAL INSP” +references painted on one of the fragments. 

As a conclusion, Serbia is now synonym of Nazi Germany, and the Serbian people, sentenced to poverty and slow death by years of embargo and full devastation by the US+NATO coalition, is now considered by all the West as the parias of mankind. The “Operation Serbia” has been 100% successful. Congratulations. Sad but true. 

Comme je ne trouve pas votre adresse de courriel, voici une référence à un article du Washington Post :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR2005060601715.html?referrer=email

La lecture de vos pages est un véritable supplice pour les yeux fatigués, le contenu en est cependant plutôt intéressant.
Ecrivez plus grand, merci d’avance.

Our long game pays off - Britain is the leading power in Europe
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
(Filed: 07/06/2005)

The leaders of France and Germany have spoken: Europe’s constitution must be kept alive. No matter that it was President Jacques Chirac’s own people who first rejected the text.

The referendums must roll on: the Danes in September, the Czechs, the Poles, the Irish, all in a bidding contest to see who can outdo the record 62 per cent No set by the Dutch. Such a blindingly misguided policy borders on insanity, unless the lame-duck leaders of two enfeebled economies actually wish to bring about the destruction of the EU.

Jack Straw has done the EU a favour by calling a halt yesterday. No referendum could be carried in Britain now. Sir Stephen Wall, Downing Street’s former Europe guru, confessed that only fear of isolation could have induced the British people to vote Yes, and even then with great difficulty.

Legally, a single rejection is enough to nix the treaty. Politically, a No from both of Europe’s leading defence and diplomatic powers is unanswerable. It is true that Ireland was made to vote a second time on the Nice Treaty to get it “right”, but that followed a rogue result on a low turn-out with scant debate.

The Irish did in fact vote Yes the second time. But who thinks France could ever be made to vote again on the same document, like a naughty child served cold dinner for breakfast?

Gerhard Schröder and Mr Chirac seem to have learnt nothing, and forgotten nothing. Were their fingers not burnt enough by their “Praline Summit” in April 2003, called to announce Europe’s defiant stand against the Iraq war, when only Belgium and Luxembourg turned up?

The EU refused even to offer premises, so the meeting was held in the Brussels Hilton. We now know that 16 of the EU’s 25 current states were siding - publicly or not - with the Americans.

The Franco-German pair tried again last year, “choosing” a Belgian federalist to be president of the European Commission. They spoke too soon. The Poles balked. Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi would have none of it. The Dutch quietly begged Downing Street to step in. Tony Blair obliged. The Belgian was replaced by a free-market Atlanticist: José Manuel Barroso.

This is the new reality of post-Cold War Europe. If not the commanding power, a buoyant Britain is the leader of the EU’s now dominant bloc. France and Germany can cobble together majorities from time to time, but they cannot call the shots. The French have noticed this, which is why they now exhibit more or less the same reflexes as the British in the days of Jacques Delors, when Brussels seemed stacked against us (as it was).

I suspect Europe’s project reached its high-water mark last October in Michelangelo’s Campidoglio in Rome, exactly the same spot where it was launched in 1957. The 25 leaders gathered in the Sala degli Orazi e Curiazi were penning their names to a document most of them never much wanted, and invited failure.

The constitution was not drafted to make the EU “work better” as it grew to 25. Conjured by the German, French and Belgian elites, it was the final push to lock in a tight-knit Europe, with an imperial court, before the arrival of the 10 new states last year, knowing that it would be much harder to do so once the Poles, Latvians, Slovaks and others were fully bedded members. My guess is that the chance has now slipped from their grasp, for ever.

In crude terms, Britain’s long game in Europe has paid off, for which we owe a debt of gratitude to John Major. He kept us out of the euro at Maastricht, while keeping Britain just deep enough in the EU to secure the strategic prize of eastern enlargement. It was the most cunning straddle in modern British diplomacy.

Britain’s opt-out from monetary union is looking more valuable by the day. Indeed, one Italian minister cast an envious eye northwards last week. “In Europe, there is one perfect example: Great Britain, which grows and develops by maintaining its own currency,” he said.

His open call for a return to the Italian lira was not an isolated outburst. Three top figures in the Northern League have spoken of leaving monetary union in recent days, clearly calculating that Italy is now in such deep crisis that a party in the ruling coalition sees political rewards in fomenting revolt against the euro. This should alarm the markets. So far it has not. The “spread” between German and Italian bonds is a minuscule 0.22 per cent.

The Bundesbank warned in the 1990s that Italy’s economy could not endure the rigours of monetary union once the going got rough. The bank was told to shut up. Now the predictions are unfolding with alarming speed.

Italy’s labour costs have risen 25 per cent against Germany over the past five years, owing chiefly to higher wage inflation. This was predictable, since euro entry cut Italian interest rates to German levels almost overnight. Variants of this have occurred in Portugal and Greece, where boom is turning to bust - with Spain not far behind.

Already in recession, Italy now has to “deflate” to claw back competitiveness and save its industry from ruin, since it can no longer devalue. This means undercutting Germany’s near-zero wage inflation. Benito Mussolini pulled this off in 1927, using Fascist control over the unions to slash wages.

As a democracy, Britain had more trouble. Returning to the gold standard led to the General Strike in 1926, the worst civil conflict in a century. Wages proved “sticky” going downwards.

Italy is now in much the same position as Argentina in the last months of its dollar-peg. Food riots and a coalition crisis brought that ordeal to an end. Troubles at Fiat or Alitalia may prove to be the catalyst for Italy.

Investors counting on an EU bail-out to keep the game going should think again after Dutch and French voters so brutally halted Europe’s “inevitable” march to political and fiscal union, and polls in Germany show that 56 per cent want a return to the mark. For the first time, economists from major banks are openly discussing whether the euro can survive as an orphan currency.

For Mr Major, a long-overdue apology is deserved of us who hurled invective over Maastricht. And perhaps a little monument. There is an empty plinth below the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square. He might fit nicely.

Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/06/07/do0701.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/06/07/ixopinion.html

“Les voies du Seigneurs sont insondables”, mais ... vous le saviez !

Florentin :))

June 7, 2005
Britain Suspends Referendum on European Constitution
By ALAN COWELL
LONDON, June 6 - Deepening a crisis, Britain said Monday that it would suspend plans for a referendum on the European constitution, which was rejected last week by voters in France and the Netherlands.

The announcement to Parliament by Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, laid bare the gulf between nations like France and Germany that want to keep alive a sense that the constitution can be rescued, and Britain, where the government is under pressure to declare it dead. The move seemed to make ratification of the constitution, a cornerstone of European unity, all the more remote.

“The European Union does now face a period of difficulty,” Mr. Straw said.

Technically, the constitution can come into force only if it is ratified by all 25 European Union member governments. Nine have approved it by parliamentary votes and one - Spain - by referendum. The “no” votes in France and the Netherlands seemed to many British legislators to have brought the ratification process to a shuddering halt.

But, confronted by French, German and European insistence that the ratification effort should continue, and not wanting to be the one to seal the constitution’s demise, Britain has shied from saying explicitly that its referendum - expected for next spring - is canceled.

“It is now for European leaders to reach conclusions on how to deal with the situation,” Mr. Straw told Parliament, apparently seeking to shift the onus for the constitution’s future away from Britain.

To explain the suspension, he referred to the British legislative calendar, which requires a “second reading” of a law to allow a referendum to take place.

“Until the consequences of France and the Netherlands being unable to ratify the treaty are clarified, it would not in our judgment now be sensible to set a date for a second reading,” he said. “There is also the need for further discussions with European Union partners and further decisions from European Union governments.”

“We reserve completely the right to bring back the bill providing for a United Kingdom referendum should circumstances change,” he said. “But we see no point in proceeding at this moment.”

However diplomatically couched, Mr. Straw’s announcement seemed intended to send the message to Britain’s European adversaries that many Britons are opposed to a referendum. As an opposition Conservative legislator, Liam Fox, put it, “this constitution is a case for the morgue if ever I saw one.”

In this largely Euroskeptic nation, Prime Minister Tony Blair had risked losing the referendum, shortening the third term in office that he won in elections in May. So the postponement offered him political advantage but could also reopen the debate about when he will hand over power, as widely speculated, to his heir apparent, Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Blair is to meet President Bush in Washington on Tuesday to seek his backing for an array of difficult issues. The coincidence of the two events illuminated Mr. Blair’s efforts to straddle European and trans-Atlantic diplomacy, despite his unpopularity with some Europeans, notably France and Germany, for his alliance with the United States in Iraq. Britain is this year’s leader of the Group of 8 major industrialized nations and will assume the rotating presidency of the European Union on July 1.

But on both counts, he is facing a fairly bleak agenda, confronted with hostility in Europe on an array of issues from the constitution to the European Union budget. At the same time, many political analysts in London expect that he is unlikely to win substantive White House support for his main issues, from relieving African poverty to global warming, at the G-8 summit meeting next month in Scotland.

Mr. Blair has also cast Europe’s division as one of profound dimensions between the so-called Anglo-Saxon economic model of relatively untrammeled capitalism that prevails in Britain and the cozier, socially oriented approaches of France and Germany.

Indeed, Mr. Straw said Monday that “these referendum results raise profound questions about the future direction of Europe.”

Even as word of Mr. Straw’s announcement leaked out in advance, other European nations seemed to be lining up either to question the British decision, or to interpret it in optimistic terms.

José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, said in Brussels that it would be unfair for one country to determine the constitution’s fate. But he added, according to Reuters, “All the indications I have from all member states, including the United Kingdom, are that they want to discuss this issue in the European Council.”

In Warsaw, Poland’s foreign minister, Adam Rotfeld, told reporters that the British move “does not change anything.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/07/international/europe/07britain.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print

Au sujet de votre excellent travail d’analyse sur la crise de l’UE, pourriez-Vous approfondir la question monétaire?
Surtout, sur un plan théorique, serait-il possible pour certains pays—telle l’Italie ou l’Allemagne qui en on parlé—de retourner à une monnaie nationale, peut-etre en régime de double circulation? Et comment? Merci

Pourquoi Mr Chirac a choisi la voix du referendum alors qu’il etait possible de ratifier la nouvelle constitution par le parlement? J’ai lu l’article de Timothy Garton mais il y a toujours la possibilite sous presidence anglaise de declarer la mort de la constitution europeenne. Dans ce cas on ferait quoi?  J’aimerais bien entendre votre avis sur cette question.

Merci.

Compte-rendu intéressant d’un livre de Victoria de Grazia, “Irrésistible empire” sur le site du Grand Soir à l’adresse :

http://www.legrandsoir.info/article.php3?id_article=2404

Irresistible Empire, l’ Empire qui lave plus blanc, Victoria de Grazia.

Comment la consommation américaine a conquis l’Europe.

Qu’en pense notre hôte, Philippe Grasset ?

Le thème des “vraies” pertes américaines en Irak alimente régulierement sur les forums internet les conversations et toutes sortes de spéculations. Jusqu’à aujourd’hui, personne n’a pu apporter une preuve intengible.

Je voudrai rappeler ce qui nourrit de telles rumeurs:
tout d’abord il y’a les rapports de la resistance irakienne qui sont largement diffusés sur le net et connu d’une bonne partie des internautes. L’essentiel des nouvelles proviennent d’un site web: http://www.islammemo.cc .Ce site , à ce qu’il en ressort, a sur le terrain plusieurs correspndants qui “traquent” toutes les informations possibles sur les attaques de la résistance irakienne contre les forces d’occupations et leurs alliers. Le bilan des pertes humaines est très sensiblement superieurs à celui donné par les forces Américaine. Personnelements, je ne peut dire si cela est vrai ou faux. je n’ai jamais mis les pieds en Irak mais je pense qu’il ya une part de vérité dans ces dépeches. Très souvent les resistants irakiens se plaignent de la couverture médiatique qu’en font les grands médias occidentaux, leur reprochant de privilegier exclusivement le coté americain et donc de ne pas rendre vraiment compte des pertes qu’ils subissent. Il faut bien avoir à l’esprit que les grandes agences de presses internationales donc occidentales, ne font que retranscrire ce que disent les porte-parole officiels alors que les correspondants d’islammemo vont directement sur le terrain, reunissent des témoignages etc.
De plus les groupes de combattants irakiens montrent régulierement des videos de leurs attaques ou publient des communiqués dont certains sont très precisement datés montrant clairement que nombres d’attaques subies par les forces américaines ne sont absolument pas rapportées.

Autre élément à charge,il y’a deux ans de cela un Americain, ancien membre de l’armée a crée un site web dans lequel il explique comment le Pentagone a dissimulé à l’opinion publique la mort de centaines de soldats américains en avril 2003. Aucun média americain n’ayant jamais voulu publier son histoire.
je vous donne l’adresse de son site:http://www.ghosttroop.net/
http://www.geocities.com/onlythecaptain/

Voici donc mon point de vue. j’espere que ces quelques lignes contriburont à nourrire le débat et peut-etre un jour faire eclater la vérité.
 

Vous écrivez : L’enjeu européen se trouve dans les thèmes fondamentaux de la crise européenne depuis 1945 : l’Europe politique et la défense européenne. Qui résout cela résout la crise. Aujourd’hui, il y a une clef, — il suffit de comprendre cela, de la saisir, de la glisser dans la serrure et de tourner.”

c’est sympathique -mais ce n’est apstout à fait juste. Vous savez que Benoït XVI a parlé d’une “haine de soi-même” qui affecte ce continent.
C’est d’abrod là-dessuq qu’il faut changer.

Et là, effectivement, la comparaison avec le Etats-Unis est intéressante. Les Etats-Unis sont de culture protestante -c’est-à-dire refus de l’Eucharistie, Présence réelle du Seigneur dns l’hostie, et de l’Eglise fondée sur Pierre par le Seigneur. Voyez le chapître de Huntignton sur la foi des Etats-Unis
dans osn dernier ouvrage sur l’identité des Etats-Unis.

Où les esprits sincères verront que la question de l’origine chrétienne de ce continent n’est pas une question “culturelle”... autant dire folklorique…

Je vous remercie d’avoir publie ce texte. La France et l’Allemagne sont inseparables et le couple est devenu codependant et il serait risque d’ignorer l’Allemagne. Pour des raisons historiques, les liens franco-allemands ont batti un pacte. On ne sait pas combien de temps l’alliance sacree tiendra mais c’est un dossier special signataire des 2 pays. Le peuple allemand aussi bien que le peuple francais en sont conscients: nos economies sont interdependantes et traitees en commun. Il y a tres peu de chances que le noyau dur se trouve affaibli. Je ne pense pas que l’Europe est une histoire de cultures et de societes, mais la vocation de nos democracies pour faire prendre conscience des enjeux politiques (l’exemple Helvetique) et d’inflechir sur le niveau economique.

Le comedien Eddy Izzard (il est de Grande-Bretagne) a toujours caricature l’Europe en tant qu’un melange d’idees et en ne sachant pas comment s’unifier correctement.

L’Europe alerte a la maniere d’un chat en desequilibre se retrouvera sur ses 4 pattes avec plusieurs mesures. La premiere mesure est d’ordre economique et permettra de desamorcer les accords bilatteraux de Rumsfeld dans les anciens pays de l’Est en deleguant des objectifs de partenariat de la defense europeenne un peu comme les accords avec Airbus mais cette fois si dans un aspect interpolitique.
C’est un essai et j’essaierai de decrire cette initiative sur mon blog.

Goede Dag.