A következő címkéjű bejegyzések mutatása: nato. Összes bejegyzés megjelenítése
A következő címkéjű bejegyzések mutatása: nato. Összes bejegyzés megjelenítése

2009. március 18., szerda

Turkey and Russia on the Rise

-
By Reva Bhalla, Lauren Goodrich and Peter Zeihan

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev reportedly will travel to Turkey in the near future to follow up a recent four-day visit by his Turkish counterpart, Abdullah Gul, to Moscow. The Turks and the Russians certainly have much to discuss.

Russia is moving aggressively to extend its influence throughout the former Soviet empire, while Turkey is rousing itself from 90 years of post-Ottoman isolation. Both are clearly ascendant powers, and it would seem logical that the more the two bump up against one other, the more likely they will gird for yet another round in their centuries-old conflict. But while that may be true down the line, the two Eurasian powers have sufficient strategic incentives to work together for now.

Russia’s World

Russia is among the world’s most strategically vulnerable states. Its core, the Moscow region, boasts no geographic barriers to invasion. Russia must thus expand its borders to create the largest possible buffer for its core, which requires forcibly incorporating legions of minorities who do not see themselves as Russian. The Russian government estimates that about 80 percent of Russia’s approximately 140 million people are actually ethnically Russian, but this number is somewhat suspect, as many minorities define themselves based on their use of the Russian language, just as many Hispanics in the United States define themselves by their use of English as their primary language. Thus, ironically, attaining security by creating a strategic buffer creates a new chronic security problem in the form of new populations hostile t o Moscow’s rule. The need to deal with the latter problem explains the development of Russia’s elite intelligence services, which are primarily designed for and tasked with monitoring the country’s multiethnic population.

Russia’s primary challenge, however, is time. In the aftermath of the Soviet collapse, the bottom fell out of the Russian birthrate, with fewer than half the number of babies born in the 1990s than were born in the 1980s. These post-Cold War children are now coming of age; in a few years, their small numbers are going to have a catastrophic impact on the size of the Russian population. By contrast, most non-Russian minorities — in particular those such as Chechens and Dagestanis, who are of Muslim faith — did not suffer from the 1990s birthrate plunge, so their numbers are rapidly increasing even as the number of ethnic Russians is rapidly decreasing. Add in deep-rooted, demographic-impacting problems such as HIV, tuberculosis and heroin abuse — concentrated not just among ethnic Russians but a lso among those of childbearing age — and Russia faces a hard-wired demographic time bomb. Put simply, Russia is an ascending power in the short run, but it is a declining power in the long run.

The Russian leadership is well aware of this coming crisis, and knows it is going to need every scrap of strength it can muster just to continue the struggle to keep Russia in one piece. To this end, Moscow must do everything it can now to secure buffers against external intrusion in the not-so-distant future. For the most part, this means rolling back Western influence wherever and whenever possible, and impressing upon states that would prefer integration into the West that their fates lie with Russia instead. Moscow’s natural gas crisis with Ukraine, August 2008 war with Georgia, efforts to eject American forces from Central Asia and constant pressure on the Baltic states all represent efforts to buy Russia more space — and with that space, more time for survival.

Expanding its buffer against such a diverse and potentially hostile collection of states is no small order, but Russia does have one major advantage: The security guarantor for nearly all of these countries is the United States, and the United States is currently very busy elsewhere. So long as U.S. ground forces are occupied with the Iraqi and Afghan wars, the Americans will not be riding to the rescue of the states on Russia’s periphery. Given this window of opportunity, the Russians have a fair chance to regain the relative security they seek. In light of the impending demographic catastrophe and the present window of opportunity, the Russians are in quite a hurry to act.

Turkey’s World

Turkey is in many ways the polar opposite of Russia. After the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire following World War I, Turkey was pared down to its core, Asia Minor. Within this refuge, Turkey is nearly unassailable. It is surrounded by water on three sides, commands the only maritime connection between the Black and Mediterranean seas and sits astride a plateau surrounded by mountains. This is a very difficult chunk of territory to conquer. Indeed, beginning in the Seljuk Age in the 11th century, the ancestors of the modern Turks took the better part of three centuries to seize this territory from its previous occupant, the Byzantine Empire.

The Turks have used much of the time since then to consolidate their position such that, as an ethnicity, they reign supreme in their realm. The Persians and Arabs have long since lost their footholds in Anatolia, while the Armenians were finally expelled in the dying days of World War I. Only the Kurds remain, and they do not pose a demographic challenge to the Turks. While Turkey exhibits many of the same demographic tendencies as other advanced developing states — namely, slowing birthrates and a steadily aging population — there is no major discrepancy between Turk and Kurdish birthrates, so the Turks should continue to comprise more than 80 percent of the country’s population for some time to come. Thus, while the Kurds will continue to be a source of nationalistic friction, they do not constitute a fundamental challenge to the power or operations of the Turkish state, like minorities in Russia are destined to do in the years ahead.

Turkey’s security is not limited to its core lands. Once one moves beyond the borders of modern Turkey, the existential threats the state faced in years past have largely melted away. During the Cold War, Turkey was locked into the NATO structure to protect itself from Soviet power. But now the Soviet Union is gone, and the Balkans and Caucasus — both former Ottoman provinces — are again available for manipulation. The Arabs have not posed a threat to Anatolia in nearly a millennium, and any contest between Turkey and Iran is clearly a battle of unequals in which the Turks hold most of the cards. If anything, the Arabs — who view Iran as a hostile power with not only a heretical religion but also with a revolutionary foreign policy calling for the overthrow of most of the Arab regimes — are practically welcoming the Turks back. Despite both its imperial past and its close security association with the Americans, the Arabs see Turkey as a trusted mediator, and even an exemplar.

With the disappearance of the threats of yesteryear, many of the things that once held Turkey’s undivided attention have become less important to Ankara. With the Soviet threat gone, NATO is no longer critical. With new markets opening up in the former Soviet Union, Turkey’s obsession with seeking EU membership has faded to a mere passing interest. Turkey has become a free agent, bound by very few relationships or restrictions, but dabbling in events throughout its entire periphery. Unlike Russia, which feels it needs an empire to survive, Turkey is flirting with the idea of an empire simply because it can — and the costs of exploring the option are negl igible.

Whereas Russia is a state facing a clear series of threats in a very short time frame, Turkey is a state facing a veritable smorgasbord of strategic options under no time pressure whatsoever. Within that disconnect lies the road forward for the two states — and it is a road with surprisingly few clashes ahead in the near term.

The Field of Competition

There are four zones of overlapping interest for the Turks and Russians.

First, the end of the Soviet empire opened up a wealth of economic opportunities, but very few states have proven adept at penetrating the consumer markets of Ukraine and Russia. Somewhat surprisingly, Turkey is one of those few states. Thanks to the legacy of Soviet central planning, Russian and Ukrainian industry have found it difficult to retool away from heavy industry to produce the consumer goods much in demand in their markets. Because most Ukrainians and Russians cannot afford Western goods, Turkey has carved out a robust and lasting niche with its lower-cost exports; it is now the largest supplier of imports to the Russian market. While this is no exercise in hard power, this Turkish penetration nevertheless is cause for much concern among Russian authorities.

So far, Turkey has been scrupulous about not politicizing these useful trade links beyond some intelligence-gathering efforts (particularly in Ukraine). Considering Russia’s current financial problems, having a stable source of consumer goods — especially one that is not China — is actually seen as a positive. At least for now, the Russian government would rather see its trade relationship with Turkey stay strong. There will certainly be a clash later — either as Russia weakens or as Turkey becomes more ambitious — but for now, the Russians are content with the trade relationship.

Second, the Russian retreat in the post-Cold War era has opened up the Balkans to Turkish influence. Romania, Bulgaria and the lands of the former Yugoslavia are all former Ottoman possessions, and in their day they formed the most advanced portion of the Ottoman economy. During the Cold War, they were all part of the Communist world, with Romania and Bulgaria formally incorporated into the Soviet bloc. While most of these lands are now absorbed into the European Union, Russia’s ties to its fellow Slavs — most notably the Serbs and Bulgarians — have allowed it a degree of influence that most Europeans choose to ignore. Additionally, Russia has long held a friendly relationship with Greece and Cyprus, both to complicate American policy in Europe and to provide a flank against Turkey. Still, thanks to proximity and trading links, Turkey clearly holds the upper hand in this theater of competition.

But this particular region is unlikely to generate much Turkish-Russian animosity, simply because both countries are in the process of giving up.

Most of the Balkan states are already members of an organization that is unlikely to ever admit Russia or Turkey: the European Union. Russia simply cannot meet the membership criteria, and Cyprus’ membership in essence strikes the possibility of Turkish inclusion. (Any EU member can veto the admission of would-be members.) The EU-led splitting of Kosovo from Serbia over Russian objections was a body blow to Russian power in the region, and the subsequent EU running of Kosovo as a protectorate greatly limited Turkish influence as well. Continuing EU expansion means that Turkish influence in the Balkans will shrivel just as Russian influence already has. Trouble this way lies, but not between Turkey and Russia. If anything, their joint exclusion might provide some room for the two to agree on something.

The third area for Russian-Turkish competition is in energy, and this is where things get particularly sticky. Russia is Turkey’s No. 1 trading partner, with energy accounting for the bulk of the trade volume between the two countries. Turkey depends on Russia for 65 percent of its natural gas and 40 percent of its oil imports. Though Turkey has steadily grown its trade relationship with Russia, it does not exactly approve of Moscow’s penchant for using its energy relations with Europe as a political weapon. Russia has never gone so far as to cut supplies to Turkey directly, but Turkey has been indirectly affected more than once when Russia decided to cut supplies to Ukraine because Moscow felt the need to reassert its writ in Kiev.

Sharing the Turks’ energy anxiety, the Europeans have been more than eager to use Turkey as an energy transit hub for routes that would bypass the Russians altogether in supplying the European market. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline is one such route, and others, like Nabucco, are still stuck in the planning stages. The Russians have every reason to pressure the Turks into staying far away from any more energy diversification schemes that could cost Russia one of its biggest energy clients — and deny Moscow much of the political leverage it currently holds over the Europeans who are dependent on the Russian energy network.

There are only two options for the Turks in diversifying away from the Russians. The first lies to Turkey’s south in Iraq and Iran. Turkey has big plans for Iraq’s oil industry, but it will still take considerable time to upgrade and restore the oil fields and pipelines that have been persistently sabotaged and ransacked by insurgents during the fighting that followed the 2003 U.S. invasion. The Iranians offer another large source of energy for the Turks to tap into, but the political complications attached to dealing with Iran are still too prickly for the Turks to move ahead with concrete energy deals at this time. Complications remain for now, but Turkey wi ll be keeping an eye on its Middle Eastern neighbors for robust energy partnerships in the future.

The second potential source of energy for the Turks lies in Central Asia, a region that Russia must keep in its grip at all costs if it hopes to survive in the long run. In many ways this theater is the reverse of the Balkans, where the Russians hold the ethnic links and the Turks the economic advantage. Here, four of the five Central Asian countries — Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan — are Turkic. But as a consequence of the Soviet years, the infrastructure and economies of all four are so hardwired into the Russian sphere of influence that it would take some major surgery to liberate them. But the prize is a rich one: Central Asia possesses the world& #8217;s largest concentration of untapped energy reserves. And as the term “central” implies, whoever controls the region can project power into the former Soviet Union, China and South Asia. If the Russians and Turks are going to fight over something, this is it.

Here Turkey faces a problem, however — it does not directly abut the region. If the Turks are even going to attempt to shift the Central Asian balance of power, they will need a lever. This brings us to the final — and most dynamic — realm of competition: the Caucasus.

Turkey here faces the best and worst in terms of influence projection. The Azerbaijanis do not consider themselves simply Turkic, like the Central Asians, but actually Turkish. If there is a country in the former Soviet Union that would consider not only allying with but actually joining with another state to escape Russia’s orbit, it would be Azerbaijan with Turkey. Azerbaijan has its own significant energy supplies, but its real value is in serving as a willing springboard for Turkish influence into Central Asia.

However, the core of Azerbaijan does not border Turkey. Instead, it is on the other side of Armenia, a country that thrashed Azerbaijan in a war over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh enclave and still has lingering animosities toward Ankara because of the 1915 Armenian “genocide.” Armenia has sold itself to the Russians to keep its Turkish foes at bay.

This means Turkish designs on Central Asia all boil down to the former Soviet state of Georgia. If Turkey can bring Georgia fully under its wing, Turkey can then set about to integrate with Azerbaijan and project influence into Central Asia. But without Georgia, Turkey is hamstrung before it can even begin to reach for the real prize in Central Asia.

In this, the Turks do not see the Georgians as much help. The Georgians do not have much in the way of a functional economy or military, and they have consistently overplayed their hand with the Russians in the hopes that the West would come to their aid. Such miscalculations contributed to the August 2008 Georgian-Russian war, in which Russia smashed what military capacity the Georgians did possess. So while Ankara sees the Georgians as reliably anti-Russian, it does not see them as reliably competent or capable.

This means that Turkish-Russian competition may have been short-circuited before it even began. Meanwhile, the Americans and Russians are beginning to outline the rudiments of a deal. Various items on the table include Russia allowing the Americans to ship military supplies to Afghanistan via Russia’s sphere of influence, changes to the U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) program, and a halt to NATO expansion. The last prong is a critical piece of Russian-Turkish competition. Should the Americans and Europeans put their weight behind NATO expansion, Georgia would be a logical candidate — meaning most of the heavy lifting in terms of Turkey projecting power eastward would already be done. But if the Americans and Europeans do not put their weight behind NATO expansion, Georgia would fall by the wayside and Turkey would have to do all the work of projecting power eastward — and facing the Russians — alone.

A Temporary Meeting of Minds?

There is clearly no shortage of friction points between the Turks and the Russians. With the two powers on a resurgent path, it was only a matter of time before they started bumping into one another. The most notable clash occurred when the Russians decided to invade Georgia last August, knowing full well that neither the Americans nor the Europeans would have the will or capability to intervene on behalf of the small Caucasian state. NATO’s strongest response was a symbolic show of force that relied on Turkey, as the gatekeeper to the Black Sea, to allow a buildup of NATO vessels near the Georgian coast and threaten the underbelly of Russia’s former Soviet peri phery.

Turkey disapproved of the idea of Russian troops bearing down in the Caucasus near the Turkish border, and Ankara was also angered by having its energy revenues cut off during the war when the BTC pipeline was taken offline.

The Russians promptly responded to Turkey’s NATO maneuvers in the Black Sea by holding up a large amount of Turkish goods at various Russian border checkpoints to put the squeeze on Turkish exports. But the standoff was short-lived; soon enough, the Turks and Russians came to the negotiating table to end the trade spat and sort out their respective spheres of influence. The Russian-Turkish negotiations have progressed over the past several months, with Russian and Turkish leaders now meeting fairly regularly to sort out the issues where both can find some mutual benefit.

The first area of cooperation is Europe, where both Russia and Turkey have an interest in applying political pressure. Despite Europe’s objections and rejections, the Turks are persistent in their ambitions to become a member of the European Union. At the same time, the Russians need to keep Europe linked into the Russian energy network and divided over any plans for BMD, NATO expansion or any other Western plan that threatens Russian national security. As long as Turkey stalls on any European energy diversification projects, the more it can demand Europe’s attention on the issue of EU membership. In fact, the Turks already threatened as much at the start of the year, when they said outright that if Europe doesn’t need Turkey as an EU member, then Turkey doesn’t need to sign off on any more energy diversification projects that transit Turkish territory. Ankara’s threats against Europe dovetailed nicely with Russia’s natural gas cutoff to Ukraine in January, when the Europeans once again were reminded of Moscow’s energy wrath.

The Turks and the Russians also can find common ground in the Middle East. Turkey is again expanding its influence deep into its Middle Eastern backyard, and Ankara expects to take the lead in handling the thorny issues of Iran, Iraq and Syria as the United States draws down its presence in the region and shifts its focus to Afghanistan. What the Turks want right now is stability on their southern flank. That means keeping Russia out of mischief in places like Iran, where Moscow has threatened to sell strategic S-300 air defense systems and to boost the Iranian nuclear program in order to grab Washington’s attention on other issues deemed vital to Moscow’s national security interests. The United States is already leaning on Russia to pressure Iran in return for other strategic concessions, and the Turks are just as interested as the Americans in taming Russia’s actions in the Middle East.

Armenia is another issue where Russia and Turkey may be having a temporary meeting of minds. Russia unofficially occupies Armenia and has been building up a substantial military presence in the small Caucasian state. Turkey can either sit back, continue to isolate Armenia and leave it for the Russians to dominate through and through, or it can move toward normalizing relations with Yerevan and dealing with Russia on more equal footing in the Caucasus. With rumors flying of a deal on the horizon between Yerevan and Ankara (likely with Russia’s blessing), it appears more and more that the Turks and the Russians are making progress in sorting out their respective spheres of influence.

Ultimately, both Russia and Turkey know that this relationship is likely temporary at best. The two Eurasian powers still distrust each other and have divergent long-term goals, even if in the short term there is a small window of opportunity for Turkish and Russian interests to overlap. The law of geopolitics dictates that the two ascendant powers are doomed to clash — just not today.

Tell STRATFOR What You Think

www.stratfor.com

2008. október 28., kedd

2008 and the Return of the Nation-State

.




By George Friedman
In 1989, the global system pivoted when the Soviet Union retreated from Eastern Europe and began the process of disintegration that culminated in its collapse. In 2001, the system pivoted again when al Qaeda attacked targets in the United States on Sept. 11, triggering a conflict that defined the international system until the summer of 2008. The pivot of 2008 turned on two dates, Aug. 7 and Oct. 11.
On Aug. 7, Georgian troops attacked the country’s breakaway region of South Ossetia. On Aug. 8, Russian troops responded by invading Georgia. The Western response was primarily rhetorical. On the weekend of Oct. 11, the G-7 met in Washington to plan a joint response to the global financial crisis. Rather than defining a joint plan, the decision — by default — was that each nation would act to save its own financial system with a series of broadly agreed upon guidelines.
The Aug. 7 and Oct. 11 events are connected only in their consequences. Each showed the weakness of international institutions and confirmed the primacy of the nation-state, or more precisely, the nation and the state. (A nation is a collection of people who share an ethnicity. A state is the entity that rules a piece of land. A nation-state — the foundation of the modern international order — is what is formed when the nation and state overlap.) Together, the two events posed challenges that overwhelmed the global significance of the Iraqi and Afghan wars.
The Conflict in Georgia
In and of itself, Russia’s attack on Georgia was not globally significant. Georgia is a small country in the Caucasus, and its fate ultimately does not affect the world. But Georgia was aligned with the United States and with Europe, and it had been seen by some as a candidate for membership in NATO. Thus, what was important about the Russian attack was that it occurred at all, and that the West did not respond to it beyond rhetoric.
Part of the problem was that the countries that could have intervened on Georgia’s behalf lacked the ability to do so. The Americans were bogged down in the Islamic world, and the Europeans had let their military forces atrophy. But even if military force had been available, it is clear that NATO, as the military expression of the Western alliance, was incapable of any unified action. There was no unified understanding of NATO’s obligation and, more importantly, no collective understanding of what a unified strategy might be.
The tension was not only between the United States and Europe, but also among the European countries. This was particularly pronounced in the different view of the situation Germany took compared to that of the United States and many other countries. Very soon after the Russo-Georgian war had ended, the Germans made clear that they opposed the expansion of NATO to Georgia and Ukraine. A major reason for this is Germany’s heavy dependence on Russian natural gas, which means Berlin cannot afford to alienate Moscow. But there was a deeper reason: Germany had been in the front line of the first Cold War and had no desire to participate in a second.
The range of European responses to Russia was fascinating. The British were livid. The French were livid but wanted to mediate. The Germans were cautious, and Chancellor Angela Merkel traveled to St. Petersburg to hold a joint press conference with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, aligning Germany with Russia — for all practical purposes — on the Georgian and Ukrainian issues.
The single most important effect of Russia’s attack on Georgia was that it showed clearly how deeply divided — and for that matter, how weak — NATO is in general and the Europeans are in particular. Had they been united, they would not have been able to do much. But they avoided that challenge by being utterly fragmented. NATO can only work when there is a consensus, and the war revealed how far from consensus NATO was. It can’t be said that NATO collapsed after Georgia. It is still there, and NATO officials hold meetings and press conferences. But the alliance is devoid of both common purpose and resources, except in very specific and limited areas. Some Europeans are working through NATO in Afghanistan, for example, but not most, and not in a decisive fashion.
The Russo-Georgian war raised profound questions about the future of the multinational military alliance. Each member consulted its own national interest and conducted its own foreign policy. At this point, splits between the Europeans and Americans are taken for granted, but the splits among the Europeans are profound. If it was no longer possible to say that NATO functioned, it was also unclear after Aug. 8 in what sense the Europeans existed, except as individual nation-states.

The Global Financial Crisis
What was demonstrated in politico-military terms in Georgia was then demonstrated in economic terms in the financial crisis. All of the multinational systems created after World War II failed during the crisis — or more precisely, the crisis went well beyond their briefs and resources. None of the systems could cope, and many broke down. On Oct. 11, it became clear that the G-7 could cooperate, but not through unified action. On Oct. 12, when the Europeans held their eurozone summit, it became clear that they would only act as individual nations.

As with the aftermath of the Georgian war, the most significant developments after Oct. 11 happened in Europe. The European Union is first and foremost an arrangement for managing Europe’s economy. Its bureaucracy in Brussels has increased its authority and effectiveness throughout the last decade. The problem with the European Union is that it was an institution designed to manage prosperity. When it confronted serious adversity, however, it froze, devolving power to the component states.

Consider the European Central Bank (ECB), an institution created for managing the euro. Its primary charge — and only real authority — is to work to limit inflation. But limiting inflation is a problem that needs to be addressed when economies are otherwise functioning well. The financial crisis is a case where the European system is malfunctioning. The ECB was not created to deal with that. It has managed, with the agreement of member governments, to expand its function beyond inflation control, but it ultimately lacks the staff or the mindset to do all the things that other central banks were doing. To be more precise, it is a central bank without a single finance ministry to work with. Unlike other central banks, whose authority coincides with the nations they serve, the ECB serves multiple nations with multiple interests and finance ministries. By its nature, its power is limited.

In the end, power did not reside with Europe, but rather with its individual countries. It wasn’t Brussels that was implementing decisions made in Strasbourg; the centers of power were in Paris, London, Rome, Berlin and the other capitals of Europe and the world. Power devolved back to the states that governed nations. Or, to be more precise, the twin crises revealed that power had never left there.

Between the events in Georgia and the financial crisis, what we saw was the breakdown of multinational entities. This was particularly marked in Europe, in large part because the Europeans were the most invested in multilateralism and because they were in the crosshairs of both crises. The Russian resurgence affected them the most, and the fallout of the U.S. financial crisis hit them the hardest. They had to improvise the most, being multilateral but imperfectly developed, to say the least. In a sense, the Europeans were the laboratory of multilateralism and its intersection with crisis.
But it was not a European problem in the end. What we saw was a global phenomenon in which individual nations struggled to cope with the effects of the financial crisis and of Russia. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, there has been a tendency to view the world in terms of global institutions, from the United Nations to the World Trade Organization. In the summer of 2008, none of these functioned. The only things that did function effectively were national institutions.
Since 2001, the assumption has been that subnational groups like al Qaeda would define the politico-military environment. In U.S. Defense Department jargon, the assumption was that peer-to-peer conflict was no longer an issue and that it was all about small terrorist groups. The summer of 2008 demonstrated that while terrorism by subnational groups is not insignificant by any means, the dynamics of nation-states have hardly become archaic.
The Importance of the State
Clearly, the world has pivoted toward the nation-state as the prime actor and away from transnational and subnational groups. The financial crisis could be solved by monetizing the net assets of societies to correct financial imbalances. The only institution that could do that was the state, which could use its sovereign power and credibility, based on its ability to tax the economy, to underwrite the financial system.
Around the world, states did just that. They did it in very national ways. Many European states did it primarily by guaranteeing interbank loans, thereby essentially nationalizing the heart of the financial system. If states guarantee loans, the risk declines to near zero. In that case, the rationing of money through market mechanisms collapses. The state must take over rationing. This massively increases the power of the state — and raises questions about how the Europeans back out of this position.
The Americans took a different approach, less focused on interbank guarantees than on reshaping the balance sheets of financial institutions by investing in them. It was a more indirect approach and less efficient in the short run, but the Americans were more interested than the Europeans in trying to create mechanisms that would allow the state to back out of control of the financial system.
But what is most important is to see the manner in which state power surged in the summer and fall of 2008. The balance of power between business and the state, always dynamic, underwent a profound change, with the power of the state surging and the power of business contracting. Power was not in the hands of Lehman Brothers or Barclays. It was in the hands of Washington and London. At the same time, the power of the nation surged as the importance of multilateral organizations and subnational groups declined. The nation-state roared back to life after it had seemed to be drifting into irrelevance.
The year 1989 did not quite end the Cold War, but it created a world that bypassed it. The year 2001 did not end the post-Cold War world, but it overlaid it with an additional and overwhelming dynamic: that of the U.S.-jihadist war. The year 2008 did not end the U.S.-jihadist war, but it overlaid it with far more immediate and urgent issues. The financial crisis, of course, was one. The future of Russian power was another. We should point out that the importance of Russian power is this: As soon as Russia dominates the center of the Eurasian land mass, its force intrudes on Europe. Russia united with the rest of Europe is an overwhelming global force. Europe resisting Russia defines the global system. Russia fragmented opens the door for other geopolitical issues. Russia united and powerful usurps the global stage.

The year 2008 has therefore seen two things. First, and probably most important, it resurrected the nation-state and shifted the global balance between the state and business. Second, it redefined the global geopolitical system, opening the door to a resurgence of Russian power and revealing the underlying fragmentation of Europe and weaknesses of NATO.

The most important manifestation of this is Europe. In the face of Russian power, there is no united European position. In the face of the financial crisis, the Europeans coordinate, but they do not act as one. After the summer of 2008, it is no longer fair to talk about Europe as a single entity, about NATO as a fully functioning alliance, or about a world in which the nation-state is obsolete. The nation-state was the only institution that worked.

This is far more important than either of the immediate issues. The fate of Georgia is of minor consequence to the world. The financial crisis will pass into history, joining Brady bonds, the Resolution Trust Corp. and the bailout of New York City as a historical oddity. What will remain is a new international system in which the Russian question — followed by the German question — is once again at the center of things, and in which states act with confidence in shaping the economic and business environment for better or worse.

The world is a very different place from what it was in the spring of 2008. Or, to be more precise, it is a much more traditional place than many thought. It is a world of nations pursuing their own interests and collaborating where they choose. Those interests are economic, political and military, and they are part of a single fabric. The illusion of multilateralism was not put to rest — it will never die — but it was certainly put to bed. It is a world we can readily recognize from history.

2008. augusztus 23., szombat

Coalition air strikes kill 76 Afghan civilians

.
KABUL (AFP) — A US-led coalition military operation in western Afghanistan on Friday killed 76 civilians, including 50 children and 19 women, the Afghan interior ministry said.

The coalition confirmed it carried out an operation that included air strikes in the western province of Herat but said 30 Taliban rebels were killed only and said it knew of no civilian deaths.

The Afghan defence ministry meanwhile gave yet another toll -- five civilians and 25 rebels dead. It was impossible to independently verify what happened in volatile Shindand district, but the conflicting reports highlight the difficulty in establishing facts in the mounting clashes between troops and rebels.

"Seventy-six people, all civilians and most of them women and children, were martyred during the operation by coalition forces in Shindand district of Herat province," the ministry said in a statement. The dead were "19 women, seven men and the rest children all under 15 years of age," it said.

"The interior ministry, while expressing its profound regret because of this incident which happened by accident, has sent a delegation of 10 people to the area and more details will be announced once the investigation is completed," the statement said. If the death toll is confirmed it would be one of the highest for civilians in the battle to fight the extremist Taliban, who were ousted during a US-led invasion in 2001.

The ministry said an unknown number of civilians were also wounded, with some of them in a critical condition. The police chief for western Afghanistan, Akramuddin Yawer, had also said 76 people were killed in the incident and 15 houses were destroyed in strikes. "Taliban are included but their number is unknown," he said.

But the coalition said 30 insurgents were killed in clashes and air strikes that followed an ambush on Afghan National Army (ANA) and coalition troops as they were going to arrest a Taliban commander. "The ANA and coalition forces killed 30 insurgents," it said, adding a "known" Taliban commander was among the dead. Two civilians were wounded. "No other civilian or friendly casualties were reported," the coalition said.

Asked about the ministry statement, US First Lieutenant Nathan Perry told AFP: "I definitely do not have any reports of a large amount of civilian casualties -- and we don't have any reports of civilian casualties at all." In Washington, a Pentagon spokesman could not account for the Afghan interior ministry claims, saying "the coalition remains confident in our reports that were released earlier today."

The Afghan army said five civilians -- three women and two children -- had died. "Planes bombed the area and in the result 25 Taliban were killed including two famous commanders," defence ministry spokesman General Mohammad Zahir Azimi told AFP separately. "Unfortunately, five civilians were killed and one woman and a boy were wounded."

Military operations and rebel attacks have increased in the summer with a Taliban-led insurgency growing steadily despite the efforts of nearly 70,000 international troops.

It has been a particularly bloody week for international troops with 10 French soldiers killed Monday in the deadliest ground fighting for the foreign forces since the 2001 ouster of the Taliban that brought international troops to the country.

Eight foreign soldiers including three Poles and three Canadians died in various incidents on Wednesday, most of them in bomb strikes. Another was killed in a bomb blast in eastern Afghanistan Friday, the coalition said in a statement that gave few details. Most soldiers in the east are American.

In other violence, police in the southern province of Uruzgan said that 11 Taliban were killed overnight after they attacked Afghan police and soldiers. And two Afghan soldiers were killed in Badghis province Friday when their vehicles hit a bomb, an Afghan army officer said.

.

A civilizált nyugati megszállok meggyilkoltak hetvenhat civilt

.
Az Afganisztánban állomásozó nemzetközi koalíció parancsnoksága szerint harminc fegyveres lázadó halt meg az Afganisztán nyugati részén végrehajtott légitámadásban. Az afgán belügy szerint 76 civil halt meg, a koalíció szóvivőjének "nincs tudomása" civil áldozatokról.

Az afgán belügyminisztérium szerint 76 afgán civilt megölt egy pénteki légitámadásával az amerikai vezetésű nemzetközi koalíció az ázsiai ország nyugati részén.
Az afgán minisztérium közleménye szerint az áldozatok többsége nő és gyermek. Számos további ember súlyosan megsérült, és válságos állapotban van. A koalíciós erők egy falut bombáztak Herát tartomány Síndand körzetében - áll a közleményben. A minisztérium mélységes sajnálkozását fejezte ki a véletlen, szerencsétlen eset miatt, és bejelentette, hogy vizsgálatot indít az ügyben.

Az afgán rendőrség egyik helyi illetékese megerősítette, hogy az áldozatok többsége nő és gyermek, de hozzátette, hogy vannak a halottak között tálibok is. Mint mondta, 15 ház dőlt romba a koalíciós erők által végrehajtott bombázásban.

Az afgán védelmi miniszter eltérő adatokat közölt korábban a történtekről. Szóvivője szerint két órán át ostromolták az afgán hadsereg kijelölt osztagai és az amerikai különleges alakulatok katonái pénteken reggel a tálibok állásait Herát tartomány Síndand körzetében, és a nemzetközi erők légi támogatást nyújtottak az ostromhoz. 25 tálib harcossal végeztek, köztük két magas rangú parancsnokkal, de öt véletlen civil áldozata is volt a légi csapásoknak.

A nemzetközi koalíció amerikai parancsnokságának bejelentése szerint harminc fegyveres lázadó halt meg az Afganisztán nyugati részén végrehajtott légitámadás következtében és a hozzá kapcsolódó földi ütközetben. "Civil áldozatokról nincs tudomásom" - mondta Nathan Perry, a parancsnokság szóvivője.

Az afgán lakosság körében egyre növekvő elégedetlenséget gerjesztenek a külföldi katonák harci tevékenységének civil áldozatairól szóló hírek. Július közepén egy esküvői menetre hullottak bombák, a násznép 47 tagja esett halálos áldozatául az amerikai légitámadásnak a kelet-afganisztáni Nangarhar tartományban.

MTI

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0823/breaking96.htm
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=67337&sectionid=351020403

2008. augusztus 21., csütörtök

Oroszország szakít a nyugattal?

.
Oroszország úgy döntött, hogy felfüggeszti katonai együttműködését a NATO-val - jelentette be egy NATO-szóvivő csütörtökön Brüsszelben.

Az orosz döntés - amely újabb utasításig szól - két nappal követte a NATO-tagországok külügyminisztereinek azon határozatát, hogy a NATO nem folytatja az együttműködést Moszkvával, amíg az orosz csapatok a dél-oszét konfliktus előtti helyzetbe ki nem vonulnak Grúziából.

Oroszország katonai csatornákon tájékoztatta az észak-atlanti szövetséget arról, hogy a védelmi miniszter döntésének alapján felfüggeszti a NATO-tagállamokkal való nemzetközi katonai együttműködést - mondta Carmen Romero NATO-szóvivő, hozzátéve, nincs információja arról, hogy az orosz döntés kihatással van-e az afganisztáni tranzitmegállapodásra.

Szövetségi források szerint elsősorban olyan együttműködési területekről van szó, mint a haditengerészeti, kiképzési vagy rakétavédelmi kooperáció.

A keddi külügyminiszteri határozat értelmében a NATO a kivonulásig hivatalos formában nem is tárgyal az orosz partnerekkel. Ezért a moszkvai döntés is a tagországokon keresztül jutott el Brüsszelbe.

Romero azt is jelezte, a NATO tudomásul veszi a döntést, de egyelőre nem kíván reagálni arra.

(MTI)
.

Vészhelyzet

Az úgynevezett Országos Területrendezési törvény-tervezetben (Ad T/5311) most nyilvánítják Magyarországot különleges NATO-katonai övezetté.

A 2008. április 22-i keddi parlamenti ülésen az „általános vita folytatására és lezárására” kerül sor az Országos Területrendezési Terv 2003. évi XXVI. Törvény módosításáról szóló törvényjavaslatra (T/5311.sz.).

„A törvényjavaslattal kapcsolatos módosító javaslatok benyújtási határideje: az ülésnap vége.”

A T/5311. sz. törvényjavaslatot a Magyar Köztársaság Kormánya megbízásából Bajnai Gordon, önkormányzati és területfejlesztési miniszter terjeszti elő.

A törvényjavaslatot az Országgyűlés Hivatala március 28-án érkeztette.

A keddi ülés 9 órakor kezdődik és kb 21 óráig, illetve a napirendi pontok megvitatásáig tart. Ezek a napirendi pontok pl. a T/5396. sz. az elektronikus információ szabadságáról szóló 2005. évi XC. Törvény módosítása lesz!!! Majd tervezik a T/5451. sz. a gazdasági reklámtevékenységről, valamint a T/5394. sz. törvényjavaslat megvitatását és elfogadását a közraktározásról.

Visszatérve a T/5311-es számú törvényjavaslatra, melynek előterjesztési anyagában az 1. § tartalmazza a fogalom meghatározások pontjait.

A 9. pont arról szól, hogy mi számít honvédelmi területnek.

A honvédelmi terület kiemelt térség és megyei területrendezési tervben megállapított övezet, amely a Magyar Honvédség alapfeladatait rendeltetésszerű ellátásához szükséges objektumok elhelyezésére, illetve tevékenységének végzésére szolgál.

A 11. pontban folytatódik a kiemelt fontosságú honvédelmi terület-meghatározás. Melyszerint, az számít kiemelt fontosságú honvédelmi terület amelyikről az „Országos Területrendezési Tervben megállapított, kiemelt térségi és megyei területrendezési tervekben alkalmazott övezet, amelyen a Magyar Köztársaság védelmi képességeit alapvetően meghatározó, vagy a NATO tagságból eredő, valamint a nemzetközi szerződéseiben vállalt kötelességei teljesítésére hivatott objektumok elhelyezésére szolgáló területek találhatók,…

Milyen egy ördögi terv ez, hogy az Országos Területrendezési Tervbe bújtatva akarják megszavaztatni a képviselőkkel Magyarország egész területének NATO támaszponttá változtatásának törvényes feltételeit???

Milyen előkészítéssel készülhettek fel a képviselők az április 22-i parlamenti ülésre?

A T/5311. sz. törvényjavaslat mellékletein 1:500000-es kicsinyítésű térképeken és CD-n, vagyis sehogy sem nézhették meg. Pedig, ezek a mellékletek tartalmazzák a kiemelt fontosságú honvédelmi terület övezeteiről készített térképeket, melyeken a települések feliratai oly kicsik, hogy még nagyítóval sem lehet elolvasni.

Pedig, nem kevesebbről fognak a képviselők majd dönteni, mint pl ami a 37. § -ban olvasható: „Felhatalmazást kap a Kormány, hogy rendeletben állapítsa meg a kiemelt térségi és megyei övezetek területi érintettségével kapcsolatosan állásfoglalásra jogosult államigazgatási szervek körét.”

A 38. § szerint az OTrT. 1/1-10 sz. melléklete, a 2- sz rajzi melléklete és a 3/1-10. sz. rajzi melléklete helyébe a jelen törvény 1/1-13. sz. melléklete, 2. sz. melléklete és 3/1-11. sz. melléklete lép. (Ezeken a mellékleteken Magyarország térképe látható 1:500000-es kicsinyítésben.)

Felhívnám a figyelmet az 1/13. sz. mellékletre, melynek témája a Térségi övezetek és azok kapcsolata.

Ezen belül két nagy csoportra osztják az övezeteket.

Egyszer az Országos Területrendezési Terven belüli felsorolás tartalmazza a Kiemelt fontosságú honvédelmi terület-eket.

Második része a táblázatnak a Kiemelt és megyei területrendezési terv, melyben szerepel a „Rendszeresen belvízjárta terület”, és itt is a „Honvédelmi terület”.

20. § (3/9. sz. melléklet)

Az OTrT a következő 16/C §-al és az azt megelőző alcímmel egészül ki:

„Kiemelt fontosságú honvédelmi terület övezete

16/C. § (1) A kiemelt fontosságú honvédelmi terület övezetét a kiemelt térségi és megyei területrendezési tervekben a tényleges kiterjedésének megfelelően kell lehatárolni.

(2) Az (1) bekezdés kijelölt területeket a településszerkezeti tervben beépítésre szánt, vagy beépítésre nem szánt különleges honvédelmi terület felhasználási egységbe kell sorolni!

A/35 §-hoz:

Az OTrT a következő 27/A §-sal és az azt megelőző alcímmel egészül ki:

„Honvédelmi terület övezete

27/A § A honvédelmi terület övezetét a településszerkezeti tervben beépítésre szánt vagy beépítésre nem szánt különleges honvédelmi terület terület-felhasználási egységbe kell sorolni.”

Az 1/4. sz. melléklet Országos jelentőségű logisztikai központok és térségek felsorolását tartalmazza. Összesen 11 nagy térségre osztva Magyarország területét. Ezen térségek a mellékletben a település közigazgatási területét és annak 10 km-es környezetét jelöli.

Logisztikai központok és térségek:

1. Nyugat-dunántúli körzet Sopron (részközpont: Szombathely).
2. Észak-dunántúli körzet: Győr – Gönyű.
3. Közép-dunántúli körzet: Székesfehérvár (részközpont: Dunaújváros, Veszprém).
4. Dél-dunántúli körzet: Baja (részközpont: Mohács).
5. Budapest körzet: Dél-Pest (Soroksár),

Dél-Buda (Nagytétény),

Csepel Nemzeti Szabadkikötő.

6. Közép-alföldi körzet: Szolnok.
7. Dél-alföldi körzet: Szeged (részközpont: Kisszállás).
8. Észak-keleti körzet: Miskolc vagy Tiszaújváros.
9. Észak-tiszántúli körzet: Záhony (részközpont: Nyíregyháza).
10. Délnyugat-dunántúli körzet: Nagykanizsa.
11. Közép-tiszántúli körzet: Debrecen.


Mit is jelentene az ezeken a területeken élők számára egy „logisztikai központ”?

Vegyük példaként Budapest, Dél-pesti részét. A csodálatos Soroksári-Dunaágat és a folyót szegélyező kis hétvégi házakat, horgásztanyákat. Mint egy felfűzött gyöngysor, olyanok ezek a munkásemberek által épített kis házak. Nos, ezt akarják logisztikai központtá alakítani!

De, sorra fogom venni és megvizsgálom az összes kiszemelt területet és azt is elküldöm.

Bóna Mária Ilona, a Magyar Nemzetért Mozgalom tagja
http://furaila.blog.xfree.hu

2008. augusztus 20., szerda

Afganisztán - Mindenki hazudik: a NATO szétbombázott egy francia katonai egységet

.
Napokig fog tartani -esetleg- mire a francia kormány és hadvezetés elismeri: nem a tálibokkal vívott harcban esett el 10 francia katona és sérült meg jó néhány (21)- és nem tudni még hány kollaboráns afgán katona halt meg illetve sérült meg az akcióban- hanem un. "friendly fire" azaz "baráti tűztől. Francia és más katonai szakértők véleménye szerint egyre botrányosabb a helyzet: rossz a kommunikáció és ebből kifolyólag a koordináció az Afganisztánt megszálló katonai csapatok között.
Nem ez az első eset -sőt-, hogy hasonló tragédia történik.
Amitől igazán botrányos ez a mostani, friss eset, az, hogy az utolsó pillanatig a kormány irányította médiák szerte a világban egyszóval nem említették a megszálló katonák halálát okozó valódi okokat. A francia törpe, Nicolas Sarkozy, még Kabulba is elment ahol színészeket megszégyenítő ügyészséggel adta elő hazug verzióját a "tálibok ellen harcoló francia katonák hősiességéről", miközben már mindenki tudta -tudniuk kellett- , hogy semmi más nem történt, minthogy szövetségesek lőtték szét a saját szövetségeseiket.
Azonnal ki az idegen csapatokkal Irakból és Afganisztánból!

A hír:

Baráti tűzben haltak meg franciák Afganisztánban

A katonák megsegítését szolgáló NATO légi csapások ölték meg azokat a francia katonákat, akikre lesből támadtak a tálibok a hét elején Afganisztánban - állítja szemtanúkra hivatkozva szerdai számában a Le Monde című francia napilap.

Kép: a megszállt Afganisztán hétköznapjai

A lap által Kabulban megkérdezett sebesült francia katonák úgy vélték, hogy az áldozatok száma azzal is magyarázható, hogy a parancsnokság lassan reagált és súlyos egyeztetési hibák voltak.
A szemtanúk a lap szerint megkérdőjelezik a francia hadsereg hivatalos magyarázatát is, amely szerint a tíz francia katona a tálibokkal vívott összecsapásban ellenséges tűzben esett el.
A szemtanúk elmondása szerint a NATO légi csapásai célt tévesztettek, és francia, valamint afgán katonákat találtak el. A felderítő egység mintegy negyedórán át ellenséges tűz alatt volt, támogatás nélkül - mesélte az egyik sebesült.
Kép: egy korabbi halott, ez esetben kanadai, áldozata az un. "baráti tűznek"

Julien Le Pahunnek, az egyik elesett katonának az apja a kormány felelősségét hangoztatta, és számon kérte fia halálát Nicolas Sarkozy elnökön.

"A kormány ne küldje többé fiainkat a halálba. (...) Egyéves kiképzés után nem szokás gyerekeket egy ilyen szörnyűséges frontra küldeni" - mondta Joel Le Pahun, akinek a fia szerdán lett volna húszéves. A francia hírügynökségnek kijelentette: magyarázatot fog kérni Nicolas Sarkozy köztársasági elnöktől arról, hogy mi is történt valójában, mert sok kérdés merül fel.

MTI

Így néz ki a "friendly fire" vagyis a "baráti tűz",
kép egy korábbi incidensről


A manipulált média információk:
http://www.france24.com/en/20080820-french-soldiers-wounded-afghanistan-back-hell-france-afghanistan (+ videó!)
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/08/20/afghanistan.html?ref=rss
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files_156/afghanistan_498/france-and-afghanistan_2665/10-french-soldiers-with-isaf-killed-in-action-19.08.08_11750.html
http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=52638
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/20/afghanistan.france?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/19/europe/EU-France-Afghanistan.php

és egy cikk, amelyben már benne van hogy valami bűzlik de nagyon, már megint

French survivors of the battle quoted in Le Monde on Wednesday said French soldiers were hit by friendly fire from NATO aircraft trying to free them, and that the troops waited four hours for reinforcements. There was no immediate official reaction to the claims.

U.S. Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Pentagon had "no reports of fratricide caused by close air support."


No comment!

2008. július 29., kedd

Hol vannak a katonák, avagy hogyan támogatják a magyar politikusok a nemzetközi nagytőke további gyarapodását!

.
A háború üzlet!

Most már nem csak pénzel, hanem vérrel is segítik képviselőink Soros, Rothschild és a többi milliárdos további gazdagodását. Miért a mi pénzünkből támogatjuk az afrikai országokat, mit is keresünk Afganisztánban?

Pedig a képlet igen egyszerű! A multinacionális korporációk tulajdonosai megunva (és titkon félve tőle) a lisszaboni szerződés körülötti „demokratikus szarakodást” újabb extraprofithoz akarnak jutni sürgősen. Az afrikai éhezést kihasználva (és az unió felé áramló fekete bevándorlók okozta sokkhatást) ismét nagy üzletet remélnek. Ahány eladhatatlan ócska gép, génmanipulált vetőmag ezertonnaszám raktáron álló mérgező vegyszer és műtrágya most mind a fekete kontinensen fog landolni némi fegyver biznisz kíséretében. Garancia rá a korrupt afrikai vezetők, ők majd átveszik. Az uniós kassza persze kifizeti.
Így az unió állampolgáraival fizettetik meg, velünk magyarokkal is, azt a dacolást, amit a valóban demokratikusan gondolkodó országok polgárainak nem voksa jelentett. Szegény Szentatya szíve minden igazával elhitte e segítőnek mutatkozó kéz gesztusát, holott arról van szó, ismét gyorsan nagyot akarnak markolni az éceszgéberek a közösből.

Ugyanez a helyzet Afganisztánban is, ahol szinte naponta hal meg európai katona, mint a közelmúltban a mi két tűzszerészünk.
Mert mit keres ott honvédségünk? Miért adjunk fiaink vérét? Nem tanultunk a múltból? Vagy egyesek azt hiszik Orel közelebb volt? Mert Kabulból nem érnek ide és itt nem robbanhatnak bombát a fanatikusok? Mert miért is küzdünk ott?

Valószínűsíthető, hogy nem az ellopott trianoni határok visszaszerzéséért harcolnak, hanem inkább az ott található ásványi anyagokért valamint az Egyesült Államok így közvetve Izrael geopolitikai, stratégiai érdekeiért, Oroszország zsarolásáért. Ezekkel a mocskos célokkal, ismét egymás között összekacsintva, benne van az összes jelenlegi parlamenti párt honi és EP képviselője.

A Fidesz politikusait kritika nélkül támogató magyar testvéreim: hol van a vakságotok határa?

Cságoly Péterfia Béla

Polgár Info

Mert Kabulból nem érnek ide és itt nem robbanhatnak bombát a fanatikusok?

Megjegyzéseim:
Ki kit szállt meg?
Drága Cságoly Péterfia Béla: miért kellett belerondítani a jegyzetbe?
Maga nem "robbantgatná", ha kinyírták családját, szétdúlták az országát, idegen eszmék és szokásokat erőszakkal honosítanak meg hazájában?
Egyébbként emlékeztettem: egyetlen afgán "fanatikus" nem "robbantgatot" eddig semmit, nemhogy Magyarországon, de Európában sem.
Rossz a szó használata mindenesetre. Vagy a szó helye, a "fanatikusok", a szövegben.
Fanatikus fundamentálisták a tőke urai a számomra, és azok akik az un. demokrácia, nyugati értékrend és más, hasonló, maszlagok nevében mészárolnak és rombolnak szerte a világban.
A többi stimmel.

2008. július 28., hétfő

Rózsa-Flores Eduardo: Nos, ha terrorizmus, akkor terrorizmus

.
Bombák robbannak békés isztambuli negyedekben, Indiában…
Háborús búnőkkel vádolják a külföldi érdekeket kiszolgáló (USA, „izrael”) lázadók ellen háborút vivő Szudáni elnököt (Darfur alatt óriási kőolaj lelőhelyek találhatók!)…hogy itt hol a terror?: a hágai nemzetközi törvényszék ezzel a döntésével erősíti a lázadókban –akik nem átállották mindenféle merényleteket is elkövetni a múltban- azt a nem téves képzetet, hogy a nemzetközi közösség mögöttük áll.
Az ICC, (International Criminal Court), azaz a nemzetközi törvényszéket az ENSZ BT határozata alapján állították fel, BT melynek állandó tagjai az USA, Oroszország és Kína is. Ennek a három országnak természetesen esze ágában sem volt ratifikálni a nemzetközi egyezményt és így kivonták magukat a nemzetközi jog (mára egyértelműen eufemizmus!) eme új eszközének a hatásköre alól. Nyilvánvaló, hogy ez kérdésessé teszi az egész ítélethozó -büntető intézményt, és annak legitimitását.
Miért szántam ekkora terjedelmet a bekezdésben az ICC-nek? Mert szimptomatikusnak tartom, ahogyan a New World Order korában kezelik általában a nemzetközi jogot, illetve, ahogyan ezt a „jogot” arra használják fel –innentől a jog megszűnik jognak lenni!-, hogy szűk vagy tágabb csoport érdekeket szolgáljon ki. Ugyanakkor, egyes intézkedésekkel, döntésekkel, a parciálitás látszatát (?) keltve gerjesztik azt, ami ellen elvileg harcolni kellene, amit ki kellene iktatni a nemzetközi és helyi politika eszköztárából: a Terrort.
Mert –és bármennyire visszatetsző és nekem különösen fájó kiírni- milyen alapon ítélkeznek majd a rác demens pszichiáter-költő párafenomén Radovan Karadzics ellen?, mikor a „nemzetközi jog” letéteményesei hasonló módszerekkel és eszközökkel élnek, határaikon belül (Kína Tibetben és kelet-Turkesztánban, az oroszok Csecsenföldön, stb.) és határaikon kívül (USA Afganisztánban, Irakban…)
Ennek az egész mai rövid bejegyzésemnek egy apropója van: a felháborodásom, és mert tiltakozni kívánok az ellen, hogy a magyar zászlót, seggnyaló kollaboráns politikusok áldatlan tevékenysége folytán -a szervilis ellenzék háthatós közreműködésével-, bemocskoljak, s minket, a magyarságot, bűnrészesévé tesznek atrocitások és gyilkosságokban, a terrorban, melyet nap mint nap két nemzet ellen (Irak, Afganisztán) követnek el illetve viseltetnek.

Mert a terror az terror függetlenül attól kik követik el a cselekményt és minek a nevében. Mert a kurd terroristák Isztambulban a "szabadság" és "függetlenség" nevében gyilkolnak, ahogyan az amerikaiak és más nyugati hatalmak katonai, a „demokrácia” és a „béke” jegyében teszik ugyanazt Irakban és Afganisztánban.

A hír:

The killing of 78 Afghan civilian by US occupation forces probed: More than half of those killed in the three recent U.S.-led airstrikes -- which occurred in a three-week span in three provinces in eastern and western Afghanistan -- were women and children, according to Afghan and Western officials. 78 have died in three separate incidents this month alone, officials say

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

Az elmúlt három hét folyamán Afganisztánt lerohanó, lassan a szovjet megszállást módszereiben megszégyenítő, „felszabadító” yenki hadak 78 asszonyt és gyermeket gyilkoltak meg "véletlenül". Persze nagy bátran jó magasan a levegőből!!
Előzetesen egy esküvői "terrorista eseményen" 50 embert gyilkoltak meg - szintén "véletlenül" és „tévedésből”.
Ha valaki azt hinné, hogy ezért bárkit felelősségre vonnának - téved. Szépen szőnyeg alá söpörnek mindent miközben a külvilág felé ezt úgy szokás lekommunikálni, hogy „invesztigálnak” azaz vizsgálatot folytatnak.

Felháborító, hogy a fenti tömeggyilkosságok lassan mindennapos eseménnyé válnak a világ teljes érdektelensége közepette.

Ezek a barbár gyilkosok merészelnek ugatni a rablógyilkosok, erőszákolók és más degeneráltak iráni "barbár" kivégzése ellen!!!
Hol van a kétszínű szenteskedésnek határa??

Azonnal ki kell vonni a maradék magyar honvédséget Afganisztánból. Nem vállalhatunk bűnrészességet ezekben a szörnyűségekben. Semmi közünk sem az amerikai, sem más hyper-hatalom mocskos játékához.

Itthon áradás van.
Szükség van minden katonára a gátaknál!

Rekonstrukció
a Kurtlar vadisi (Farkasok völgye) c. filmből


Az un. collateral damage (járulékos veszteség)
Csupán néhány esetről...

Irák
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=105&sid=1447688
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/30/iraq.main/index.html
Afganisztán
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4315724.ece
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080706/ap_on_re_as/afghan_violence
http://www.newser.com/story/32651.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/26/military.afghanistan1
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jul2007/afgh-j10.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/20/iraq.rorymccarthy
http://index.hu/politika/kulhirek/359613

We do not kill civilians, we do not violate international law, and we are on the verge of victory in Vietnam!!
Mi nem gyilkolunk civileket, mi nem szegjük meg a nemzetközi jogot, és a győzelem előtt vagyunk Vietnamban!
My Lai, Vietnam, 1967

We do not kill civilians, we do not violate international law, and we are on the verge of "victory in Afghanistan and in Iraq"!!
Mi nem gyilkolunk civileket, mi nem szegjük meg a nemzetközi jogot, és a győzelem előtt vagyunk Afganisztánban és Irakban
Somewhere, Afghanistan, 2008

Köszönettel M. Éva néninek az indító gondolataiért!

Társ blog: http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/asia/afghanistan/afghanistan.html