Catégorie : Archives

Catégories
Archives

Political roots of western totalitarianism

Political roots of western totalitarianism

The struggle against the democracy and popular aspirations for democracy began before the American revolution through pamphlets and writings of its major leaders.  Among those who very early opposed democracy and popular aspirations for democracy ther was John Adams who “wanted to make sure that American revolution didn’t goo too far in the direction of democracy “ opposing Paine’s plan for single-chamber reprehensive bodies elected by the people, Adams denounced Paine’s plan as “s democratical without restraint or even an attempt at any equilibrium. Adams  also opposed “popular assemblies which needed to be chakec because there were “productive of hasty results and absurd judgments”  While proposing a representative bodies elected by the people, Paine, was resolutely opposed to crowd action of lower-class people. Later during the controversy over adopting the Constitution, Paine was partisan of conservative and strong government .

The language of popular control over government, the right of rebellion and revolution indignation at political tyranny , all these words sounded hollow as they merely aimed at uniting colonists and dissatisfied people against England  but in reality, a wide range of American people Indians, blacks slaves, women had been excluded from the great manifesto of freedom of the declaration.  “We the people of the United states”, a phrase coined by the very rich Governor Morris did not mean slaves Indians or blacks or woman or white servants but struggle for office and power between members of an upper class the new against the established ; the men who engineered the revolt were largely members of the colonial ruling class .

In order to protect the large economic interest of the makers of the United states constitution but also to cope with rebellion by discontented and oppressed people the new ruling class decide in 1787 in Philadelphia Convention to erect strong gand dictatorship legalized by the ratification of the Constitution. The main reason for the ratification of the constitution was an uprising in the summer of 1786 in western Massachusetts known as Shay’s rebellion.

Shays’s rebellion merits attention not because it was the only evidence of social disturbance but because it was the conspicuous uprising that startled the thoughtful men of every state and made wonder what the end of their great war for independence might prove to be; the rebellion by disclosing the danger helped to bring about a reaction, strengthen the hands of the conservatives discredit extreme democratic tendencies and aid the men that were seeking to give vigor to the Union.

The reaction immensely helped the establishment of new institutions and the creation of a government capable if insuring “domestic tranquility”

At the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton suggested a President and senate chosen for life . a constitutional dictatorship needed to not only for constitutional limitations for voting , il lay deeper beyond the constitutional, maintain of class structure and the division of society into rich and poor. For Hamilton the new Union and the new government would be able “to repress domestic faction and insurrection in referring directly to Shays’s Rebellion

Catégories
Archives

Western totalitarianism, its roots and its development (1)

Shayes

Western Totalitarianism, its roots and its development  (1)

Chapter one : Social roots : era of popular and democratic revolutions

Between 1776 and 1825 took place in both sides of the Atlantic a series of interconnected revolutions during which had been expressed a genuine and real democratic aspirations and had been launched an idea of popular sovereignty and the Rights of Man. These interconnected revolutions were the American Revolution expressing herself in the Declaration of Independence of 1776, the Jacobin short interlude in France 1793-94), the Haitian revolution in the French colony of Saint-Domingue and its influence and its role it played in the accession to independence Spanish colonies in south and central America.

The American revolution and the Declaration of Independence could be considered as the coronation and the outgrowth of a long period of struggle and resistance and democratic aspirations of oppressed peoples in the New world against the European imperialist powers and the beginning of a new one that of model for modern freedom and genuine democracy. As conflicts within the European imperialist powers became planetary in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, we have to witness a parallel direction with increasing spirit of resistance and a rash of “freedom suits” and assertions of civic liberty, equality, liberty and brotherhood among oppressed people, whatever the color of their skin, whites, blacks and colored people. The slave revolt on both sides of the Atlantic had been joined by other oppressed layers of the society artisans, journeymen and port workers mostly white but some colored. Support for action against the imperial power came from all those felt that the imperial power was arbitrary intrusive and oppressing power and also from white elite and white colonists whither propertied or not and whiter their mother tongue was English German or Dutch. These oppressed people who came to embrace the American cause and to form the impetus and the fuel leading to the first and genuine and successful rebellion in the modern history, the American revolution and the draft of the first declaration of human rights, the Independence declaration of 1776.  The rebellious forces expressing strong convictions stemmed from a widely held doctrine of “republican” liberty seen as synonymous of “abject slavery” and colonial tyranny

Of course, the revolt against the slavery and the tyrannical  English colonialism in North America was not the outcome of spontaneous and unforeseeable movement initiated by  oppressed and disorganized masses but the result of centuries of revolt, rebellions, popular and slave uprising. It was through class struggles over centuries that the class conscious of oppressed masses had been shaped and formed. At the start of class struggle, there were a few occasions that white and black and colored layers did make common cause in their fight against their oppressor. In 1676 the Virginian revolt known as Bacon’s rebellion occasioned a brief allianace between rebellions whites and varying conditions (planters, small-holders, debtors, indentured servants) and eventually came to include rebellious blacks, though not Native Americans Indeed the revolt was ignited by Bacon’s claim that the royal governor was too indulgent to the Indians and that an expedition should ne mounted against them. While planters merchants and the colonial state were ultimately united by religion nationality and the stream of plantation the different contingents of oppressed immigrants and displaced natives were divided by language and tradition and found it difficult to forge a shared vision.  Such acts were isolated and did not come together in a challenge to planter power.

Catégories
Archives

Slavery and Imperialism

Slavery imperialism

 SLAVERY AND IMPERIALISM

Slavery was and still today remains an institution and a global system, albeit under disguised forms, of the first importance. Seen in historical perspective, it was a part of the western imperialism since the discovery of the “new World” and its rise and development till now. In other word, Slavery seems to be unthinkable without imperialism and conversely, the history of imperialism that shaped the modern world order had largely contributed to the rise and the development of the slavery system since the sixteenth century. Albeit this is not the appropriate place to deal with this topic, we can say without making a mistake, that capitalism also like slavery is unthinkable without imperialism that contributed to its rise and its development.

So, the history of slavery beginning with imperialism could not be separate from the history of western imperialism or more precisely of western imperialism rivalries both inside and outside the European continent. The history of western imperialism and therefore the history of European imperialist rivalries in and outside Europe began in the late of the fifteenth century with the famous treaty of Tordisillas which can be considered as the first treaty dividing the world between the two main powers at that time, Portugal and Spain. Thanks to this division, Spain had the first and vast empire ruled by the Spanish king Charles V with had far-flung possessions from Spain to the Andes from Austria to Peru from Lombardy to the Philippines from the Low Countries to Mexico (New Spain. In order to rule at distance through a huge royal bureaucracy and armies their “universal monarchy” and to defend it agaisnt their domestic and foreign enemies, Hapsburgs monarchs counted drawing their source of power, that is, the silver and the golf by exploiting their vast empire in New World colonies.

The first captive African slave had been  in the New world by Portuguese traders who sold them to Spanish colonists. Captive Africans were supplied in order to replace Indigenous slaves on plantation and in the silver mines in the Spanish Caribbean. From the 1520s the Spanish royal authorities authorized the introduction of African slaves into the Spanish colonies in Latin America to supply the deficiency of Indian slavery in the New world. Habsburgs Empire headed by the Spanish king Charles V.

Catégories
Archives

Imperialism and the making of modern world order

IMPERIALISM AND THE MAKING OF MODERN WORLD ORDER

The majority of narratives describing the international order are marked by their overwhelming eurocentrism and are centered upon what the textbooks and huge literature taught to every generation of students, the “Westhphalian model of sovereignty” and its corollary the birth of a new model of political organization specific to Europe, the European statehood, the doctrine of sovereignty. Rather the history of modern world commencing in fact in the Peace of Westphalia has been determined and still today continues to be determined by imperialism embedded everywhere through its political creatures, the current states and the nations, its political and economic institutions(UN, IMF), its philanthropic foundation(Nobel Prize), its Vatican state ( John Paul II crusade against east European communism), its ideologies nationalism, racism, civilizing mission, eurocentrism, national self-determination, language (terrorism, fundamentalism, developed and the developing categories, war against terrorism, failed states, bad governance), its knowledge, its assumptions, concepts and the mode of classification of things and human beings its mode of inquiry its vision of the world, its mode of reasoning, its culture (see Edward said Culture and imperialism)

To better understand how imperialism has shaped the modern world order, it is imperative to take as starting point of our inquiry, the unavoidable and stimulating and suggesting reflections and theoretical analyses of the German Jurist and philosopher Carl Schmitt and his book the Nomos of the Earth written in Berlin during the Second World War. The “Nomos” was originally intended to provides accurate arguments and theoretical and philosophical basis for German Grossraum, a sphere of influence analogous to Monroe doctrine’s demarcation of the Western hemisphere for the United States. Although Carl Schmitt do not uses expressly and plainly the term imperialism, his book the “Nomos” traces in some way, even unwillingly and unconsciously, its genesis and the development through different epochs; Rather, European imperialism since the “discovery” of the “new World” till the First World War is subsumed under what he termed jus publicum Europaeum (European public law ) This book is topical to the extent that it depicts and analyzes the modern world order as a world system shaped by jus publicum Europaeum(read European imperialism) with its main players and their geopolitical rivalries, competing each other for conquering and colonizing vast territories, for controlling their resources and preventing potential intruders to intrude upon their own sphere of influence .

In the “ Nomos”, Schmitt tries to demonstrate the illusory character of the “Westphalia doctrine of sovereignty” as there is nothing of that we call state sovereignty; For Schmitt, there is only Grossraüme that every state aspire to build and to appropriate, to control and to prevent potential intruding to introdute upon her Grossraume, her great space.  In order to support his arguments, Schmitt took as example the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 considered as the foundational act of US imperialism by setting the Western Hemisphere as its own Grossraum its own sphere of influence. The real motive of the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 was that the borders of the United States should not stop at their frontiers conquering from the Spanish Empire but they must expand inexorably until embodying the Western hemisphere at Monroe own time before stretching later thanks to Roosevelt imperialism in the late nineteenth century to the Philippines and Cuba and after the Second World War to the rest of the world. For Schmitt, although the old jus publicum Europaeum (euroepan imperialism) took an end in the aftermath of the WWI, nothing had been changed in its structure and in its goals, the sole move that it will be mentioned was that of terminology the terms “political annexations” and “territorial annexation” that existed in the old world order have been replaced by new ones invented by Woodrow Wilson “freedom and self-determination”, the old political annexation has been replaced by “mandate “ and protectorate” by “recognition “ and by the “right of intervention”. Thanks to The mandate system and protectorate” system setting up by the victors of WWI in Versailles treaties, the result that “sovereignty” “freedom” independence” and “self-determination” lost their meaning since the then European imperialist powers and the United states could intervene when their political interests were involved and could make decisions with respect

Let us take for example the Mandate system established in the aftermath of the First World War. The division of mandates in the A, B, C categories was a distinction based on the perceived internal development of non-Western societies towards the capacity to be sovereign  the distinctions justified distinct levels of intrusive governance by the mandatory powers. the Mandate system required the Permanent Mandate Commission to develop standards for guiding the progress of the mandates towards self-determination and sovereignty. This Mandate system has led to the development of an international administrative structure capable of analyzing large amounts of empirical data collected by the mandatories and producing adaptable standards of governance these techniques of governance added to new. The mandate system policies focused on disciplining the mandates peoples into a population of efficiency  motivated by their own interest the mandatories fostered the under development of the mandate territories as sources of raw materials and destinations for finished products. Under the Mandate system the sovereignty transferred to non-Euroepan peoples was distinct and inferiori to that enjoyed by western states it was a partial sovereignty deprived of economic power.

The model devised by the Mandate system legitimating in the name is one that repeats itself in modern projects of development and UN trusteeship  the mandate system set in place the “legal structures, ideologies and jurisprudential techniques denying full self determination and sovereignty to non western peoples  it devised technologies to administer Third World states  and it articulated a justification for intervention through the concept of economic under development.

Catégories
Archives

What really mean the « End of history » and the western democracy ?

WHAT REALLY MEAN THE “ END OF HISTORY” AND WESTERN DEMOCRACY?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the east European socialist bloc and the fall of Berlin Wall, Francis Fukuyama,  interpreting the thought-bottom and the state of mind of western ruling class, proclaimed the “End of history” with the indisputable triumph of western democracy. Here two questions must be addressed : first how has been expressed this so called end of history on international relations level and secondly what really means democracy in the mouth of the ruling classes in the West ?

Concerning the first question, and without going back to US crusade against the International communism at the end of the WWII, a crusade proclaimed by Trumann Doctrine of 1947 and the establishment of the CIA and its propaganda web through “Voice of America” and “Radio Free Europe”, a short history of international relations since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the communism in Europe seems to be very instructive so as to learn something about what realy means the so-called “end of history”. The “end of history” means firstly endless and bloody wars initiating by US and its satellites in Europe and across the world, a series of military aggression and occupation waged in the name of “democracy” and “western values” and ‘western humanitarian interventionism” against defenseless and weaker countries (branded by western propaganda failed states), without effective technological or miliatry self-defense, causing hundreds thousands causalities inflicted starvation on entire populations with economic and environmental devastations. The so called “end of history” according to Fukuyama and its neoconservative (neocon) followers means the destruction of a relatively peaceful multi-ethnic and independent state, the ex-Socialist federation of Yugoslavia during the 1990s. the “end of history” means also the destruction and the occupation in 2003 of a rising power in the Middle East, Iraq nationhood. The “end of history” means many years later, the destruction in 2011 of another country in North Africa, Libya. The “end of history” means today a proxy war waged by US and its satellites in Europe and in the Middle East against a another Arab nationhood , Syrian Arab Republic

To answer the second question, what is really the western democracy ? I must to be short here with general ideas and some generalization to be ultimately more developed in a separate and detailed study. According to classical and academic and political science textbooks, democracy is often declared as the best system of government in the world that the other countries across the world must take as a model and pattern to be imitated and to be implemented. The liberal democracy is based on popular sovereignty requiring that people ought to freely choice their own rulers and governments rather than having it imposed on them by outsiders. The liberal democracy originates in American and French revolutions that proclaimed both the popular sovereignty as source of any legitimate government. However, in course of time and in the long run, the popular sovereignty and what democratic features do exist are despised and subverted by a hidden form of dictatorship, the parliaments within which gather elected lawmakers setting up as Judge of what is good and what is bad for people. Indeed, albeit their pretention of speaking in the name of people, such elected lawmakers use rather the election and the elective mechanism as a tool to legitimate rtheir dictatorship and their domination on the whole society. Such elections have in fact no impact on the government’s policies since they are aiming not to express the popular wishes but only to designate the members of the ruling class whose the principal objective is to legitimate their political, economic and ideological domination.

Contrary to received ideas, the western states are not led by their elected parliaments and governments at all but by a hidden authorities and obscures civil and military servants, by powerful lobbies who form the “deep state”, a community of unelected figures who decide what is best for everyone and who dictate their own policies and their wishes to the elected head of state and to incumbent governments. The western democracy is nothing other than the shallow ritual and a masquerade organized at Olympic intervals (every four or five or six years) aiming at legitimatizing the violence of the ruling class that will not hesitate, in case of necessity, to resort to armed thugs so as to repress any potential surge against the established order. In order to maintain its rule and its domination on the whole society, the ruling class possess the monopole of political propaganda, this redoubtable device destined according to Serge Tchakotine the rape of  masses.  For the maintain of hits hegemony on the society the ruling class has to weaken its class enemy and to do so, the voters must be manipulated based on prejudices held or inculcated  and divided into smaller and smaller grouping and set against each other. Thanks to voter apathy, elected rulers are no more likely than a dictator doing anything and nothing no matter how unpopular . the so called opposition in western democracy is nothing but eye-wash, deceptive appearance and illusion to the extent that there are the same political parties that alternate in power n o matter what kind of rule follows all this reduces “democracy” to a sort of slogan as to justify the setting up of a police State on domestic level and endless and bloddy wars on international level.

Today, with the Syrian war, the western democracy reveals in broad daylight its real and deep nature. Everywhere polls show massive popular opposition to the bombing and no airstrikes but all popular cries fell on deaf ears as the western governments continue to ignore the popular wishes not to bomb abd not to kill Syrian innocent civil population. Nowadays, the so called western democracies are desperately trying since 2011 to overthrow a legitimate and democratically elected president  and to place an islamist and jihadist proxy regime in position.

 

Catégories
Archives

Eurocentrism in International relations

EUROCENTRISM IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

The International relations  has been marked since the peace of Westphalia in 1648 until today by western imperialism leading to endless and bloody wars, wars of conquest, colonial wars, military aggression, wars for plundering and subjugation of Non-European peoples, wars for starvation on entire populations. Eurocentrism is beyond doubt the ideology of western imperialism; The Eurocentric conception is rooted far deeper in the consciousness and the imagination of the west and it is intrinsically embedded in the current world order. The effects of Eurocentrism create a self sustaining belief that Europe and Europeans are central and most important to all meaningful aspects of the world’s political, ideological, social values and cultural heritage. This Eurocentric distorted thought must be linked to imperialism and  its set of ideological and cultural corpus based on the belief of the superiority of Europeans or people having European offspring and the inferiority of non-European or “people of color”  This psychological and mental posture based on the belief of the West over the “people fo colour” , remains the prevailing feature of International relations, even after the so called decolonization process and the political liberation from colonial rule of formerly colonized peoples and the accession of a significant number of “new states” to the “international society” .

Eurocentrism is not only an inoffensive ideology; it also produced over the few past century and still today continue to produce ravaging and destroying effects. Without going back to the history of all wars waged in the name of the “civilizing mission”, the “democracy” and the Western values”, let us cite someone of these hollow slogans used by the “western democracies” in order to justify their ravaging and destroying wars; The Crusade against the “International” communism proclaimed by Truman doctrine in 1947 and the name of the “defence of the values of the free world” . has been waged in the “name of the “American Way of life”. In March 1983, the actor president Ronald Reagan continued his maccartyst crusade by updating and modernizing his anticommunist crusade by issuing his Directive 75 the first draft of “project Democracy” calling for an increased American propaganda effort to combat the communism in Eastern Europe and to support subversive anti-communist activates in Latin America.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the East European communism, and its corollary the “End of Histroy” and the emergence of an unipolar world, Eurocentric discourse has shifted. Henceforth, the “western democracies” must be spread over the world at all costs even by devastating and ravaging war in the name of “democracy” the “humanitarism” and the “right to protect” civil populations.  One can remember that the war waged in the 1990s against the ex-Yugoslavia had been branded “new human rights war” and waged in the name of the “western values” according to then British prime minister Tony Blair. In 2003, the American invaded and occupied Iraq so as to establish there their “democracy” “

More recently, the western “democracies” have waged a  ravaging and destroying military aggression against this prosper and independent north African which was Libya of Muamamr Kadaffi in the name of their “humanitarian mission” that of the right to protect the civil populations. Today new wars of occupation and regime change against a Syria and a conspicuous number of states in Africa and Latin America.

Eurocentrism in International relations appears in broad daylight in the case of Syria. Since the foreign infestation of Syria by jihadists armed group unleashed by US led imperialism and its satellites in Europe and in the Middle East, the western “democracies” try to sabotage and to hamper any political solution leading to the establishment of a genuine democracy in Syria. Instead of allowing the Syrian people the chance to decide their own political future, the western “democracies” are dismissing the essential pillar of the democracy, that is the popular sovereignty that requiring that only the people has the right to decide their own political future and their wn government rather than having ot imposed on them by foreign governments convinced of their superiority. Curiously, the so called western “democracies” are waging a proxy war in Syria in order to hinder the establishment of democracy in Syria by overthrowing  a democratically elected president and his legal and legitimate government and by imposing islamist dictatorship in the Middle east and in the Arab world, puppet of US and its clients in Europe and the Middle East. An Islamist and sectarian dictatorship that we can compare to that of latin America during the 1960s and 1970s.

Keywords Eurocentrism, international relations, democracy, wars, imperialism,

Catégories
Archives

The making of foreign policy

THE MAKING OF THE FOREIGN POLICY

In the mainstream media and the academic circles, admittedly, the foreign policy makers are the president giving the general orientation allegedly implemented by his foreign minister.  The president and his foreign minister are nothing but a frontage and a public show hiding the real actors of the foreign policy. A closely look of the matter, we discover that this schemas is too simplistic to be true.

Contrary to received ideas and popular stereotypes and clichés, the strategic and geopolitical agendas in foreign policy in particular, are not taken by politicians either the president or his foreign minister. The real foreign policy makers, those having the onus of elaborating doctrine and strategic and geopolitical plans, the topics and the issue of the future agenda    are recruiting generally in corporate funded thinks tanks and the academic circles, economic and industry leaders and powerful lobbyists of especial interest. The backstairs influence that these hidden policymakers are exerting in the shadow within and inside the foreign ministry explains and illustrates perfectly the continuity and policy prevalent in the western politics in spite of political alternative, either between Democrats or republicans in US, or between Right and leftwing parties in Europe explains the permanence of foreign policy in the USA when a democratic US president is forced to continue and implement the foreign policy and the geopolitical and strategic agenda of his predecessor republican without any possibilty to direct it otherwise.

The US foreign policy since the Reagan administration, is dominated by the neocons which at the time pushed Israel friendly policies toward Iran seeing her as a counterweight to Iraq and this strategy led eventually to the Iran-Contra Affair. In the 1990s the neocons gained political momentum and took a real power in the US foreign policy thanks to their well-funded web of think tanks and medi outlets benefiting both from the largesse of military contractors and government-funded operations like the National Endowment for democracy headed by neocon Carl Gershman.

The US foreign policy in the Middle East has been bluntly deciding as Mersheimer and very recently Kirk Beattie had shown the role of Zionist lobby in the US foreign policy especially the role played by AIPAC the most powerful and influential and money-wise seeking support of Israel policy in Palestine and in the Middle East among the congressmen. We can observe the same phenomenon In current French policy which is under the thumb of a powerful and influential Zionist lobby lead either on governmental level by the Zionist Valls and Fabius and by the mainstream media and by a myriad pro-Zionist think tanks. On can remember the role played by the Zionist Bernard Henry Levy who convinced the French former president, the pro-OTAN and the pro Isreal, Nicolas Sarkozy to wage a bloody war against Libya and his longtime leader the late Muamamr Kaddafi who had been overthrown before he had atrociously tortured and murdered on 20 of October 2011.

The last and powerful factor in the foreign policy in the West concern the warmongers mainstream Media which are controlled as in USA and in France by arms manufacturers (One can cite in the case of France the two notorious media owners and arms manufactures in France are Dassault and Lagardere)

Keywords foreign policy, US, think tanks, Zionism, lobby, mainstream media, warmongers

Catégories
Archives

Deutscher Imperialismus im Nahen und Mittleren Osten

German einsatz syria

DEUTSCHER IMPERIALISMUS IM NAHEN UND MITTLEREN OSTEN

Mit seinem Kriegseinsatz in Syrien and in Irak Steigt Deustchalnd zur gestaltungsmacht in nahen and Mittleren Osten auf. Mit Syrien-Intervention der bundesweher, werde Deutschland mit dem Bemühen um “eine langfristige politische Neuordnung “ der gesamgten Region verbunden sein . Der Einsatz der Bundeswehr ist keine kurze Intervention gegen den “islamischen Staat” (IS, dDaesh) aber Aussenminster Frank-Walter Steinmeier zufolge spreche “von zehn jahren” . In dem Fall seien die militarischen operation dabei mit Bemühungen um eine “strategische Geduld” and “eine langfristige politishe Neuordnung” verbunden. Deutschland verplichte sich “im verband anderen Ländern” für Zeit miliatrtish und vor allem politisch” in der Region zu operieren. Berlin wolle mit einer “ordnungsvorstellung” für den Nahen und Mittleren Osten über einen langen Zeitraum intervenieren, sei’ neu fûr deutsche Politik” “ dass kannten wir so bisher nicht”    Mit seiner Beteilung am Krieg gegen Daesh IS  steige Deutschland zur “Gestaltungsmacht im Nahen and Mittleren Osten” auf. Der Vorsitzende der Münchener Sicherheitkonferenz, Wolfgang Ischinger, fordert nun eine stärkere deutsche Stellung in der Region. Die EU dürfe “die Initiative zur kriegsbeending in Syrien müsse “sich selber massiv vor der eiçgenene haustür engagieren erklârt . Das verlangen nach grosser deustcher Macht in der Weltpolitik triebt den neuren Kriegeinsatz der Bundesweher an.

In den vorgangen Tagen, am Donnerstag, den 9 Dezember brechen die ersten Bundeswehrsoldaten zu dem neuen deutschen Kriegseinsatz in Syrien and in Irak auf. Rund 40 militärs sollen aus dem Luftwaffengeschwader 51 sowie zwei Tornados verabschieded werden. Zur selben Zeit wird ein Airbus zur Luftbetankung den mioliatrischen teil des Flughafens Köl—Bonn verlassen zu aus das syrisch-irakische kampfgebiet nehmen. Bereits AM Sonntag hat die Fregate ”Augsburg” den Suezkanal durchquert, um  den französischen Flugzeugtrâger “ Charles de Gaule” aud dem Weg in den Persischen Golf zu treffen. Erste Operationen sollen allerdings Anfang Janaur starten ; dann wird der Aufmarch von bis zu 1200 deustchen Soldaten in Krieg gegen den “islamischen Staat” abgeschlossen sein.

Irak, in  Irakischen Kurdistan, wo ist Deuschland in der vorgangen Monaten intervenieren. Milizen der nordirakisch-kurdischen regionalregierung sind von Berlin kaum unterstützt werden. Der Präsident der Regionalregierung Masud Barsani, mit dem Aussenminsiter Frank-walter Steinmeier an gestrigen Dienstag zusamemngetroffen ist  die Aufrüstung seiner peschamerga durch berlin verzetzt ihn auf lange Sicht in die Lage einen Staat “ irakishen-Kurdistan” auszurufen. . Aussenminsiter Steinmeier hat in gespräxhen mit Masud Barzani, dem Präsidenten der Regional regierung angkündigt, Deustcland werde die miliatrische Unterstützung weiterführen “ Wir sind entschieden die Zusammenarbeit mit Ihnen und den Peshmerga fortzusetzen”.

Die Kriegshandlungen der westlichen Koalition bei Angriffen auf Syrisches territorium ist keinerlei volksrrechtliche Legitmation verfugen. Klar ist hingegen dass Deutschland sich eine führende Rolle bei der Neuordnung der Nahen and Mittleren Osten verpricht.

Syrien, Deutschland, Irak, Kurdistan, Imperialismus, Nahen und Mittleren Osten

Catégories
Archives

Syria : civil war or imperialist proxy war ?

Syria : civil war or imperialist proxy war ?

Western propaganda and its mainstream and corporate media try to depict the current war waged in Syria as a mere domestic civil war opposing the very” democratic forces”, the “kindly” and “moderate rebels” fighting for the “right cause” viewed through the western lens, that is, democracy, human rights, rule of law and multipartism against a horrific, thirsty blood dictatorship, that of Bachar Al Assad.

In order to better understand the nature of the ongoing Syrian war, we must beforehand reject all these false narratives and ideas and bias extensively spreading and disseminating through the mainstream media, academic circles and the so-called military and civil experts. We have to concentrate first and before all on the origin of all these political, ethnic, religious, sectarian and ideological convulsions that took place in the Middle East over the last 50 years. We have to go back to the history of this region more precisely to the First World War and to its aftermath and treaties of Versailles of 1919 when the two major imperialist powers at the time, France and Great Britain decided, according to Sykes-Picot Accords and Balfour Declaration, to divide among them the area into two spheres of influence and to redraw the map of the Middle East following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. When, at the end of the Second World War, the two old imperialist powers have been collapsed, they had been, at their turn, evinced and replaced in the area by a young and newcomer the United States of America. So, a century later, one can witness the same permanence of imperialism continuing to rule the region and contributing to exacerbate ethnic and religious conflicts in order to feed and fuel endless and bloody wars according to its own agenda. Once keeping this truth in mind, needless to say that, behind each conflict waged in the Middle East, over the past 50 years, there is this constant and perpetual hidden hand of western imperialism supported by proxy regimes in the Middle East. Nothing being new under the Sun, The ongoing Syrian must not be an exception to the rule in comparison with all wars that had been taking place in the Middle east over the past 50 years and more recently, those of Iraq and Libya.

Through their strategy of deception and manipulation, the western propaganda would like to make believe that the ongoing war in Syria is a civil war opposing domestic parties and local groups to the Syrian regime. One can remember that the term “moderate” rebels has been coined by the strategists of the Psy op waged nowadays against Assad and his regime. this strategy of deception aims to deceive and to make believe that there are “kind and very nice” rebels and “respectable” political forces struggling against a “nasty” and “evil” regime. By close and careful examination of the so called “moderate” rebels, we quickly arrive to another established fact that the Assad regime have to face not a civil war but a foreign infestation leading by a jihadist-led insurgency, unleashed in the Syrian territory since 2011 by Washington and its clients and satellites in Europe and in the Middle East with the main objective, overthrowing the legitimate regime and replacing it by an islamist regime pro-US.

These jihadist-led-insurgency, Washington call them “our guys” as it was the case with the Afghan mujahedeen branded by Ronald Reagan as “freedom fighters” and the French foreign minister vaunted them as guys “ making a good job”, in Syria. This appeal to jihadists groups is not a new strategy deployed by US imperialism to be in its military and gepopolical agendas since the creation in the late 1970 of the Afghan Mudjahedeen, a CIA offshoot–organized-armed Islamic jihadists when the US imperialism was leading a Crusade war against the communism and was fighting a secular pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan.

Now, in the ongoing Syrian war, like in Libya in 2011, we are witnessing the same strategy whose the main objective is to enlist jihadist groups being used as a military tools and geopolitical device to be in US led imperialism’s service. The Sunni jihadists deemed “moderate” by the West are in fact a patchwork of foreign mercenary jihadists, recruited from about one hundred countries around the world, such jihadists having been created from nothing by western governments and their Intelligence services committed to organize, fund, train and supply them by the last US and western manufactured and sophisticated weaponry, especially the TOW missiles supplied (anti-tank missile). Once recruited, armed and trained, these foreign mercenary groups are transiting by Turkish border to Syrian territory. According to a Munich based journalist interviewed by the BBC world on Wednesday 2 December, 70% of the fighters in Raqaa are foreign.

In Syria, Al Nusra Front, Syria’s Al Qaeda affiliate, is allied with other jihadists including Ahrar al-Sham(apparently separated from Al-Qaeda although its senior leaders were drawn from Al Qaeda) and Jaish al-islam. Both militias are composed of Salafists militants, seeking the establishment of Caliphate in Syria. Both militias collaborate closely with Al Nusra and they are fighting side by side in the Saudi-backed Army of Conquest.  The Jihadists of Al Nusra and its allies are waging a sectarian war not only against the government but also against other components of the Syrian society, Shia, Alawites, Jews and Christians.  Ahrar al-Sham,  a jihadist group founded by Al Quaeda veteran and fighting alongside Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front.he “moderate” groups unleashed in Syria for regime change had been supplied with sophisticated weapons including TOW anti-tank missile.

For a mere political cosmetic purpose and in order to hide the infestation of Syrian soil by foreign jihadists and to confer a “syrian” veneer to their proxy mercenary, US imperialism and its satellites in Europe(France, Great Britain) and in the Middle east (Saudi Arabia, Qatar and turkey) are forced to enlist aging Syrian exiles among the Syrian Diaspora living in the West. Albeit this political cosmetic, the current rivalry and ongoing infighting between the “opponents” to Assad regime (groups backed by Washington fighting against groups backed by Turkey and Saudi Arabia) demonstrates once again that the so called civil war in Syria is a myth, that its background are neither ethnic nor religious but a foreign plot fomented by the western imperialism and its regional proxy regimes in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, all of them converging in the same geopolitical agendas and pointing to the same direction, albeit their interne rivalry and their proper agendas, the ouster of the democratically elected president Bachar Al Assad and imposition in Damascus of a slavish US puppet government as it was the case more than decade ago in Iraq and four years ago in Libya after the western powers, and their regional proxy regimes helped and supported by and their jihadists mercenary had been toppling and murdering the Libyan leader, Muammar al Kadaffi, and destroying a prosper and wealthy North African country

Keywords Syria, imperialism, ISIS, US, war

Catégories
Archives

« Assad must go » Eurocentric discourse

Assad must gp

« Assad must go »

Eurocentric discourse in International relations

The state system going back to the peace of Westphalia in 1648, contrary to dominant discourse in the mainstream media(MSM) and the content of the textbooks dedicated to the history of international relations is not of equal relations between all its members. A close examination of international relations since the peace of Westphalia shows that the modern world order have been profoundly shaped by unequal power relations, embedded over many centuries embedded in knowledge and ideas and concepts and in cultural body as Edward Said has obviously shown in his two seminal books, “Orientalism” and “Culture and imperialism”. This Eurocentric distorted thought must be linked therefore to imperialism and  its set of ideological and cultural corpus based on the belief that some people and races are superior on other, and that ultimately the Europeans peoples or their fellow all over the world, in the United states, in Canada, In Australia, New Zeeland, in south Africa, are considering themselves as superior to other “people of color”, have a duty and a special mission, that of civilizing the backward non-European peoples This Eurocentric and supremacist posture remains the prevailing feature of International relations, even longtime after the masquerade of the so called decolonization process and the political liberation from colonial rule of formerly colonized peoples and the accession of a significant number of “new states” to the “international society” .

Nowadays, a such Eurocentric and supremacist discourse shows obviously through the western imperialist waged against Syria supposed to be, according to the International Law, an independent member of the UN organization, in Syria.  At the beginning of the Syrian crisis, President Obama and Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton launched the slogan “President Bashar Al Assad must go”  Let us now dream and  imagine in the opposite direction where Assad and his foreign minister Walid El Mouallem would launch the slogan “President Obama must go” . or “President Hollande must go” or “David Cameroun must go” . The supremacist and Eurocentric mainstream media, the well thinking and the ruling class in the West would have retorted that first Obama and Hollande are two legitimate presidents democratically elected through fair and honest election and secondly, Assad and his foreign minister have not to interfere neither in the American nor in French and British domestic affairs.

By examining the two present cases, we can say without be mistaken that if Obama and Hollande were a democratically elected president, the Syrian president Bachar al Assad is a democratically elected president too. Let us remember that President Assad has been elected twice, in 2007 and last year despite the difficult conditions in which the presidential election has been held last year. Their outcome had been considered by delegates from more than 30 countries as “free, fair and transparent”

The Eurocentric bias and the imperialist foundations of International relations appear clearly in broad daylight when US imperialism and its allies in Europe and the Middle East were trying since 2011 to overthrow Bachar Al Assad and to change the regime in Damascus. Behind the slogan “ Assad must go” , we cannot find democracy and human rights but a will expressed by a hegemonic and imperialist power in its perpetual quest for domination and perpetuated hegemony over the whole world.

Translate »