En la nota que sigue, de Thierry Meyssan para Red Voltaire, se sugiere que existe una continuidad, no una ruptura, en las grandes líneas de la política exterior estadounidense para el resto del mundo. La nota corre el riesgo de la simplificación, pero igual vale la pena leerla. En la misma, la leyenda de la foto de arriba es la siguiente: "Los pensadores de la Gran Estrategia estadounidense: Donald Rumsfeld, secretario de Defensa de la administración Bush Jr., y su consejero, el almirante Arthur Cebrowski; el presidente Donald Trump y su secretario comercial Peter Navarro; y el secretario de Estado Mike Pompeo, con su consejero Francis Fannon".
Título: La nueva Gran Estrategia de Estados Unidos
Epígrafe: Muchos piensan que Estados Unidos se mueve mucho pero sin lograr gran cosa. Por ejemplo, que las guerras estadounidenses en el Gran Medio Oriente han sido una cadena de fracasos. Pero Thierry Meyssan estima que Estados Unidos tiene una estrategia militar, comercial y diplomática coherente. En función de sus propios objetivos, esa estrategia militar avanza pacientemente y registra éxitos.
Texto: En Estados Unidos se suele creer que el país carece de una Gran Estrategia desde que se cerró la guerra fría. Una Gran Estrategia es una visión del mundo que se trata de imponer y que todas las administraciones deben respetar. En caso de derrota en un teatro de operaciones, esa estrategia sigue aplicándose en otros hasta que acabe por triunfar. Al final de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, Washington optó por seguir las directivas que el embajador George Keenan había trazado en su célebre despacho diplomático. Se trataba de describir un supuesto expansionismo soviético para justificar una política de «contención» (containment) frente a la Unión Soviética. El hecho es que, después de haber perdido las guerras en Corea y Vietnam, Estados Unidos acabó ganando.
No es frecuente que se logre concebir una Gran Estrategia, aunque estas han existido, como sucedió en Francia, con Charles De Gaulle.
A lo largo de los 18 últimos años, Washington ha logrado poco a poco fijarse nuevos objetivos y nuevas tácticas para alcanzar esos objetivos.
1991-2001, un periodo de desconcierto
En el momento de la desaparición de la Unión Soviética, el 25 de diciembre de 1991, Estados Unidos, entonces bajo la administración de Bush padre, consideró que ya no tenía rival. El presidente, victorioso por defecto, desmovilizó 1 millón de soldados e imaginó un mundo de paz y prosperidad. Liberalizó las transferencias de capitales para que los capitalistas pudieran enriquecerse y –como él creía– así enriquecer también a sus conciudadanos.
Pero el capitalismo no es un proyecto político sino una forma de ganar dinero. Las grandes empresas estadounidenses –no el Estado federal– se aliaron al Partido Comunista Chino (de ahí el famoso «viaje al sur» de Deng Xiaoping). Esas grandes empresas estadounidenses trasladaron a China las filiales de menor valor agregado que poseían en Occidente, y lo hicieron simplemente porque los trabajadores chinos, con niveles de educación menos elevados, aceptaban salarios 20 veces más bajos que en Occidente. Así se inició el largo proceso de desindustrialización de Occidente.
Para poder manejar con menos trabas sus negocios transnacionales, el Gran Capital trasladó sus haberes a países donde encontraba menos obligaciones fiscales y descubrió así la posibilidad de escapar a sus responsabilidades sociales. Esos países, cuya flexibilidad en materia de impuestos y discreción son indispensables al comercio internacional, se vieron bruscamente implicados en innumerables y gigantescas tramas de «optimización fiscal», una bonita formulación técnica para lo que antiguamente se llamaba «defraudar el fisco», procedimiento con el cual lucraron en silencio. Se abría así el reinado de la Finanza sobre la Economía.
La estrategia militar
En 2001, Donald Rumsfeld, secretario de Defensa y miembro permanente del «Gobierno de Continuidad» [1], creó una Oficina de Transformación de la Fuerza (Office of Force Transformation) que puso en manos del almirante Arthur Cebrowski, quien ya había trabajado en la informatización de las fuerzas armadas y se dedicó entonces a modificar la misión de dichas fuerzas.
Sin la Unión Soviética, el mundo se había hecho unipolar, o sea ya no estaba gobernado por el Consejo de Seguridad sino única y exclusivamente por Estados Unidos. Para mantener su predominio, Estados Unidos se planteó dividir la humanidad en dos partes. De un lado estarían los Estados considerados estables (los miembros del G8 –incluyendo Rusia– y los aliados). Del otro lado quedaría el resto del mundo, convertido en un simple “tanque” de recursos naturales. Washington ya no consideraba el acceso a esos recursos como algo vital para sí mismo, pero estimaba que los Estados estables sólo debían tener acceso a los recursos a través de Estados Unidos. Para imponer esa situación era necesario destruir previamente las estructuras de los Estados en los países considerados “tanques” de recursos, de manera que no pudiesen oponerse a la voluntad de la primera potencia mundial, ni prescindir de esta [2].
Esa es la estrategia que Washington ha estado aplicando. Comenzó por el Gran Medio Oriente o Medio Oriente ampliado –con las guerras en Afganistán, Irak, Líbano, Libia, Siria y Yemen. A pesar de los anuncios de la secretaria de Estado de la administración Obama, Hillary Clinton, sobre el «Giro hacia Asia» (Pivot to Asia), el desarrollo militar de China impidió aplicarla en el Extremo Oriente y ahora Washington apunta a la Cuenca del Caribe, arremetiendo inicialmente contra Venezuela y Nicaragua.
La estrategia diplomática
En 2012, el entonces presidente Barack Obama retomó el leitmotiv del Partido Republicano y convirtió en prioridad nacional la explotación de los hidrocarburos (petróleo y gas) de esquistos mediante el método de fracturación hidráulica. En unos años, Estados Unidos multiplicó sus inversiones en ese sector y se convirtió en el primer productor mundial de hidrocarburos echando así abajo los paradigmas de las relaciones internacionales.
En 2018, Mike Pompeo, ex director de Sentry International, fabricante de maquinaria para la industria del petróleo, se convirtió en director de la CIA y, posteriormente, en secretario de Estado. Pompeo creó un Buró de Recursos Energéticos (Bureau of Energy Resources) que puso bajo la dirección de Francis Fannon. Esta estructura era el equivalente diplomático de lo que fue la Oficina de Transformación de la Fuerza en el Pentágono e instauró una política enteramente enfocada a tomar el control del mercado mundial de los hidrocarburos [3]. Para ello imaginó un nuevo tipo de alianzas como la llamada Región Indo-pacífica Libre y Abierta (Free and Open Indo-Pacific). Ya no se trata de crear bloques militares, como los QADS, sino de organizar alianzas alrededor de objetivos de crecimiento económico basados en la garantía del acceso a fuentes de energía.
Ese concepto encaja en la estrategia Rumsfeld/Cebrowski. Ya no se trata de apropiarse los hidrocarburos del resto del mundo, hidrocarburos que Washington ya no necesita, sino de determinar quién tendrá acceso a ellos para poder desarrollarse y quién no. Esto es una ruptura total con la doctrina del agotamiento del petróleo que la familia Rockefeller y el Club de Roma promovieron desde los años 1960, doctrina retomada después por el Grupo de Desarrollo de la Política Energética Nacional (National Energy Policy Development Group) del vicepresidente estadounidense Dick Cheney. Estados Unidos estima ahora que no sólo no se ha producido la temida desaparición del petróleo sino que además, a pesar del drástico aumento de la demanda, la humanidad cuenta con hidrocarburos suficientes para al menos un siglo.
En este momento, bajo pretextos tan numerosos como variados, Pompeo acaba de bloquear el acceso de Irán al mercado mundial de hidrocarburos, está haciendo lo mismo con Venezuela y, para completar el cierre, Estados Unidos va a mantener tropas en el este de Siria para impedir que ese país pueda explotar los yacimientos existentes en esa parte de su territorio. Simultáneamente, Pompeo ejerce la mayor presión sobre la Unión Europea para que esta renuncie al gasoducto ruso Nord Stream 2 y también sobre Turquía, para que renuncie al Turkish Stream.
La estrategia comercial
En 2017, el presidente Donald Trump trata de que regrese a Estados Unidos al menos una parte de los empleos que las empresas estadounidenses habían transferido a Asia y a la Unión Europea. Basándose en los consejos del economista de izquierda Peter Navarro [4], Trump puso fin a la Asociación Transpacífica y renegoció el Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN, llamado en inglés NAFTA y en francés ALENA). Al mismo tiempo instauró derechos de aduana prohibitivos para la importación de automóviles alemanes y la mayoría de los productos chinos y completó todo lo anterior con una reforma fiscal que estimula la repatriación de los capitales estadounidenses. Esa política ya ha permitido mejorar la balanza comercial y reactivar el empleo.
En otras palabras, ya está montado el dispositivo completo en los sectores económico, diplomático y militar, vinculados todos entre sí y cada uno con sus instrucciones precisas.
La principal ventaja de esta nueva Gran Estrategia es que las élites del resto del mundo siguen sin haberla entendido. Washington todavía tiene a su favor el factor sorpresa, acentuado además por el sistema de relaciones públicas deliberadamente caótico de Donald Trump. Pero si observamos los hechos –en vez de dejarnos distraer por los tweets presidenciales–, podemos comprobar que Estados Unidos ha logrado avances después del periodo incierto de los presidentes Clinton y Obama.
Notas:
[1] El «Gobierno de Continuidad» es una instancia estadounidense creada por el presidente Eisenhower en tiempos de la guerra fría pero que aún sigue funcionando. Su misión es garantizar la continuidad del Estado estadounidense en caso de ausencia o desaparición del ejecutivo –como la muerte del presidente, del vicepresidente y de los presidentes de las dos cámaras del Congreso durante un conflicto nuclear. Aunque la composición exacta del Gobierno de Continuidad es secreta, esa instancia dispone de medios muy importantes.
[2] Esa estrategia fue dada a conocer por el asistente de Cebrowski, Thomas Barnett, en su libro The Pentagon’s New Map, publicado por Putnam Publishing Group en 2004.
[3] “Mike Pompeo Address at CERAWeek”, por Mike Pompeo, Voltaire Network, 12 de marzo de 2019.
[4] Ver Death by China, Peter Navarro, Pearson, 2011 y Crouching Tiger: What China’s Militarism Means for the World, Prometheus Books, 2015.
Un millón de personas en las calles de Argelia el 1º de marzo. Primavera árabe, pueblo harto, líder viejo (en la foto de arriba, el presidente argelino, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, 82 pirulines y peinado a la cachetada), élites divididas, "militantes" islámicos listos para entrar en acción, etc. En fin, lo de siempre. Leemos en el sitio web Oriental Review:
Título: The Destabilisation Of Algeria: The Influx Of New Refugees To Europe And A Threat To Its Energy Security
Texto: The president of Algeria, 82-year-old Abdelaziz Bouteflika, who has been in power for almost 20 years, has declared that he will not be running for what would have been his fifth term. The announcement was made against the backdrop of widespread protests that have been rocking the country for days. Thus, the latest revolution in the Arab world has succeeded. The question is, what will come next?
Despite being laid to rest countless times, the Arab Spring has continued where it was least expected. Algeria has the same explosive cocktail as Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria, of course: a young, rapidly growing urban population deprived of jobs and opportunities; corruption and poverty amid opulent wealth and luxury; uneasy relationships between ethnic groups (in Algeria’s case, between the Arabs and the Kabyle people, a Berber ethnic group); Islamist activity; and, finally, an unchanging authoritarian leader who rules with the same unchanging palette of ideas as every other dictatorship – “Who else if not me?”, “It will be worse without me”, “You don’t change horses in midstream” and so on. But judging by how calmly the country endured the turbulent events in nearby Tunisia and Libya, with only localised pockets of unrest, many experts were under the impression that the elderly Bouteflika would simply be able to retire by handing the presidency to whomever he wants – namely Prime Minister Ahmed Ouyahia, who has the unspoken title of “successor”. Something has gone wrong, however.
It is unclear why, on 10 February, Bouteflika announced that he would be taking part in the presidential election scheduled for April. It is even unclear how much say he had in this decision. In 2013, Bouteflika suffered a stroke. A year later he was re-elected amid myriad accusations of election fraud and stopped appearing in public. Until last Sunday, that is, when Bouteflika delivered an address to the nation in which he announced he had changed his mind and no longer wanted to run for re-election. “There won’t be a fifth mandate and it was never on the table as far as I am concerned,” he said. “Given my state of health and age, my last duty towards the Algerian people was always contributing to the foundation of a new Republic.”
On Monday, the government, including Ahmed Ouyahia, resigned. A “cabinet of technocrats” is being put together in its place headed by the now former interior minister, Noureddine Bedoui, and the streets of the country’s capital are filled with cheering crowds.
The biggest potential powder keg for the situation in Algeria, of course, is the fact that the presidential election has been postponed indefinitely. Exactly when it will take place will become clear after the national conference tasked with drafting a new constitution. The presidential election and the voting on it has to take place at the same time.
So, for the time being there is political uncertainty: a president who has either resigned or hasn’t; an emerging government; and a people inspired by what seems to be a victory. There is also the bulldog fight going on behind the scenes at the highest levels of government about which little is known, but which has been hampered by the presence of the country’s unquestioned leader, Bouteflika.
It should be remembered, however, that, no matter what you think of him, the current Algerian leader did actually bring stability to the country. It was during his presidency that the so-called “Black Decade” – a civil war instigated by Islamists in 1991 – came to an end. After winning the 1999 presidential election, Bouteflika secured an amnesty for the militants and the wave of terror gradually subsided. At the beginning of his time in office, he pursued a fairly flexible policy, didn’t persecute his opponents as long as they didn’t resort to violent methods, and tried to make it so that rising energy prices had a positive impact on the well-being of the people and not just the ruling elite. The system began to stiffen in 2008, however, when a law was passed allowing the president to be re-elected an infinite number of times. This process has now gone so far that opponents of the regime are only going to be happy with serious, rather than cosmetic, changes, and this kind of attitude always spells danger for the future of a country.
If the situation in Algeria comes to bloodshed, then it is unlikely that other countries will stay on the sidelines. Europe will be forced to intervene, if only to prevent a new wave of refugees from Arab countries.
Meanwhile, the situation in Algeria remains tense. The president’s announcement that he will not run for a fifth term has not quelled the protests. The unrest of the people is now directed against the introduction of a transition period and the creation of a new government that they believe will contain all the same people who are running the country now. The protesters are demanding a regime change, although they are not formulating their position very well. What’s more, following Bouteflika’s decision not to run for re-election on 18 April, no one is ready – there are no other candidates, no one has carried out an election campaign and it would be virtually impossible to do so in the time remaining. It therefore seems that the different sides will now have to talk to each other.
A possible split in the Algerian elite could be dangerous. In fact, that’s why Bouteflika was put forward for president – he united them. The balance among the parties close to power is extremely fragile, but the feelings of unrest and discontent are strong. A number of organisations are taking part in the street protests, including various parties and NGOs, and the longer the protests continue, the more various forces will try to take advantage of them.
Algeria’s political parties and movements have been divided in their assessment of President Abdelaziz Bouteflika’s decisions. The National Liberation Front has supported the head of state, who “heeded the calls of the Algerian people”. In a statement, the ruling party said: “It allows politicians and members of civil society to take part in the construction of a new Algeria.” Abdelamajid Munasyra, the deputy leader of the moderate Islamist party Movement for the Society of Peace, said that Bouteflika “withdrew his candidacy from the presidential election but remained in power, which violates the constitution”. The Algerian newspaper Elkhabar quotes the politician as saying: “The political opposition is waiting for the response of the people, whether these decisions will be accepted by the people. But if these steps are not taken, which is likely, then we will stand with the people.” In a video statement, the head of the Union for Reform and Progress, Zubaidah Assul, called the president’s actions “a political manoeuvre and an attempt to avoid meeting the demands of the demonstrators”. The Algerian politician continued: “From what we have heard, it appears that the president has extended his term in office, and he has not given any indication of how long the transition period will last.” She also noted that the posts of prime minister and deputy prime minister have been filled by representatives of the “old regime”. At the same time, Assul believes that the people will quietly continue trying to oust “the entire regime from power”.
The dissatisfaction of Algerians is being spurred on by the unfavourable social and economic situation in the country. The protesters are demanding pro-Western reforms and they’re demanding changes in the country. According to unofficial sources, more than one million people took part in the protests in Algeria on 1 March.
The lack of a viable successor and the inability of the current elite to solve the economic crisis are contributing to the uncertainty of Algeria’s political future, something that the current regime’s main opponents – the Islamists – will inevitably try to take advantage of. The weakening of the vertical power structure and the continuing protests are creating a breeding ground for the resurrection of Islamist organisations. In particular, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb recently published a talk entitled “Algeria…Getting Out From The Dark Tunnel”, which states that the organisation is ready to take advantage of the unrest when the time is right.
Algerian Arab SpringThe destabilisation of Algeria will undoubtedly cause problems for Europe. Besides the inevitable influx of new refugees, Europe could also face a threat to its energy security, given that Algeria provides a third of the gas consumed in Europe and as much as half of the gas consumed in Spain. At the same time, the weakness of the current government during a possible civil conflict will be exacerbated by the situation in the bordering countries of Libya and Mali. ISIS jihadists have strong positions in both countries, while the lengthy and poorly controlled border with Mali and Libya risks the spread of Islamic fundamentalism into the vast territories of north and north-west Africa.
The US will also not fail to take advantage of the complex situation in Algeria. Under the pretext of fighting terrorism, Washington will easily be able to implement plans to penetrate and consolidate its positions in the Sahel-Sahara Region. A large-scale military presence will also allow the US to secure its interests in reorienting Algeria’s energy policy towards the development of shale gas and implementing its strategic objective of organising the supply of this raw material to Europe.
Whatever happens, Algeria is facing several serious challenges at once and its ability to respond is being severely hampered by a lack of any notable potential leaders either within government or within the ranks of the opposition.
Un reciente artículo llama la atención sobre el significado económico de China; es breve y asombroso. La nota que sigue es de Chris Kanthan para el sitio web Sott.net. En este sitio web se ofrecen links para cada uno de los items mencionados.
Título: China's Global Leadership List
Texto: ChinaThe vast majority of Americans have absolutely no idea how advanced China has become. Perusing social media comments by Americans, it's clear that too many of them are burdened by misinformation and prejudice. "China is 100 years behind"... "All Chinese products are crap" ... "China can't innovate" ... "It's a communist, poor, polluted country" ... and, of course, the most popular: "China's economy is about to collapse." Furthermore, people reinforce their biases by gleefully sharing only anti-China articles. Anything remotely positive about China is attacked as "Chinese propaganda."
This is a potent mix of ignorance, hubris and xenophobia. No wonder that Trump supporters were so confident of a trade deal in which Xi Jinping would surrender unconditionally and quickly. While it's true that China as whole has a long way to go to in terms of GDP-per-capita, many big cities in China are essentially "developed economies." And China has surpassed the US in many areas and is closing in rapidly in other areas.
If you don't know your competitor, you're certain to lose the game. So here are some quick statistics on China's global leadership:
#1 in exports (been so since 2009 when it overtook Germany)
#1 in manufacturing value added (been so since 2010 when China took the crown from the US, which had been #1 for the previous 110 years)
#1 in foreign exchange reserves (>$3 trillion)
#1 holder of US debt (>$1 trillion)
#1 trade partner for 130 countries
#1 in PPP GDP (been so since 2014 when it surpassed the US)
#1 in contribution to global GDP growth for the past decade (25-35%, which is twice that of the US). That is, if the world GDP grows by $100, then $25-$35 comes from China.
#1 in Middle Class population (350 million in 2018; and it overtook the US in 2015)
#1 in poverty elimination (800 million lifted out of extreme poverty)
#1 retail market in the world by 2019 ($5.6 trillion)
#1 in e-commerce (42% of world market)
#1 in personal luxury goods sales (35% of global market)
#1 luxury car market (Example: 400,000 BMWs manufactured in China in 2017)
#1 in international tourism spending (In 2010, Chinese tourists spent half as much as Americans; and by 2017, China was spending twice as much as the US)
#1 in smartphones (Chinese brands have 40% of the global market)
#1 in 4G mobile network (1.2 billion users)
#1 in Internet users (830 million people), fiber-optic broadband users (320 million)
#1 in solar, wind and hydroelectric power (link)
#1 in electric cars - manufacturing and sales (link)
#1 in steel, cement, aluminum production (link, link, link)
#1 in manufacturing of conventional cars (>26 million per year)
#1 in consumer drones (70% of global market)
#1 in skyscrapers (link)
#1 in high-speed railways or bullet trains (30,000 Km or 18,000 miles)
#1 in supercomputers (227 out of the 500 supercomputers are Chinese)
#1 in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) college graduates (4x as many as the US)
#1 in scientific publications (link)
#1 in mobile payments (50x larger than the US)
#1 in 5G (China owns about 40% of 5G patents, and the world's leading 5G vendor and patent holder is none other than Huawei)
And China is right behind the US in many areas:
#2 in nominal GDP ($13.5 trillion in 2018)
#2 in billionaires (about 400 billionaires)
#2 in millionaires (3.5 million millionaires)
#2 stock market, by market cap (overtook Japan in 2014, became #3 in 2018 and is about to be #2 again in 2019)
#2 importer ($2.1 trillion)
#2 in international patents - according to WIPO (#1 if patents filed in China are included)
#2 in R&D spending - according to US National Science Board (#1 if measured by purchasing power)
#2 in Unicorns (startup companies worth more than $1 billion. 142 in China versus 175 in US)
#2 in VC Funding ($100 billion of venture capital funding for about 2,900 startups)
#1 in Artificial Intelligence (AI) funding, startups and publications (link, link)
#2 in number of satellites in orbit/space (280 satellites as of 2018)
What should the US do? Try to "contain" China? Start World War III to maintain our global hegemony? Become depressed and paranoid? Thankfully, the answer to all those questions is "NO." There are constructive things that America can and should do to prepare for a future where it is no longer the global hegemon. I will discuss those in my next article.
