Domine, dirige nos

El lema de la ciudad de Londres es Domine, dirige nos, frase latina algo ambigua que puede significar tanto "Dios, guíanos", como "Amo, guíanos" o "Maestro, guíanos". Teniendo en cuenta que los "maestros" de las finanzas mundiales tienen su sede precisamente en la City londinense, uno puede ir vislumbrando a qué se refiere el lema, al menos en estos tiempos. Nuestra hipótesis, ya lo hemos señalado en este blog, es que, contra el pueblo trabajador e incluso la dirigencia política (tanto tory como laborista), la Corona británica y la City de Londres han alentado astuta y victoriosamente el Brexit. ¿Para qué? Para seguir con las finanzas, claro! Esta vez, a las órdenes del nuevo amo global: China. Ya van varios los analistas que vienen señalando esto mismo. Acá va otro: Thierry Meyssan, que ayer publicó lo que sigue en Red Voltaire: 


Título: La nueva política exterior británica

Epígrafe: La prensa occidental no para de repetir que, al decidir su salida de la Unión Europea, los británicos se han aislado del resto del mundo y que tendrán que enfrentar terribles consecuencias económicas. Pero el descenso de la libra esterlina podría convertirse en una ventaja en el seno de la Commonwealth, una familia mucho más extensa que la UE y que abarca los seis continentes. Pragmática, la City podría convertirse rápidamente en el centro mundial del yuan e implantar la divisa china en el seno mismo de la Unión Europea.

Texto: Isabel II, reina del Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte, de Antigua y Barbuda, de Australia, de las Bahamas, de Barbados, de Belice, de Canadá, de Granada, de las islas Salomón, de Jamaica, de Nueva Zelanda, de Papúa Nueva Guinea, de San Cristóbal y Nieves, de San Vicente y las Granadinas, de Santa Lucía y de Tuvalu.

Estados Unidos sigue preocupado por su propia capacidad para convencer a la Unión Europea de participar activamente en la OTAN y sobre la voluntad del Reino Unido de mantener la alianza militar que construyeron desde 1941 para dominar el mundo. La preocupación estadounidense viene del hecho que, al contrario de lo que alegan los dirigentes europeos, el Brexit no aísla al Reino Unido. Más bien le permite volverse hacia la Commonwealth y establecer contactos con China y Rusia.


El sometimiento de los europeos como miembros de la OTAN

Estados Unidos y el Reino Unido habían previsto empujar los miembros de la Unión Europea a anunciar, en la cumbre de la OTAN a celebrarse en Varsovia el 8 y el 9 de julio, el aumento de sus presupuestos militares a un 2% de su PIB. También debería adoptarse en ese encuentro un plan de despliegue de fuerzas a las puertas de Rusia, plan que incluiría la creación de una unidad logística conjunta OTAN-UE, para poner en común helicópteros, navíos, drones y satélites.

El Reino Unido fue hasta ahora el país de la Unión Europea que más aportaba en el sector militar, representando así más de un 15% del presupuesto de defensa de esta. Estaba además al mando de la operación Atalante, destinada a garantizar la seguridad del transporte marítimo a lo largo del Cuerno de África, y había puesto navíos a disposición de la alianza atlántica en el Mediterráneo. También estaba previsto que aportaría tropas para la constitución del grupo de combate de la UE. El Brexit viene a cuestionar todos esos compromisos.

Para Washington, la cuestión es saber si Londres aceptará o no incrementar su participación directa en la OTAN –donde ya es el segundo contribuyente– como medio de compensar lo que hacía en el seno de la Unión Europea, pero sin sacar de ello ningún beneficio propio. Aunque Michael Fallon, el actual ministro de Defensa británico prometió no socavar los esfuerzos comunes de la OTAN y la UE, nadie puede imaginar por qué aceptaría Londres poner más tropas bajo las órdenes de un mando extranjero.

Por consiguiente, Washington se interroga sobre todo sobre la voluntad de Londres de continuar la alianza militar que Estados Unidos había venido construyendo con la Corona británica desde 1941. Por supuesto, no se puede excluir la posibilidad de que el Brexit sólo sea una maniobra de los británicos para renegociar –en busca de nuevas ventajas– su «relación especial» con los «americanos». Parece, en realidad, mucho más probable que el verdadero objetivo de Londres sea ampliar sus relaciones con Pekín y Moscú sin renunciar por ello a las ventajas de su convenio con Washington.


Las agencias secretas anglosajonas

Durante la Según Guerra Mundial, y incluso antes de entrar en guerra, Estados Unidos concluyó con el Reino Unido un pacto que se menciona en la Carta del Atlántico [1]. El objetivo de ambos países era unirse para garantizar la libre circulación marítima y extender el libre intercambio.

Esta alianza se concretó con el acuerdo de los «Cinco ojos», que es actualmente la base de la cooperación entre 17 agencias de inteligencia de 5 Estados diferentes (Estados Unidos, el Reino Unido y otros 3 miembros de la Commonwealth: Australia, Canadá y Nueva Zelanda).

Los documentos revelados por Edward Snowden demuestran que la red Echelon constituye, en su forma actual, «una agencia de inteligencia supranacional que no responde a las leyes de sus propios Estados miembros». Esto ha permitido a los «Cinco ojos» tanto espiar a personalidades como el secretario general de la ONU y la canciller alemana como mantener una vigilancia de masas contra sus propios ciudadanos.

Exactamente de la misma manera, Estados Unidos y el Reino Unido fundaron, en 1948, una segunda agencia supranacional: la Oficina de Proyectos Especiales (Office of Special Projects) que dirige las redes stay-behind de la OTAN, conocidas bajo el nombre de Gladio.

El profesor Daniele Ganser demostró que esa Oficina organizó numerosos golpes de Estado y operaciones terroristas en Europa [2] [3]. Al principio se afirmó que la «estrategia de la tensión» apuntaba a evitar que los comunistas lograran llegar al poder en Europa por la vía electoral. Pero luego resultó que su verdadero objetivo era principalmente alimentar el odio al comunismo y justificar la protección militar anglosajona. Nuevos documentos desclasificados han permitido comprobar que ese dispositivo existe no sólo para Europa sino también para el mundo árabe [4].

Finalmente, en 1982, Estados Unidos, el Reino Unido y Australia crearon una tercera agencia supranacional cuya parte visible se compone de falsas ONGs –la NED (National Endowment for Democraty) y sus cuatro filiales: ACILS, CIPE, NDI e IRI [5].

Esta nueva agencia se especializó en la organización de golpes de Estado disfrazados de «revoluciones».

Si bien existe una impresionante cantidad de literatura sobre esos tres programas, nada se sabe sobre las agencias supranacionales que los dirigen.


La «relación especial»

Estados Unidos, que proclamó su independencia y se separó de la Corona británica en 1776, no se reconcilió con el Reino Unido hasta finales del siglo XIX. Ambos Estados se aliaron durante la guerra contra España en Cuba y, posteriormente, para la explotación de sus dependencias coloniales en China, o sea cuando Washington descubría su propia vocación imperialista. En 1902 se constituyó un club transatlántico para sellar la nueva amistad entre Estados Unidos y el Reino Unido. Se trata de la Sociedad de los Peregrinos (The Pilgrims Society), tradicionalmente presidida por el monarca inglés.

La reconciliación se selló en 1917, con el proyecto común de creación de un Estado judío en Palestina [6], y Estados Unidos entró en guerra del lado del Reino Unido. Desde entonces, ambos países han venido compartiendo diversos medios militares, incluyendo la bomba atómica. Sin embargo, cuando se creó la Commonwealth, Washington se negó a ser miembro de ella ya que se consideraba un igual de Londres.

A pesar de algunos choques de intereses durante los ataques británicos contra Egipto (Canal de Suez) o contra Argentina (guerra de las Malvinas) o en el momento de la invasión estadounidense contra la isla de Granada, las dos superpotencias se han apoyado estrechamente.

La Corona británica garantizó el financiamiento del inicio de la campaña electoral de Barack Obama, en 2008, haciéndole llegar generosas contribuciones a través del traficante de armas británico-iraquí Nadhmi Auchi. Durante su primer mandato, un gran número de colaboradores directos del flamante presidente Barack Obama eran, en secreto, miembros de la (Pilgrims Society), cuya sección estadounidense estaba encabezada en aquel momento por Timothy Geithner. Pero Obama fue separándose poco a poco de esos personajes, dando así a la Corona la impresión de que no estaba recibiendo ningún tipo de compensación por su colaboración. Las cosas empeoraron con las duras declaraciones del presidente estadounidense sobre el primer ministro británico David Cameron, publicadas enThe Atlantic [7] y la visita de los Obama a la reina Isabel II, en ocasión de su cumpleaños, no logró mejorar la relación.


La Commonwealth

Al salir de la Unión Europea y alejarse de Estados Unidos, el Reino Unido no se aísla sino que se pone nuevamente en condiciones de utilizar su mejor carta: la Commonwealth.

Todo el mundo parece olvidar que, en 1936, Winston Churchill lanzó la idea de incorporar los actuales miembros de la Unión Europea a la Commonwealth. Su proposicion se estrelló entonces contra la agravación de la situación que acabó dando lugar a la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Sólo después del fin de ese conflicto, el propio Churchill lanzó nuevamente la idea de los «Estados Unidos de Europa» [8] y convocó la Conferencia del Movimiento Europeo en La Haya [9].

La Commonwealth es una organización de 53 miembros y sus únicos aspectos políticos son los valores ingleses básicos: igualdad racial, estado de derecho y derechos humanos ante la «Razón de Estado». Sin embargo, propone a sus miembros el desarrollo en materia de negocios y deportes. Además, pone expertos en común en todos los sectores.

La reina Isabel II, soberana de 16 Estados miembros, es simultáneamente la jefa de la Commonwealth (título no hereditario sino sometido a elección).


¿Qué quieren los británicos?

Desde la perspectiva de Londres, fue Estados Unidos quien rompió la «relación especial» al dejarse llevar por la hibris(concepto griego que podría definirse como “ausencia de mesura”) del mundo unipolar y decidiendo solo su política exterior y financiera, precisamente en momentos en que ha perdido el estatus de primera potencia económica mundial y de primera potencia militar en materia de guerra convencional.

Emerge así el interés del Reino Unido en no poner «todos los huevos en la misma cesta», por conservar sus intereses comunes con Washington pero apoyándose a la vez en la Commonwealth y estableciendo nuevas relaciones con Pekín y Moscú, ya sea directamente o a través de la Organización de Cooperación de Shanghai (OCS).

Precisamente el mismo día que los británicos se pronunciaban en las urnas a favor del Brexit, la OCS incorporaba a sus filas dos miembros de la Commonwealth –la India y Pakistán [10]. Hasta ahora no había en la OCS ningún miembro de la Commonwealth.

Hasta el momento se desconocen los contactos que el Reino Unido ya debe haber establecido con Rusia, pero sí se observan síntomas de su acercamiento a China.

En marzo pasado, el London Stock Exchange, la entidad que administra las bolsas de valores de la City y de Milán, dio a conocer su proyecto de fusión con la Deutsche Börse, que administra la Bolsa de Francfort, la Cámara de compensación Clearstream y el Eurex. Estaba previsto que ambas partes decidieran la operación justo después del referéndum sobre el Brexit. El anuncio resulta más sorprendente aún si se tiene en cuenta que las reglas europeas prohíben terminantemente este tipo de operación, que equivaldría a la creación de una «posición dominante». Eso indica que las dos partes interesadas tenían previsto que el Reino Unido saldría de la Unión Europea.

El London Stock Exchange anunció además un acuerdo con el China Foreign Exchange Trade System (CFETS) y se convirtió en junio pasado en la primera bolsa del mundo que trabaja con bonos del tesoro chino. Así que ya estaba lista la mesa para hacer de la City londinense el caballo de Troya chino en la Unión Europea, en detrimento de la supremacía estadounidense.


Notas:
       
[1] «Carta del Atlántico, 14 de agosto de 1941», por Franklin Delano Roosevelt y Winston Churchill, Red Voltaire.

[2] Les Armées Secrètes de l’OTAN, Daniele Ganser, Demi-Lune, 2006.

[3] Esa importantísima investigación puede ser consultada en español en nuestro sitio web que ha traducido y publicado por partes el libro del profesor Daniele Ganser.

[4] America’s Great Game: The CIA’s Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East, Hugh Wilford, Basic Books, 2013.

[5] «La NED: las redes de la injerencia “democrática”» y «La NED, vitrina legal de la CIA», por Thierry Meyssan, Red Voltaire, 21 de noviembre de 2004 y 11 de octubre de 2010.

[6] «¿Quién es el enemigo?», por Thierry Meyssan, Red Voltaire, 4 de agosto de 2014.

[7] «The Obama Doctrine», por Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic(Estados Unidos), Voltaire Network, 10 de marzo de 2016.

[8] «Winston Churchill speaking in Zurich on the United States of Europe», por Winston Churchill, Voltaire Network, 19 de septiembre de 1946.

[9] «Historia secreta de la Unión Europea», por Thierry Meyssan,Red Voltaire, 16 de enero de 2005.

[10] «La India y Pakistán entraron en la OCS el día del Brexit», por Alfredo Jalife-Rahme, La Jornada (México), Red Voltaire, 1º de julio de 2016.

El verdadero objetivo

El verdadero objetivo es el de siempre, chicos: meterse, husmear, operar, teledirigir sus operetas con el cipayaje local. ¿Sabe el argentino medio lo que realmente significa tener bases del Imperio en su propio territorio nacional? Convendría preguntarles a los colombianos, por ejemplo. A los afganos, si se requiere mayor claridad. Leemos en RT en español: 


Título: ¿Cuál es el verdadero objetivo de las bases militares de EE.UU. en Argentina?

Epígrafe: Hace algunas semanas se supo que el gobierno argentino habilitaría la instalación de bases militares estadounidenses para apoyar "tareas científicas".

Texto: Si bien la información ha sido presentada tanto por el gobierno argentino como por distintos medios de comunicación como un desarrollo con fines pacíficos, diversos analistas opinan distinto.

En concreto se trata de dos proyectos: uno en la provincia de Tierra del Fuego, la más austral de Argentina; y otro en la llamada "triple frontera" entre este país, Paraguay y Brasil.

"Las excusas que han permitido a Washington desplegar más de un centenar de bases militares en Latinoamérica, que se extienden desde Guatemala y el Caribe hasta la Patagonia, son siempre altruistas", explicó el periodista Walter Goobar. Y detalló que entre los argumentos se destacan la supuesta "ayuda humanitaria, apoyo ante catástrofes, combate al narcotráfico o apoyo al desarrollo y la investigación científica".

Elsa Bruzzone, especialista en temas de geopolítica, estrategia y defensa nacional y miembro del Centro de Militantes para la Democracia Argentina (CEMIDA), opinó en el mismo sentido. "Estas bases encubiertas siempre las instalan en zonas donde hay recursos naturales altamente estratégicos: agua, tierra fértil para producción de alimentos, minerales, hidrocarburos, biodiversidad”, dijo.

“Lo que buscan es cerrar el cerco sobre todos los recursos naturales que tenemos en nuestra América", añadió la especialista y detalló que las bases militares, "cubiertas y encubiertas, que ha instalado en Centroamérica y el Caribe, sumadas a las que tienen en Colombia, Perú, Chile, Paraguay, junto a la base militar de la OTAN en Malvinas cierran el cerco sobre todos nuestros recursos naturales y reafirman su presencia en la Antártida”.

Cabe destacar que más allá del Canal de Panamá, existe solo otro paso entre el océano Atlántico y el Pacífico que es el llamado Estrecho de Magallanes ubicado, justamente, en Tierra del Fuego. Además es el territorio continental más cercano a la Antártida, que aun hoy está en disputa.


Recursos estratégicos y dominio del Atlántico Sur

No hay que olvidar que "la Antártida es la mayor reserva de agua dulce congelada en el mundo. Justamente en ese sector es donde nos disputamos soberanía Argentina, Chile y Gran Bretaña", sostuvo Bruzzone. Al mismo tiempo comentó que en la Península Antártica se encuentran "los mayores yacimientos de hidrocarburos de la región y hay minerales altamente estratégicos que son indispensables para la industria militar y la aeroespacial".

Por otra parte, la base que se quiere instalar en la frontera entre Paraguay, Argentina y Brasil persigue, para estos analistas, un objetivo también muy claro. Allí se ubica parte del Acuífero Guaraní, "el mayor manantial subterráneo de agua dulce del mundo, con un total de 1.200.000 km²", detalló Goobar.

El periodista analizó que "hay un diseño geopolítico y estratégico de Washington" en la instalación de estas bases. Su objetivo "es recuperar y aumentar la presencia militar en América del Sur".

Respecto a la Triple Frontera, el sociólogo Atilio Borón observó que “Estados Unidos tiene un interés muy grande de asegurarse una presencia decisiva en la región porque resulta que allí se encuentran las mayores reservas de litio del planeta. La zona del norte argentino y el sur boliviano es como la Arabia Saudita del siglo XXI”.

Asimismo expresó que "el petróleo va a desaparecer y la humanidad va seguir su curso. Pero si no hay agua se acaba la especie humana. Y acá está casi la mitad del agua dulce del planeta Tierra". El analista subrayó que las estimaciones "van del 42% al 45% según como se midan los acuíferos subterráneos. Con el 7% de población mundial se tiene casi el 50% del agua dulce del mundo y ellos tienen un problema grave de desertificación".


Pedido de explicaciones al gobierno argentino

Daniel Di Stafano, diputado nacional por la provincia de Misiones, presentó un proyecto de resolución para que el gobierno de Mauricio Macri informe al Congreso todos los detalles sobre la instalación de las dos bases militares. 

Según el legislador la intención es conocer “las verdaderas intenciones y las garantías bilaterales acordadas entre ambos países, en cuanto a la conservación del ambiente, la seguridad nacional en la región y los objetivos concretos de la cooperación”.

Misiones es la provincia Argentina ubicada en la Triple Frontera. En ese sentido Di Stafano manifestó: “Los misioneros queremos saber cuáles son las condiciones en que se llevará adelante la instalación de una base militar en nuestro territorio. Además nos preocupa la pérdida de soberanía y nuestros recursos naturales”.

Siria: la lucha continúa

Lentamente, avanzando siempre sobre terreno minado (literalmente), apoyados por la artillería y la aviación nacional y la rusa, las fuerzas sirias continúan con sus avances en varios de los frentes abiertos. El más importante es el de Alepo, en el norte del país. Al respecto, recogemos estas dos notas del sitio web libanés Al Manar: 


Título: Fuerzas sirias cerca de victoria total en las Granjas de Malaah, en Alepo

Texto: Expertos militares han señalado que las fuerzas gubernamentales están al borde de una completa victoria sobre los grupos terroristas en el campo de batalla de Al Malaah, en el norte de Alepo.

“Los comandantes del Ejército sirio conocían que los grupos terroristas, como Nureddin al Zinki, Failaq al Sham, Aynad al Sham, Ahrar al Sham, el Movimiento Turkestani y el Frente al Nusra, habían reunido a más de 2.000 combatientes en la región de Al Malaah y planeaban hacer un amplio uso de coches bomba para empujar a las fuerzas gubernamentales lejos de sus posiciones”, dijeron los expertos.

“Los comandantes del Ejército abrieron una puerta temporal en el frente retirando a sus soldados de parte de su primera línea de defensa. Los grupos terroristas, que pensaron que la retirada del Ejército era real, entraron en la trampa”.

“Tan pronto como los grupos terroristas pasaron por la apertura, los soldados sirios la cerraron y otras unidades del Ejército, incluyendo artillería, morteros y misiles bombardearon a los terroristas atrapados matando al menos a 150 de ellos en un solo lugar y una sola noche”, añadieron.

“El Ejército usó esta táctica varias veces en diferentes frentes el jueves por la noche, lo que llevó al debilitamiento de la capacidad de combate de los grupos terroristas y produjo más avances del Ejército en el sur de la región de Malaah, capturando posiciones a sólo dos kilómetros de la autopista del Castillo, una línea de suministro muy importante para los grupos terroristas que se hallan en los barrios del Este de la ciudad de Alepo y que discurre hacia Turquía”. Duros combates tienen lugar ahora en esa región.

Esto podría llevar a la rápida captura de la autopista del Castillo. “Tras tomar el pleno control sobre las Granjas de Al Malaah, la autopista del Castillo estará en manos del Ejército sirio y sus aliados, lo que significa que se cortará la línea de suministros entre los grupos terroristas en Alepo y sus patrocinadores en Turquía”, dijeron las fuentes.

Por otro lado, el Ejército sirio ha tomado una región industrial en el norte de la provincia de Alepo y capturado varios complejos de edificios.

La ofensiva militar en la región industrial de Al Layamon infligió grandes pérdidas a los militantes y les obligó a retirarse de la zona. Los terroristas utilizaron armas pesadas, pero no consiguieron retrasar el avance de las tropas sirias.


***


Título: Las fuerzas del "Tigre" se despliegan en el frente de Alepo

Texto: La batalla de Alepo prosigue lentamente pero de forma segura y su objetivo es el de estrechar el cerco alrededor de los terroristas situados en el este de la ciudad.

Tras haber liberado las Granjas de Malaah, al norte de Alepo, la estratégica ruta del Castillo está cerca de caer en manos del Ejército sirio y sus aliados.

Según fuentes militares, la batalla prosigue lentamente y etapa tras etapa. Cada paso ha sido bien estudiado. El general Suhail al Hassan “el Tigre” y sus fuerzas, conocidas por su valor y su inteligencia táctica, llevan a cabo operaciones en este frente. Su táctica es simple: la primera etapa consiste en destruir las rampas de lanzamiento de los misiles norteamericanos TOW que poseen los grupos armados. Esto ha permitido a las fuerzas sirias debilitar sensiblemente a los terroristas.

Los kamikazes son el segundo objetivo del Ejército sirio. Estos terroristas son abatidos antes de que puedan emplear sus cinturones explosivos.

El general Hassan tiene una buena experiencia en este campo debido a los numerosos combates que ha dirigido contra los kamikazes del EI y el Frente al Nusra en el campo del oeste de Alepo. El Ejército no permite que ningún coche bomba se le escape y los destruye mediante misiles tierra-tierra antes de que inicien su marcha.

La razón principal de los últimos éxitos militares es simple: los comandantes sirios están presentes en el frente al lado de sus soldados y sin su presencia la orden de avanzar no es dada. Los éxitos militares son la obra conjunta de los oficiales y los simples soldados que luchan unos al lado de otros.

El “Ejército de la Conquista” (Yaish al Fatah) ha reconocido haber perdido en las últimas 24 horas 4 tanques, 6 vehículos blindados y 3 lanzacohetes en las Granjas de Maalah. El balance de pérdidas humanas es de varios centenares. El domingo por la mañana, el Ejército sirio continuaba avanzando en la región de las fábricas de Yarmun, situadas al norte de Alepo, y tomado el control de las mismas tras violentos combates.

Bienvenidos a la Edad Oscura

El Brexit sigue dando lugar a opiniones de todo tipo y por parte de una gran variedad de analistas. La nota que sigue es de Anush Kapadia, cientista social del Instiuto de Tecnología de Bombay; fue publicada estos días en el sitio web NDTV com. No se la pierdan:


Título: Brexit Is What A Dark Age Feels Like. Here's Why

Texto:  Elites in the West are in trouble. Their careful curation of the polity and economy is coming badly unstuck. Their credibility in delivering consumerist goodies is shattering. They have worked so assiduously to eliminate and denigrate all alternative social models that the frustration people now feel has no where to go, no reasoned idiom in which to express itself, so it comes out all over the place. 

This is what a dark age feels like.

The only alternative grand narrative to the liberal market that withstood its celebratory march was nationalism. Especially after 9/11, nationalism of a particularly conservative kind was consistently mobilized by elites in the West in order to create the conditions for an aggressive foreign policy and as a complement to the panglossian idea that unfettered markets created the best of all worlds. Nationalism and neoliberalism were mutually reinforcing up to the point where capitalism continued to deliver the goodies. Once the goose stopped laying those eggs, this dynamic became antagonistic. This is what we are seeing today.

There is an old trope in left politics that the working class fail to act and vote in their own interest thanks to the smoke-screen of nationalism. Workers of the postwar world failed to unite across national borders, and instead forged alliances with their own national elites, out of love for nation rather than their fellow workers spread across the world. 

The reality is more prosaic. These elites, fearing a leftward slide of their own working classes, were convinced to share some of the spoils of capitalism in the interest of maintaining their own hegemony and maintaining the social peace. Workers of the West took the deal, gaining the welfare state and steady employment in return. Nationalism served as a useful framing device for what was, at base, an inter-class alliance, one that survived as long as the economy delivered the goodies.

In the course of this arrangement, something called "economic growth" became a common-sense, desirable thing. Yet, the obsession with growth on the part of those already rich, something we now appreciate as potentially world-ending, has a straightforward political root. In the absence of unceasing growth, the commitment to deliver more goodies to working people could only be make good through redistribution. If the pie isn't growing, the only way you can give a majority the larger slice you promised is by giving someone else a smaller one. And growth started to hit the rails in the 1970s with oil shocks, labour unrest, and general economic maturity after decades of postwar prosperity. Elites were faced with a stark choice: redistribute, or find another source of growth, quick.

The solution they found was given the rosy name of "globalization." Moving the manufacturing sector, which tended to be powerfully unionized, overseas to "emerging markets" with authoritarian control over their own working people was the solution. It was the elites of the world who united. Those of East Asia benefited from access to lucrative Western markets and created their own growth miracles, while Western elites were able to discipline their working populations with the threat of outsourcing, even while restarting the growth engine through the delivery of cheaper-made goods and the import of well-behaved immigrants grateful for a chance to work in the West. New technology and a new geopolitics of oil assisted this new global arrangement.

This was always a fudge. Western elites were just "buying time," to quote German sociologist Wolfgang Streeck. The myth of a flexible labour force able to be retrained into the burgeoning service sector was just that: a myth. The legacy of postwar industrialism is a working class with no work; once proud industrial cities now turned to rust dot the north of England and the American midwest. The fix worked so long as capitalism delivered the goodies, first with cheaper goods, then with public debt, and most-recently with private debt that was delivered on a scale so far unimaginable thanks to developments in financial engineering and planet-sized pools of saving streaming in from East Asian growth.

The Crisis of 2007 brought the latest fix to an end. Without the ability to pump out debt to a majority with chronically stagnant wages, Western elites could no longer deliver the goods to rustbelt populations. So convinced of their stranglehold on the polity, elites badly miscalculated the post-crisis clean-up by having the government bail out the banks - and then paying for the resulting ballooning in the deficit by slashing an already-bare-bones welfare state. They crashed the economy and made working people pay for it. The mask had slipped. The national pact now turned sour.

Because the inter-class pact was forged in the language of nation, while other narratives went by the way side, the complaint at its shredding was also voiced in that language. It was not that years of low investment had decimated the welfare state; it was that immigrants were placing undue burdens on it, whatever the facts might say. The irony in the UK is that because of a lack of investment in domestic human capital, the UK has to import most of the labour that runs its National Health Service; the crown jewel of the welfare state is run by immigrants. 

Without growth, nationalism was the lone pillar on which the post-industrial order in the West could stand. And nationalism came to be the preserve of those left behind. Metropolitan elites, already spatially segregated from the rest of the country by astronomical housing prices in cities, sneer at the rest of the country as simply being another country. London, the south-east of the UK, and the American coasts are indeed plugged in to a different global order, one only nominally attached to the rest of the legacy nation-state. Those cities that successfully made the switch to globalized service industries developed a cosmopolitan, worldy ethic, while the rest were left to resent broken promises of strong national economies.

Those left behind by the new settlement still had one last asset left, however - their vote. Their anger had to be managed. In adversarial political systems, their resentment could be exploited by political opportunists. It was precisely the fear that such opportunists would flank the Tories from the right that made David Cameron gamble on the referendum to begin with. The gambit was to meant to give vent to the issue - and then squash it at least for a generation. That it failed, albeit narrowly, is again testament to how elites, cosseted and isolated in their world cities, can make serious errors of judgement. Needles to say, Trump is testing the Republican political establishment in much the same way.

Nations are political units but increasingly, they are not economic ones. World cities are connected to developing-nation industrial belts and resource-rich hinterlands in other nations to form a global economic order on its own. Elites from across the world coordinate in ever-deeper ways. Cutting across this global economic order is the vestigial grid of nation states. This contradiction between national polities and global economies will continue to throw up earthquakes like Brexit.

The elite-run press wail at the death of reasonable discourse, the failure of experts to convince the public with technocratic arguments, the perfidy of opportunists who weaponize peoples' misery with sheer lies. Yet the simple truth is that reasoned arguments never held the political order together; this was always a liberal myth. The order held together because it delivered the consumerist goodies. And it could only continue to deliver by means of increasingly-fragile fudges. These are now over.

People want a new order in which a sense of belonging and a sense of security, nationalism and economics, go together. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this democratic desire. At base, this is what this vote is about. The British people are of course not alone in this search. In searching for a vision in which nations can be economically strong in a connected world, some opportunists will pair up with genuinely racist elements to make political capital. But to see this as merely the resurgence of some archaic, parochial, provincial populism is to miss the wood for the trees. 

The saddest irony of this vote, however, is that although the underlying impulse is a democratic one, the result will be anything but. Eurocrats will want to punish the UK in order to make an example of it, while British elites themselves will now double down on the slash-and-burn of the welfare state in the name of boosting the economy. Unchecked by the remnants of European social democracy and with the Labour party in shambles, the right-wing of the Tory party will sense that it has the field to itself. The resulting economic pain will of course only further incense those already angry. With the nationalist card now played, the stage is set for old-fashioned class war in one country.

Alta calidad ciudadana

Posteamos esta nota de RT en español de puro cholulos que somos. Parece que para algunos chabones el pasaporte argentino vale por peso propio, al ser indicativo de una “muy alta calidad ciudadana”. Chupate esa mandarina. Así se desprende de un estudio realizado por la consultora internacional Henley & Partners, que evaluó una serie de parámetros que se detallan más abajo. Y eso que el estudio se hizo antes de que nos convirtiéramos en República, de la mano de Lilita y de Mauricio. En fin; pasemos a la nota

Título: Infografía definitiva: Tu destino depende de la ubicación de tu país en este 'ranking'

Texto: Nacer en un país y ser su ciudadano implica tener una lista de opciones. Mientras que para una nación el listado sería largo, para otra sería al revés. En otras palabras, se sabe que nacer en Europa o Estados Unidos no es lo mismo que nacer en Pakistán o Etiopía. Calcular la 'fuerza' de una ciudadanía no es fácil, ya que habría que tener en cuenta diversos factores. Sin embargo, un grupo de investigadores se encargó de hacerlo, y ahora les presentamos en detalle el estudio en este artículo.

La consultora internacional Henley & Partners, en colaboración con el profesor Dimitri Kóchenov, ha elaborado el 'Índice de las ciudadanías según su calidad' (QNI – Quality of nationality index), para averiguar cuáles de estas son más valiosas desde el punto de vista práctico. No se trata de una elección sobre el mejor país para vivir, sino de la diversidad de posibilidades que ofrece una u otra ciudadanía. Los investigadores analizaron 184 países del mundo y los dividieron en cuatro grupos de calidad desde la más alta hasta la más baja.

¿Cómo se calcula el índice?

Con el fin de elaborar un 'ranking' de ciudadanías, los autores utilizaron una serie de factores que influyen en la vida de una persona, dividendo factores en dos grupos: internos y externos.

Los factores internos: son la paz y la estabilidad, la fuerza de la economía y el desarrollo humano. Los autores calculan la paz y la estabilidad utilizando las cifras del Índice Global de Paz anual publicado por el Instituto para la Economía y la Paz. La fuerza económica se mide con el uso de las cifras del Fondo Monetario Internacional que muestran la proporción del Producto Interno Bruto (PIB) de un país en paridad del poder adquisitivo (PPA). Por último, el desarrollo humano en el QNI se mide mediante el índice de Desarrollo Humano de las Naciones Unidas, que se basa en dimensiones como salud, educación y nivel de vida.

Los factores externos son: la diversidad de la libertad para establecerse, el peso de la libertad de establecerse, la diversidad de la libertad de viajar y el peso de la libertad de viajar. Explicamos cómo 'leer' estos factores.

La diversidad de la libertad de establecerse en el marco de este estudio se traduce en el análisis de los requisitos legales para asentarse en un país. En otras palabras, se calcula cuántos países le ofrecen a usted como ciudadano de su nación la posibilidad de permanecer y trabajar en su territorio durante un año sin visado. A su vez, el peso de la libertad de establecerse se compone de la suma de las puntuaciones de estos países en el desarrollo humano y la fuerza económica. Es decir, se mide la calidad real de los territorios que le permiten establecerse.

La diversidad de la libertad de viajar se mide mediante el índice de restricciones de visado elaborado también por Henley & Partners. La clasificación se basa en el número de destinos a donde se puede ir de viaje o de negocios sin visado (se trata de viajes a corto plazo). Por su parte, el peso de la libertad de viajar se compone también de la suma de las puntuaciones de estos países-destinos en el desarrollo humano y la fuerza económica. Es decir, se mide la calidad real de los países que le permiten visitarlos sin visado.

Las 10 ciudadanías más atractivas

Como resultado de los cálculos mencionados, los autores de la investigación concluyeron que Alemania tiene el índice más alto: 83,1% y encabeza la lista por quinto año consecutivo. Según el nivel de PIB per cápita, Alemania se ubica recién en el 20º lugar del mundo. Sin embargo, otros factores como el nivel de vida, la seguridad y la estabilidad de este país europeo lo ubican en los niveles más altos.

Después de Alemania, siguen en el índice QNI los países nórdicos: Dinamarca, Finlandia, Noruega. Suecia e Islandia compartieron la quinta posición, mientras que la sexta fue compartida por Austria e Irlanda. Cierran la lista de los 10 primeros Francia, Suiza, Países Bajos (9) y Bélgica (10). Todos estos Estados presentan un alto nivel de vida y sus ciudadanos son libres de moverse prácticamente por toda Europa.

Las 10 ciudadanías menos atractivas

Al final de lista están los países en zonas de tensión y conflictos: Siria, Pakistán, Etiopía, Chad, Burundi, Sudán, Eritrea, República Centroafricana, Afganistán y República Democrática del Congo.

El índice de la República Democrática del Congo, que ocupa el último lugar, es de tan solo 14,3%. De acuerdo con varios estudios, un recién nacido en este país tiene en 50 veces menos posibilidades de cumplir 5 años que un recién nacido en Japón o Finlandia. Se trata de uno de los países más pobres del mundo en términos de ingreso per cápita, y de acuerdo con el índice QNI, la libertad de reasentamiento de sus ciudadanos es nula.

Las 10 mejores ciudadanías de América Latina

Entre los países latinoamericanos lidera la ciudadanía de Chile, que ocupa la posición número 34 a nivel global. Le siguen Argentina (37), Brasil (38), Uruguay (41) y Paraguay (47).

En el marco de otro 'ranking' de Henley & Partners se reveló cuál es el pasaporte más poderoso del mundo para viajar sin restricciones. Resultó que también es el de Alemania. Por el lado de los países latinoamericanos, el pasaporte que permite acceder a más cantidad de países sin necesidad de un visado es el de Chile. Le siguen los pasaportes de Brasil, Argentina, México, Uruguay y Venezuela. Como podemos ver, las listas de América Latina en ambos índices varían un poco, pero los líderes son los mismos.

Las ciudadanías de la UE y EE.UU.

La superpotencia Estados Unidos es una nación que cuenta con una gran economía, un alto nivel de desarrollo humano y un régimen sin visados con casi todos los países del mundo. Sin embargo, EE.UU. ocupa recién la posición número 28 del índice, situándose por detrás de todos los países de Europa Occidental, exceptuando a Croacia.

EE.UU. prácticamente no tiene acuerdos de establecimiento libre de sus ciudadanos en los territorios de otros países, por lo que el factor de la diversidad de la libertad de establecimiento se encuentra en un nivel bajo. Otro factor negativo que afecta la posición de Estados Unidos es su arsenal nuclear, que impide una puntuación alta en lo que respecta a la paz y la estabilidad.

En cuanto a Europa, cada ciudadano de un país que forma parte de la Unión Europea es un ciudadano de la UE. Sin embargo, lo contrario no siempre es cierto. Por otro lado, la ciudadanía de la Unión Europea introducida en 1992 con la firma del Tratado de Maastricht, puede ser otorgada a residentes de terceros países.

Asimismo, según el índice QNI, la ciudadanía de la UE es más valorada que las de Estados Unidos, Australia, Canadá y Japón.

Brexit: Habla Andre Vltchek

Notable muchacho, Andre Vltchek. En su propio sitio web se define como "...filósofo, novelista, cineasta, periodista de investigación, poeta, dramaturgo, fotógrafo, revolucionario, internacionalista y trotamundos que lucha contra el imperialismo occidental y contra el régimen occidental impuesto al mundo" (http://andrevltchek.weebly.com). Con una presentación así uno está tentado a decir "flaco, tomátelas" y pasar a otra cosa. Sin embargo Astroboy, que a esta altura lee cualquier cosa, se sobrepuso a esa primera impresión y leyó su último ensayo, aparecido ayer en CounterPunch. La cuestión es que quedamos encantaditos con Vltchek y lo queremos compartir. Acá va:


Título: Brexit – Let the UK Screw Itself!

Texto: Oh that poor old United Kingdom! Armies of political commentators based on all continents are now feverishly trying to define to what extent the Brits got fooled, or how severely they will soon get punished for their ‘bold move’.

All over Europe, the neo-Nazis and other right-wingers are celebrating, while most of ‘liberals’ are panic-stricken, running around like a herd of headless chickens, or howling at the moon at night in despair. The Euro-left (as pathetic and bogus as “Euro business class” on domestic European flights) is trying to put the recent referendum into some sort of philosophical perspective, blabbering something about a working class rebellion against the ruling elites.

Some Europeans are even blaming Mr. Putin for the outcome of the referendum, while others see behind the outcome of the vote the specter of an “American conspiracy” or even a “Zionist lobby”.

Things are much more simple. A few million bigoted British voters, many of them old retirees and traditionally conservative, even racist bunch, got scared that their country was soon about to be invaded by unkempt hordes of refugees, or more precisely – by ‘un-people’ (to borrow from George Orwell’s lexicon). While for others, the referendum became a way to express their frustration with the fact that the British working class has lately been getting an increasingly awful deal (read: an increasingly smaller cut from that enormous global loot plundered by both Europe and North America).

Don’t search for any flickers of internationalism or traditional Left-wing ideals in the hearts of those who voted for “Exit”. A great majority of the anti-EU warriors was simply demanding better benefits for itself (the “British people”), as well as “Britain for the Brits” (whatever that really means in this increasingly multi-racial nation).

Of course, the same can be said about the opposite camp! Those who were voting for remaining in the Union were doing so for strictly practical reasons.

Almost no commentator bothered to notice what was truly shocking about the entire referendum process: an absolute lack of progressive ideology, of internationalism and concern for the world as a whole. Both sides (and were there really two sides there) presented a fireworks of shallow selfishness and of pettiness. The profound moral corruption of the West was clearly exposed.

***

Everybody in Europe now wants more, more and more. Screw austerity! “Give us more benefits!” Provide us with better wages, job security, and shorter working hours!

What is shocking is that (oh so innocently!) those demands are only made for the chosen bunch – for the Europeans and North Americans – not for the rest of the globe that is actually paying the bill… And has been paying it for hundreds of damned years, suffering horribly from everything, from slavery, colonialist plunder, genocides triggered by Europe, terrorism against its liberation struggle, to the multi-national corporate looting.

It is high time to re-visit Fanon and Sartre, but in that comfortable, lazy and sclerotic Europe, no one seems to be in the mood for old, solid left-wing internationalist, anti-colonialist ideologies.

Yes, the global decolonizing process was never completed, but that is not on the agenda of those referendums-seeking Europeans. All they want is to have a better life, live longer, and to grow richer! They find it thoroughly unfair, that in the UK, France, Spain or Greece, those big corporations and banks are keeping most of the loot. They want their share. They want a much bigger share. They want it now! That is why they hate capitalism, the “system”. Not because it murders millions of innocent people in all corners of the globe, far away from Europe (such ‘stuff’ doesn’t bother Europeans one tiny bit). Not because it ruins cultures, kills the freedom of the “others”, oh no! They hate it because the “system” is too stingy with its own members!

True, those who are sustaining Europe often have nothing left, not even a few huts, not even the right to keep their own native plants or trees. True, many unemployed Europeans are still driving their cars, flying all over the world in search of perfect vacations, enjoying virtually free education, medical care, parks, cultural institutions, public transportation and countless other benefits. True, most of the refugees are escaping from once rich and independent countries, raped and exploited by the West. But all that is not worth mentioning, there is no need for referendums discussing such ‘irrelevant’ moral issues. And anyway, what would such referendum be exactly about: “To loot or not to loot”? And where are those millions of European citizens who should be signing petitions, demanding it?

It is never pronounced, but there is no one, virtually no one in Europe left, who would want to change this present global system, from top to bottom, and to stop the plunder of the “insignificant others”!

***

The European ‘left’ is as selfish and hypocritical as the ‘right’. In fact, there is no real ‘left’ there, anymore, if the ‘left’ actually means demanding absolutely equal treatment for all the inhabitants of our Planet.

Many Europeans like to blame the United States for the present state of the world (mostly abstractly, anyway). Such accusations are thoroughly hypocritical, bordering on being intellectually deranged. For the United States is nothing else other than a grand European ‘project’, or to quote Jean-Paul Sartre, a “super-European monstrosity.”

In the so-called “New World” (what a chauvinist term anyway; as if the ancient world of native people who were crushed, matters nothing), European settlers robbed natives of their land first, and then exterminated almost all of them. To increase ‘productivity’, they brought millions of slaves from across the ocean. When it suited them, they declared independence, but independence still strictly based on the European exceptionalism, racism, on traditions of superiority complexes and on fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

No matter how barbarically the United States has been behaving abroad, in both 20th and 21st centuries, it has never really managed to catch up (although it certainly tried hard) with that unbridled European savagery, with those horrific extermination and ransacking campaigns ‘the old continent’ has been undertaking for centuries, in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, the Indian Sub-Continent and virtually in all corners of the globe.

“European workers are now victims of US imperialism and the capitalist system,” the pseudo-left constantly tells us. Oh, is that so?

Actually, how thoroughly ridiculous!

What is the ‘capitalist system’ really, if not the legitimate (although philosophically and ethically perverse) brainchild of the West, unnaturally and violently forced down the throats of people on all continents of our Planet?

It is a direct product of European culture (not vice-versa), and was later adopted and ‘perfected’ by the United States.

There is no doubt that Europe is the closest ally of the United States. Or, more precisely, there is hardly any difference between the two, as they were both created on the same conceptual lines (the European ones), on the same religion and on a chauvinistic world-view (open spite for everyone who is not white and religiously/culturally Christian, and on the glorification of expansionism).

Let us finally face the reality: a great majority of Europeans would never want to change the global world order! Western imperialism feeds them, makes them live much richer lives than anyone else on the Planet, while allowing them to work pathetically little. Sub-consciously, even those ‘deprived’ (what a joke!) European workers are deeply grateful to both Washington and to its gladiators. Their main demand is ‘only’ that ‘ordinary Europeans should be getting an even better deal’ than the one they are getting now. The commonly voiced grievance is that ‘the deal was much better and more satisfying some 20 years ago than it is now’.

A better deal at the expense of ‘the others’, of course! But that is never mentioned.

‘Less shillings for those at Goldman Sachs or HSBC, and a bit more for the “common folks” of Europe please!”

All the rest is fine, really! “Those Americans are actually really nice people. Like us, Europeans… Hey, we went there last year, on vacation…”

“Oh, and remember: we don’t want those bloody niggers and dirty Arabs in our cities and villages. They belong where they are, working for us, plundering their own lands so we can retire early, have access to free top medical care and fly to Southeast Asia to shag their young girls after we retire! You give all this to us, and more, or else: screw you, we will leave the European Union which does not care for its people, anymore!”

Of course it is almost never articulated like that. But one has to read between the lines.

Or do my readers really think that those countries ‘ready to follow the British example’ actually care much about anything else other than their own selfish, petty interests?

I have talked to Greeks! I have talked to Spaniards. Most of them really hate ‘foreigners’. Most of them know nothing, absolutely nothing; about what the West is doing all over the world. And frankly, they don’t want to know anything.

And what do the East Europeans want? What about those “poor” and “disappointed” Czechs, Poles and Hungarians? Well, they also want more and more and more, as they always have done. Does anyone really believe that in the 1980s they were dreaming about ‘freedom and democracy’? They were dreaming only about one thing: how to get rid of that Russian romantic idea of internationalism, and how to “return to Europe”, read; how to stop helping the deprived and robbed parts of the world, and instead join the West – the real masters of the world – how to become part of the imperialist and neo-colonialist clique. Those nations, (let’s be honest) are racist to the core, while almost all now members of the EU, are simply loving and admiring the United States! And they are showing open spite for the victims of Western imperialism.

How sorry can one really feel for all of them – for those European ‘victims of the system’?

Forgive me, but I feel absolutely no sympathy for them! Perhaps it is because I have spent too much time in Congo, Kenya, Uganda, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, sub-Continent, Oceania, in Brazilian Amazonia and Peru; with those people that I consider are the ‘real victims’ of the system, of the globally enforced Western regime.

Therefore, I only feel growing outrage over the cynicism that covers like a thick blanket, those discussions about the British referendum (and all other potential European referendums). I am shocked by the shallowness and hypocrisy.

It really appears that the entire continent consists of stubborn ‘global holocaust deniers’, people who sit in front of the chimneys of crematoriums, where their victims are being burned alive, unable to think about anything else except their own comfort and privileges.

For as long as such a mentality prevails (and it has been prevailing for endless centuries), to the rest of the world it will matter very little or nothing whether one or two or five countries opt to leave the European Union.

Whether it is more centrally run, or decentralized, the continent will continue plundering the Planet together with its mighty North American offspring.

It will continue, because the European people want it; they actually indirectly demand it! Like some spoiled, heartless and thoroughly immoral brats, Europeans shout ‘more, more and damn more!’

And they hate, with naked fanaticism, each and every country on Earth, from China to Russia, which is standing on its feet and refusing to accept Western dictates. It is not like that ‘primitive’ racism that one can detect in some parts of the United States; European racism is as profound, fundamentalist, cultural, institutionalized, as it is vitriolic and ancient. ‘Thanks to it’, dozens of cultures and nations have already been annihilated, all over the world. And dozens are being ruined right now as this essay is being written.

The referendum in the UK has proved all this, and more.

Back to Fanon and Sartre: it is clear that the world will not change because the Europeans suddenly got enlightened, realizing that they are living off theft. It cannot be expected from them. There is no remorse. There is not even any recognition of guilt! Look at those thousands of European ‘experts’, sitting in all the UN and ‘development’ agencies, or flying all over the world, preaching to the world about how it should be governed, or those Protestant preachers who are helping to overthrow progressive governments. They do it with absolutely straight faces and no shame! Look at those schools and universities in Europe and the US, giving scholarships to the elites of colonized countries, brainwashing them, and conditioning them for the purpose of committing treason.

Western empires (in the past) and now “the Empire” have already destroyed most of the world, and the masses in Europe and even in North America have been greatly benefiting from those countless heinous crimes against humanity. This terrible process still continues. The world will have to return to the unfinished ‘business’ of the de-colonization struggle if it wants to survive.

There can be no morally acceptable discussion in Europe about the future of the world, of Europe, of the UK or any other European country that would not begin like this:

“We ruined the world. We robbed the world. We are still ruining and robbing it. Because of the West’s imperialism, fundamentalism and greed, hundreds of millions, perhaps a billion human lives have been lost. We are not qualified to govern the Planet and we never were. We cannot indefinitely reward ourselves with ridiculously generous benefits and outrageously high standards of living, as they have been financed by many centuries of looting, genocides and holocausts. Our present-day institutions, from NATO to the EU, are helping to sustain such criminal global order. Some of us now want to dismantle them, on strictly ethical grounds, in the name of the humane race. Therefore we are calling for a referendum…”

Unthinkable, of course! And that is why that entire ‘Brexit’ charade is thoroughly irrelevant for our Planet.

No change will come ‘from within’. ‘The wretched of the Earth’ cannot count on the compassion, on kindness and the decency of the Western public, or on its solidarity. They will have to expose what is behind the ‘civilized’ mask of European culture – a horrible, gangrenous skull reflecting greed and a pathological lust for power. Then, ‘the wretched of the Earth’ would have to demand, in one united voice, what is truly theirs. Not beg, not ask politely, but demand! And eventually, they’d have to take it!

Whether the UK, one of the cradles of Western imperialism and colonialist bigotry, leaves or remains in the EU may have some influence on how the booty is to be divided ‘internally’, but not on much else.

Both sides of referendum, ‘Exit’ and ‘Remain’, gave their clear middle finger salute to the rest of the world. And it is really the right time for the world to return the courtesy.

Turquía contra las cuerdas

Momento delicado para la integridad de Turquía. De la mano de un islamista rabioso con ínfulas otománicas, Turquía logró el dudoso privilegio de estar peleado con todos sus vecinos y con casi todas las grandes potencias al mismo tiempo. Muchos, a esta altura, deben estar con lápiz y goma de borrar sobre los mapas, rehaciendo territorios para cuando el estado turco comience a mostrar signos de descomposición. La nota que sigue apareció originalmente en UNZ Review (http://www.unz.com/tsaker/turkey-on-the-ropes) y fue reproducida hoy en el sitio web TheSaker.is:


Título: Turkey on the ropes

Texto: This has been an amazing week which saw the first clear sign of the collapse of the EU and Turkish President Erdogan presenting his excuses to Russia for the downing of a Russian SU-24 over Syria 7 month ago. While the latter event was largely eclipsed by the former, it might be the sign of something even more dramatic taking place: the collapse of Turkey. Does that seem like hyperbole? Let’s look again.

The Presidency of Erdogan has been nothing short of cataclysmic for Turkey which resulted in a perfect storm of crises, each of the very serious:

1) Crisis in Syria: the Turkish policy of support for Daesh to overthrow Assad has failed. Abjectly so. Not only is Assad still in power, but the latest bombing in Turkey seem to indicated that Daesh is turning against Turkey now (assuming the official explanations is true, which it might not be as we will discuss below). The entire Syria policy of Erdogan is now in shambles.

2) Crisis with the EU: the last thing the Brits did before Brexiting was to tell Turkey that it could join the EU in 3000 years (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3603214/Turkey-course-join-EU-year-3000-insists-David-Cameron.html). Other EU member states were not as direct, but everybody knows that this is true. Furthermore, the grand Erdogan-Merkel friendship and alliance has completely fizzled out.

3) Crisis with the Armenians: when the German Parliament recognized the genocide of the Armenians and, soon thereafter, so did the Pope, it was pretty darn clear that the western powers that be were sending Turkey a simple message: a raised middle finger. Love story over, screw you!

4) Crisis with the USA: US special forces have now been spotted in Iraq wearing Kurdish badges. While minor, this incident is telling and has greatly angered the Turks. Bottom line: the Empire needs the Kurds in Iraq and Syria and Turkey takes second place right now.

5) Crisis with Iran: by supporting Daesh, by trying to sabotage the “Islamic pipeline” and by trying to overthrow Assad, Turkey has completely alienated Tehran.

6) Crisis with the Kurds: by engaging in an even more brutal level of anti-Kurdish violence the Turks have basically re-ignited a full scale civil war and the Kurds are showing no signs of getting weaker. In fact, they are currently more powerful than ever, courtesy of the US invastion of Iraq.

7) Crisis with NATO: following the downing of the Russian SU-24 NATO clearly indicated to Erdogan that he was on his own and that NATO would not get involved in an Turkey-triggered war.

8) Crisis with Russia: the downing of the SU-24 did not result in the expected Russian military response, but resulted in 7 months of crippling economic sanctions by Russia and an enormous loss of prestige by Turkey. More about this later.

So, this can be all summed up by saying that Turkey under Erdogan has shown a truly Ukrainian-level of incompetence, arrogance and delusion. It is in this, truly dramatic, context that Erdogan had to write his letter of apology.

The first thing which should be said about this is that Erdogan took a major political risk: after spending months chest-thumping and declaring urbi et orbi that Turkey will never, ever, apologize if only because Turkey was in the right, this sudden “zag!” puts Erdogan is a very difficult position. Hence the initial rumors that the letter said that he was “sorry” but not “apologizing” or, second variant, that the apology was only to the family of the murdered Russian pilot, but not to Russia. This did not last too long and pretty soon the bewildered Turks gave up trying to give this apology a face-lift. It was exactly what everybody understood it to be: a real full and humiliating apology.

Next there was a statement of the Turkish foreign minister categorically denying that any compensation would be paid. That too lasted a couple of hours until it was admitted that not only would Turkey pay, but Turkey would pay whatever was demanded.

Finally, there is a very real possibility that the bombing of the airport in Ankara Istambul might be a very direct message sent to Erdogan: “if you try to appease the Russians we will unleash hell on you”. And while Daesh is a prime candidate for sending that kind of message, there are other possible candidates: the US, of course, and the Turkish deep-state. To make matters even more complicated, we should not discard any scenario as impossible, including the possibility that Erdogan himself, and his supporters, engaged in a false-flag event to justify (1) cooperation with Russia against terrorism and (2) turning against Daesh. Right now, the official version (Daesh did it) makes sense to me, but I would not discount any other possibility.

What is certain is that the stakes in Turkey are now sky-high and that Erdogan is fighting for his future and, possibly, the future of Turkey as a state. His opening towards Russia and, at the same time, Israel is a clear sign of despair. If only because Russia is unlikely to offer much in terms of rewards for the following reasons:

First, the Russians are now deeply suspicious of Erdogan and consider him a loose cannon, possibly a lunatic, who cannot be trusted and who can make a zag after every zig.

Second, the letter was a first, necessary, step to reopen negotiations, but the negotiations themselves will be a long process. Foreign Ministers Lavrov and Cavusoglu will begin these negotiations this week, but the number of issues to be discussed in very long. Most importantly, the Russians will demand tangible and important steps from Turkey, especially in Syria and in regards to Turkey sponsored terrorism in Russia and the Ukraine. It is by no means clear to me that Erdogan will be willing to make such major concessions. Officially, I expect a lot of smiles and hopeful declarations, but behind closed door the Russians will be making many tough demands. It is not clear to me that Ergodan could yield to the Russian demands even if he wanted to.

Erdogan really appears to have deluded himself that he is some kind of major player and he is now discovering that he is not. What is even worse, he now probably realizes that he has many dangerous enemies and no friends at all.

Potentially, Russia could offer Turkey a lot, way more than just a return to better relations, tourists and a market for Turkish vegetables. But my feeling is that Erdogan is turning to Russia in despair and to improve his bargaining position towards all the others enemies he has made. The problem is that he Russians probably see that too and that they will be very cautious, even if they hide this caution behind all manners of nice diplomatic language.

I might be wrong here, but I think that the Russians want Erdogan out. In their minds they have already “Saakashvilized” him if only because Turkey is an extremely important country, strategically located and Russia cannot afford to have a delusional lunatic ruling it. Furthermore, the Turkish people have a major problem on their hands: a severe case of multiple personality disorder. They have to decide if they want to be secular Europeans, “Young Turk” neo-Fascist nationalists, Islamic radicals, Kemalist secularists? Do they want a impossible mono-ethnic Turkey or can they accept that others not only live there too, but also that these “others” lived in these lands long before the Turkic nomads invaded them? Right now, Turkey is anti-European, anti-Russian, anti-Armenian, anti-Kurdish, anti-Armenian, anti-Christian, anti-Arabic, anti-Persian, anti-Greek, etc. That makes Turkey a big powder keg which any spark could detonate. And the problem for Russia is that this powder keg is uncomfortably close and deeply involved in the Ukraine, Crimea, the Caucasus and Central Asia.

What this all means is that it is in Russia’s strategic interest to have a responsible and trustworthy partner to deal with. Sadly, I don’t see that as very likely because, just as in the case of the Ukraine and Israel, the problem with Turkey is that this an artificial, illegitimate and fundamentally unsustainable country.

Israel, the Ukraine and Turkey are all built on a rabidly nationalist/racist worldview which offers no hope to anybody that does not agree with this worldview. This is why, for the Turks, the Kurds are either “mountain Turks” or “terrorists” who deserve to be shot. It would be naïve to the extreme to think that the mindset which made the genocide of Armenians, along with many other minorities (Christian Assyrians, Syrians, Chaldeans and Greeks), has somehow disappeared especially if we keep in mind that (a) the Turks still deny the reality of this genocide and (b) that this genocide has never stopped, but only slowed down:

Genocide, besides the actual physical destruction of the members of the target group, aims also to erase all traces of the target group’s identity, through forced assimilation. In the Armenian case, it was mainly women and children who were forced to convert to Islam, adopting Turkish or Kurdish names and thus lost their Armenian identity over time. Another measure of the genocidal process is deleting all traces of the population who have been massacred or driven away by such deportations. This includes destruction of all buildings and monuments while renaming all the names of villages, towns, rivers, and other things that can attest to the presence of Armenians in the area. In 1914, the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople presented a list of Armenian sacred places that were under his supervision. The list contained 2,549 religious sites of which 200 were monasteries while 1,600 were churches. A survey in 1974 showed that only 916 Armenian churches could be identified within Turkey’s borders, half of which were almost completely destroyed and among the rest only ruins of 252 items remained. The authorities have also renamed almost all villages, towns, mountains, and rivers in Armenia and changed their historical Armenian name to Turkish ones. This policy continues even in our days when, for example, the Turkish Interior Ministry announced in 2005 that it would rename certain animal Latin names since they had “separatist tendencies”. Armeniana Ovis (sheep) would be renamed Ovis orientalis Anatolicus, while Capreolus Capreolus Armenus (deer) would be called Capreolus Capreolus capreolus. Even Vulpes Vulpes Kurdistanica (red fox) was to be renamed Vulpes Vulpes. The proposal was rejected by UNESCO, the UN agency in charge of these data, referring to the unfounded the Turkish reasons for the changes.

And then there is Cyprus, which the Turks still illegally occupy. Again, such levels of violence in and around artificial and illegitimate countries is something normal and not a temporary fluke (see: the Ukraine and Israel).

What this all means for Russia is that while the Kremlin will warmly welcome Erdogan’s latest “zag” and while efforts will be made to return to a more or less situation, the only possible long term goal for Russia is to support either the break-up or the federalization of Turkey into some kind of more or less civilized country. The good news for Russia is that she really need not make any special efforts towards that goal as the Turks, just like the Israelis and the Ukrainians, are doing a splendid job making sure that their political project never becomes viable. The best thing Russia can do at this point in time is to brace for the likely flare-up of violence in Turkey and try to protect herself, and her allies, from the inevitable fallout.

As for Turkey – the future looks very grim. The latest move to court Russia and Israel will not meaningfully improve the strategic situation for Turkey. At best, it will give the *appearance* of a pseudo-regional détente. But nothing else will change unless the Turkish state itself changes and that is something that the Turkish people do not seem to be willing to accept, at least not in the foreseeable future.

Unos y otros

Por un lado tenemos al Imperio en caída uniformemente acelerada, cada día más grotesco, vociferante, golpista, pendenciero y belicista. Por el otro están los países que se la bancan parejo mientras desarrollan la infraestructura global del futuro. La nota que sigue, de Pepe Escobar para Strategic Culture Foundation, habla de estos últimos. No te la pierdas.


Título: On the Road to United Eurasia

Texto: Whenever President Vladimir Putin stresses Russia’s «all-embracing and strategic partnership» with China, one can hear the proverbial howls of anger emanating from the neocon/neoliberalcon axis in the Beltway.

As he met Chinese president Xi Jinping in Beijng this past Saturday, Putin even allowed himself an understatement; «To say we have a strategic cooperation is not enough anymore. This is why we have started talking about a comprehensive partnership and strategic collaboration. Comprehensive means that we work virtually on all major avenues; strategic means that we attach enormous inter-government importance to this work».

Why understatement? Because this really ventures way beyond a stream of business deals.

Deals, of course, matter; in Beijing, China and Russia advanced 58 projects worth $50 billion. These include a $6.2 billion loan from Beijing to build the 770 km-long high-speed railway between Moscow and Kazan and $12 billion in loans to build an LNG plant in the Russian Arctic.

Russian Railways, Russian investment company Sinara Group, China Railway, and Chinese CRRC will also invest in a plant in Russia to build 100 high-speed trains, designed for the Moscow-Kazan high-speed railway. The railway inevitably will be connected to the future, $100 billion, high-speed expansion of the Trans-Siberian between Moscow and Beijing.

It goes without saying, this is all part of an essential node of the New Silk Roads. And as if this was not enough, in a further, graphic instance of geoeconomic interpolation, Russia and China’s central banks are setting up a yuan clearing mechanism in Russia.


The inter-connectivity bonanza

Putin and Xi met for the 15th time just after Xi concluded a three-nation Eurasia tour – Serbia, Poland and Uzbekistan – where, alongside Foreign Minister Wang Yi, he explicitly laid down the bridge between the New Silk Roads, or One Belt, One Road (OBOR), as they are officially referred to in China, and the development of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Not by accident China has now also struck a «comprehensive strategic partnership» with Serbia, Poland and Uzbekistan – on the way to weaving a broad «China-Europe strategic partnership» in parallel to the development of the SCO.

This already translates into projects such as the Hungary-Serbia railway; the Pupin Bridge on the Danube River in Belgrade; the expansion and upgrading of a power plant in Kostolac; what Beijing calls the China-Europe freight train service (from eastern China to Duisburg in Germany and also Madrid); the Kamchiq Tunnel in Uzbekistan; and last but not least the massive China-Central Asia natural gas pipeline system.

No wonder Xi keeps stressing the «inter-connectivity» theme over and over gain, as economic corridors are being built at breakneck speed, and the China Railway Express all the way to Europe – although not yet on high-speed rail – is already a go.

So there was plenty to talk about at the 16th SCO Council in Tashkent. Plus, the acceleration of full membership to both India and Pakistan; next year will be Iran’s turn.

What this translates to in practice is the amalgamation of the New Silk Roads/OBOR; the Eurasia Economic Union, EEU (as Putin stressed in the St. Petersburg forum); the SCO; financing mechanisms such as the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB); and the overarching Russia-China strategic partnership.

No wonder a certain Sultan Erdogan was watching all this in Ankara with trepidation, and decided to make a move. Erdogan’s attempt at a rapprochement with Russia involves not being hopelessly sidelined in this OBOR/EEU/SCO amalgamation. Turkey cannot afford to be alienated from Russia; the Turkish Stream gas pipeline will be essential to consolidate Ankara’s position as a key energy crossroads towards Europe. At the same time, Ankara must imperatively position itself as a key hub in OBOR.

With India and Pakistan, and later Iran, as full members, the SCO will be able, in the medium term, not only to interface with OBOR on all sides (via the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, CPEC, and also the Indian investment in the Iranian port of Chabahar); but also to be the key player in brokering a solution to the Afghan drama, something that the Americans and NATO would never be able to accomplish. Russia and China have always insisted that Afghanistan needs an Asian solution.


Lean, clean and green

Almost simultaneously to the Putin-Xi meeting in Beijing, and also not by accident, the AIIB turbo-charged its operations.

The AIIB started doing business only six months ago, with 57 founding member countries and $100 billion in committed capital.

It’s scheduled to invest $1.2 billion in 2016. Once again with trademark understatement, Chinese Finance Minister Lou Jiwei said, «the AIIB needs to establish its comparative advantage», profiting from «lessons of developing countries' years of development».

The board approved its first four deals, worth $509 million, with three projects co-financed with the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the United Kingdom Department for International Development and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. They refer to a slum renovation in Indonesia and highways in Pakistan and Tajikistan. A power grid upgrade in Bangladesh will be solely AIIB financed.

And this is just the beginning. The head of AIIB may be Chinese, Jin Linqun (he has promised a «lean, clean and green» AIIB), but one of the five vice presidents is British, Daniel Alexander. Beijing holds 30% of the initial capital but has only 26% of voting power. India holds 7.5% and Russia 5.9%, followed by Germany and South Korea. This is a real multipolar project.

Almost simultaneously to the AIIB in action, Russia and China’s foreign ministers signed a declaration supporting the role of international law, stressing sovereign equality of states; non-interference into internal affairs; and peaceful resolution of disputes. Considering the recent historical record, not exactly The Empire of Chaos’s cup of tea.

Commenting on Brexit, Boris Titov, the Kremlin’s small business ombudsman, ventured, «it’s not long until a united Eurasia – about 10 years». Considering the slowly but surely interpenetration of OBOR, EEU, SCO, AIIB, the NDB and the solid Russia-China partnership inside the G20, that’s more than feasible.

In Beijing, Putin and Xi did discuss their common position in the upcoming G20, only three months away in China; that’s where the real action is, not the G7. Compare it also with NATO’s upcoming warmongering summit in Warsaw; that’s what the West has to «offer» the global South.

In a nutshell; the option to a united Eurasia is chaos. And there’s no question the Empire of Chaos will stop trying to sow chaos. Expect Beijing ordering 1,000 heavy transport aircraft from Russia and Russian ships possibly spotted sooner or later in the South China Sea to add to those perennial howls of anger in the neocon/neoliberalcon galaxy.