Category: GEOPOLITICĂ

Home / Category: GEOPOLITICĂ

By George Friedman
The United States emerged from World War II with complete control of the Pacific Ocean. Japan emerged from the war occupied and effectively governed by the United States. China, a few years after the end of the war, emerged as a communist state, united after a century of internal conflict, with limited global trade and extreme internal poverty. China and Japan defined their foreign policies in terms of U.S. actions, the Chinese sometimes in concert with the Soviet Union, but since the 1970s working with the United States against the Soviet Union. Each in its own way took its bearings from the United States.
  Core Strategies The core American strategy, in place for a century, has been twofold. First, to dominate North America, the United States had to control, at a minimum, the Western North Atlantic and the Eastern Pacific to prevent either invasions or blockades. Second, to maintain its place at the top, it had to make sure that no hegemonic power could emerge from Eurasia. Thus in 1917, following the fall of the Russian czar, the United States sent a massive expeditionary force to France to block German forces transferring from the east. In World War II, when the European balance of power was failing because of France’s collapse, the United States again sent forces to France to contain Germany.
In the Cold War, the United States massed forces to block the Soviets from occupying Western Europe. The threat of a hegemonic power was the ability to construct a naval force to challenge the United States. Control of the seas began with the preservation of a European balance of power.
In another simultaneous war, the United States was forced to defend its position in the Pacific by containing and driving back the Japanese. The threat from Japan was also hegemonic. If it controlled China and Southeast Asia, Japan would have access to manpower, raw materials and ultimately its own technology, posing a threat to the Eastern Pacific and therefore to the Pacific as a whole. The U.S. could not defeat Japan without taking control of the entire Pacific, giving us the Pacific reality that has held to this day.
Japan also had a strategy imposed on it. It is the only industrial power in the world completely lacking in industrial minerals. This peculiarity makes it essential for Japan to have access to these raw materials, from the Pacific Basin and from the Persian Gulf. Any interruption of this access threatens Japan’s ability to function as an industrial power.
The war in the Pacific began with a Japanese attack on China in search of manpower. This was followed by a move into Indochina to secure raw materials. When the United States countered with interference to Japanese access to oil in the Dutch East Indies and embargoed Japanese access to U.S. scrap metal and oil, Japan faced the choice between war and capitulation. It chose war.
Postwar Choices
Japan’s core strategy played out differently after World War II. The question of access to raw materials remained fundamental, but Japan’s geographical position proved vital to the U.S. defense of the Pacific. In addition to its proximity to Korea, Japan’s geography blocked the Soviets’ open access to the Pacific from Vladivostok. The latter was a fundamental interest of U.S. strategy, and therefore, the resurrection of Japan as a prosperous industrial power became vital to American power.
The inevitable logic of this was that the United States guaranteed Japan’s lines of supply to raw materials. Given the U.S. interest in the Pacific, and over time in the Indian Ocean as well, U.S. and Japanese strategic interests merged, and Japan was not forced to repeat the risks of World War II. The U.S. Navy guaranteed Japan’s access to the straits of Malacca and Hormuz.
China’s primary strategic interest is maintaining its territorial integrity. From the 1840s until 1948, China was in a state of constant regional warfare. The wars had many causes; chief among them was that the coastal region had deep economic ties to Europe and the United States, deeper than its ties to Beijing. The coastal region was relatively prosperous while the interior was not. It was for this reason that Mao, having failed to succeed in a rising in Shanghai to the long march to the interior, raised a peasant army that would seize all of China. Mao closed off China from the world, sinking it into poverty but facilitating unity.
Deng Xiaoping understood that poverty was a threat to Chinese survival. He gambled on repeating the old model – trade with the world – without repeating the old problem of regional inequality and strife. But that inequality has emerged, and the strategic struggle of China is to prevent regional strife. Hence the dictatorship of President Xi Jinping, continual purges of potential threats, and tightened control of the ultimate guarantor of national unity, the People’s Liberation Army.
Dangerous and Unpredictable
China is primarily a land power but faces a potential threat from the United States. China depends heavily on maritime trade. Given the geography of the South China and the East China seas, blockading China is a potential American strategy. Since China regards the United States as dangerous and unpredictable, China must assume this as a possible American action and take action to forestall it.
The United States cannot tolerate the possibility of China marshaling manpower, raw material and technology to protect its access to global sea lanes because guaranteeing that access would require the United States to retreat from the far Western Pacific. Japan cannot tolerate such an evolution because it would leave Japan dependent on China for access to its essential resources and therefore subject to paying a high political price. The Chinese cannot tolerate the United States being in a position to blockade China and savage its economy, potentially weakening Chinese unity.
Neither Japan nor China can be certain of U.S. intentions, since the U.S. has the most room for maneuver. The primary strategy of avoiding hegemons is ideal, but a line through the islands of the Western Pacific to Australia is not an existential threat to the United States. The U.S. doing this does pose an existential threat to Japan. The United States maintaining a naval presence near the Chinese littoral region poses an existential threat to China.
It is in the interest of the Chinese, therefore, to maximize the risk to U.S. naval forces in the region. This does not require war, since the U.S. does not face an existential threat. Rather, the goal must be to create a balance of power where China has the option of initiating conflict with a degree of confidence in heavily damaging the U.S. fleet and accepting damage to China. If China can demonstrate this ability, and the urgent need to act at a time of its choice, the United States might choose to decline combat and retreat. Obviously, this would consist of a missile-based strategy and not a surface battle. And that would lead the U.S. to seek to threaten the survival of land-based missiles. This would be the contest in its simplest form. It would not only give China unfettered access to global sea lanes but would give it offensive capability as well.
For Japan, any decision by the United States to retreat would represent an existential challenge, since the key sea lanes on which Japan depends would now be held by China. No nation can base its national survival on the willingness of another nation to guarantee its interests. The Japanese don’t think the U.S. would retreat but they can’t be certain. Therefore, the Japanese strategy must be to create a threat to China sufficiently damaging that China will not challenge Japanese interests. Unlike the U.S., which might be induced to shift its posture because of the threat environment, Japan has no option, and therefore the threat of even a limited response is extremely high.
Given that Japan is the third-largest economy in the world, with an extremely capable technological base and a stable social order, the ability of Japan to generate such a threat in a relatively short time presents a danger to China. China has no preemptive power at this point because of the United States’ guarantees to Japan. For Japan, the goal here would be like the one Charles de Gaulle had for France. He developed the French nuclear capability not to destroy an enemy but, in his words, to “tear an arm off.”
Three-Way Game
There are of course other players involved in this three-way game, particularly Australia and India. But in the end, while valuable in the current environment for political and operational support, Australia remains under the U.S. security umbrella. India, unlikely as it is to have a trans-Himalayan war with China, sees its operations as political gestures.
It’s important to understand in this situation that while the immediate withdrawal of the U.S. from China’s near-abroad would not be an existential threat to the U.S., the evolution of events following this could become one. The U.S. fought Japan because it understood that ceding the Western Pacific to Japan would merely postpone the conflict. The same would be true with withdrawal from the Chinese periphery. Control of the Eastern Pacific is essential to the United States, and Washington has learned that this requires an overwhelming power in the western position to deter hostile action by China (or Russia before it) at the point of the greatest advantage to the United States. Therefore, while neither China nor Japan can be certain what the U.S. might do, the cold calculation is this: If the United States does not stand on this line, it will likely have to stand on another, less advantageous line.
China will continue to invest in sea lane denial weapons while it works to maintain stability at home. Japan will develop at least prototypes of advanced weapons while enjoying U.S.-provided access to the sea. And the U.S. will continue to make certain that it has a full spectrum of responses to China, while not forcing it into an impossible position where risk-taking is the only option.

Published by Geopolitical Futures on 28 August 2019, www.geopoliticalfutures.com

Pictures included in the article by author

Crisitian UNTEANU

Discuţia atât de inflamată din acest moment dintre SUA şi Danemarca provocată de declaraţia de intenţie formulată de Trump, care doreşte să cumpere Groenlanda, cuprinde referinţe la situaţii mai vechi, unele foarte puţin cunoscute marelui public şi care repun în actualitate câteva dintre proiectele militare americane din perioada celui de-al Doilea Război Mondial şi imediat după aceea, în anii de început ai Războiului Rece.

Groenlanda este o zonă în care americanii au investit mult în ideea, dovedită foarte corectă, că teritoriul, în ciuda unor condiţii climatice extreme, avea să fie punctul strategic de control al circulaţiei în zona atlantică, oferind avantajul unui enorm ,,portavion terestru” posibil de a asigura superioritatea aeriană şi maritimă în mai multe direcţii.

Baza de la Thule, situată la 1.500 de kilometri de Polul Nord a fost construită de americani în anii 1940 şi apoi extinsă în anii ’50, cu o pistă cu o lungime de 3.000 de metri şi o lăţime de câteva sute de metri care primeşte anual aproximativ 2.600 de zboruri militare şi internaţionale. Era una dintre cele mai mari şi importante baze care adăpostea bombardiere strategice americane şi, la momentul său de apogeu de la începutul anilor ’60, avea un personal de aproximativ 10.000 de persoane. Acum este importantă ca o componentă radar din sistemul NORAD pentru detectarea unor eventuale tiruri de rachete dinspre Rusia şi este integrată in Air Force Space Command.

Dar relaţia cu Danemarca este pusă la foarte grea încercare de un incident extrem de serios în 2016, când, datorită încălzirii climatice, topirea gheţurilor a făcut să iasă la lumină o bază secretă americană, Camp Century (construită între 1959 -1960) şi concepută ca bază pentru lansarea unor rachete balistice în caz de conflict nuclear cu URSS. Săpată adânc în gheaţă, Camp Century trebuia să verifice fezabilitatea marelui proiect ICEWORM. Situat la 200 de kilometri est de baza de la Thule, staţia subterană era alimentată de un reactor nuclear, fiind compusă dintr-o vastă reţea de tunele subterane care alcătuiau un mic oraş care dispunea de toate infrastructurile necesare celor 200 de persoane care trăiau acolo: spital, magazin, teatru, biserică.

Mai există şi o a doua bază, de dimensiuni mai mici, Camp Fistclench, la sud-est de Camp Century. Finalmente, după patru ani, raportul militarilor a fost ferm: mişcările gheţurilor făceau imposibilă menţinerea securităţii unor depozite subterane unde să fie stocat arsenalul nuclear aşa că, finalmente, nu au existat ogive nucleare. Întreg proiectul va începe să fie abandonat începând cu 1964, iar în 1967 baza Camp Century este dezasamblată şi resturile abandonate, aşa că acolo, în adâncimea gheţii crezute eterne, au rămas şi deşeurile nucleare rămase după experienţele de laborator, dar şi aproximativ 200.000 de litri de carburant, plus o cantitate impresionantă de ape uzate. Iar acum, aşa cum subliniază Lian Colgan, cercetător specialist în probleme arctice de la Universitatea York din Toronto, care a publicat recent un studiu masiv şi foarte bine argumentat în Geological Research Letter, există riscul enorm al prezenţei deşeurilor de uraniu şi plutoniu care deja încep să apară la suprafaţă odată cu topirea stratului de gheaţă care acoperă Camp Century. O uriaşă groapă de gunoi chimică şi nucleară.

Costurile sunt enorme, cine va plăti

Chestiune deloc simplă deoarece, chiar dacă în termenii acordului de cooperare militară din 1941 şi extins în 1951 între Danemarca şi SUA, americanii primeau dreptul să construiască în Groenlanda 33 de baze şi staţii radar, textul nu preciza cine va fi responsabil de curăţirea terenului, de ,,ecologizarea lui” cum s-ar spune azi.

Danezii nu au uitat niciodată nici incidentul extraordinar de grav din 21 ianuarie 1968, atunci când a izbucnit un incendiu în compartimentul navigatorului dintr-un bombardier B-52 care avea la bord 4 bombe H, fiecare cu o putere de 1,1 MT. Se încearcă o aterizare de urgenţă pe baza de la Thule, dar incendiul deja provocase o pană generală de curent la bordul avionului care se prăbuseşte la 11 kilometri de aeroport. Impactul provoacă explozia celor 132.500 de litri de carburant, iar asta duce mai departe la explozia învelişului exterior al celor patru bombe nucleare, pulverizând în atmosferă fragmente de plutoniu de mărimea unei cutii de ţigări precum şi a uraniului şi tritiumului pe un culoar de 100 de metri, de-a lungul traiectoriei avionului. Rămăşiţele bombelor şi ale avionului au ars cel puţin 20 de minute, afectând o suprafaţă între 300-600 de kilometri pătraţi, iar căldura a topit o zona de gheaţă care, mai apoi, s-a refăcut şi a acoperit o parte din rămăşiţe. Au intervenit apoi peste 700 de militari americani şi danezi pentru a curăţa zona în cadrul proiectului denumit ,,Project Crest Ice”, operaţiune care a costat 9,4 milioane de dolari.

Echipele au lucrat neîntrerupt două luni, dizlocând şi transportând 10.500 de tone de zăpadă, de gheaţă şi resturi contaminate care au fost colectate în butoaie şi mai apoi transportate cu vaporul la centrul de la Oak Ridge, unde au fost îngropate într-un sit special pentru deşeuri nucleare.

Dar problema enormă rămâne nerezolvată până în zilele noastre: nu a fost gasită cea de-a patra bombă termonucleară neexplodată. Conform unor documente clasificate obţinute de cei care au lucrat la Thule şi le-au făcut să parvină cotidianului danez Jyllands-Posten, bomba respectivă avea numărul de serie 78252 şi ar fi căzut în golful din apropiere de Thule, un submarin de cercetare al US NAVY fotografiind în adâncuri, în vara anului 2000, ceva care seamană cu bomba respectivă. De atunci încoace, apar zeci de studii (şi numai în Danemarca) pentru a evidenţia efectele nocive care continuă să se manifeste, chiar după o generaţie, din cauza contaminarii solului.

Anul trecut, Danermarca şi Teritoriul său autonom Groenlanda au semnat un acord pentru curăţarea zonei unde s-au aflat instalaţii militare abandonate după cel de-al Doilea Război Mondial, operaţiune care va dura 6 ani şi va costa aproximativ 29 de milioane de dolari. Dar acordul nu priveşte nici instalaţiile americane încă în funcţiune şi, din păcate, nici pe cele de la Camp Century.

Dar ideea de a folosi Groenlanda drept o bază militară continuă să fie extrem de interesantă şi acum, mai ales că se dovedeşte cât de multe argumente economice conexe mai există. Ele au fost intuite de americani de mai mult timp, începând cu preşedintele Harry Truman care, în 1945, le-a propus danezilor să cumpere imensa insulă în schimbul a 100 de milioane de dolari plătibili în lingouri de aur. Oferta considerată absolut neinteresantă pentru Danemarca. Dar, de atunci încoace, a apărut fenomenul încălzirii climatice care a produs deschiderea unor noi trasee maritime, iar prima ţară care a simţit potenţialul a fost China care a început să investească sume mai mult decât considerabile în toate proiectele guvernamentale şi private din Groenlanda, extrem de doritoare de a avea un cap de pod strategic pentru ,,braţul arctic” al Noului Drum al Mătăsii, folosind canalul prin Nord-Est mai degrabă decât clasicul Canal de Suez. Sau dominându-le pe ambele. Plus că, în acest moment, chiar dacă se vorbeşte despre rezervele importante sau foarte importante de petrol, gaze, diamante, uraniu, plumb, cărbune, zinc, minereu de fier sau cupru, par să fie extrem de tentante mineralele rare, dar nimeni nu poate da cifre exacte căci de-abia de acum încolo, pe anumite zone, vor putea fi efectuate explorări pentru primele evaluări.

Se pare că ar mai fi ceva. Un articol recent apărut în Nature Sustainbility şi citat de Stephanie Jaquet se intitulează astfel: Nisipul provenind din topirea gheţarilor ar putea fi salvarea economică a Groenlandei căci acest tip de nisip este ideal pentru construcţii, o piaţă care valorează acum 100 de miliarde de dolari dar, până la finele acestui secol, s-ar putea dezvolta de cinci ori mai mult.

Dacă ne mai amintim şi că cea mai puternică flotă militară rusă este cea nordica, avem o imagine completă a motivaţiilor interesului suscitat de potenţialul Groenlandei. Şi discuţia poate că se află de-abia la început, pe măsură ce se revine, din toate punctele de vedere, la raţionamentele Războiului Rece şi la nevoia de a folosi teritorii drept baze de plecare în caz de conflict. Numai că, între timp, nu ne putem debarasa de memoriile dezastrelor trecute. În chip de concluzie, vă propun fotografii exemplare şi care ar trebui să dea mult de gândit.

Articol publicat inițial de cotidianul adevărul, www.adevarul.ro

Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarević,

Vienna, 16 AUG 2019

Does our history only appear overheated, while it is essentially calmly predetermined? Is it directional or conceivable, dialectic and eclectic or cyclical, and therefore cynical? Surely, our history warns. Does it also provide for a hope? Hence, what is in front of us: destiny or future?

Theory loves to teach us that extensive debates on what kind of economic system is most conductive to human wellbeing is what consumed most of our civilizational vertical. However, our history has a different say: It seems that the manipulation of the global political economy – far more than the introduction of ideologies – is the dominant and arguably more durable way that human elites usually conspired to build or break civilizations, as planned projects. Somewhere down the process, it deceived us, becoming the self-entrapment. How?

*                      *                      *                      *         

One of the biggest (nearly schizophrenic) dilemmas of liberalism, ever since David Hume and Adam Smith, was an insight into reality: Whether the world is essentially Hobbesian or Kantian. As postulated, the main task of any liberal state is to enable and maintain wealth of its nation, which of course rests upon wealthy individuals inhabiting the particular state. That imperative brought about another dilemma: if wealthy individual, the state will rob you, but in absence of it, the pauperized masses will mob you.

The invisible hand of Smith’s followers have found the satisfactory answer – sovereign debt. That ‘invention’ meant: relatively strong central government of the state. Instead of popular control through the democratic checks-&-balance mechanism, such a state should be rather heavily indebted. Debt – firstly to local merchants, than to foreigners – is a far more powerful deterrent, as it resides outside the popular check domain.

With such a mixed blessing, no empire can easily demonetize its legitimacy, and abandon its hierarchical but invisible and unconstitutional controls. This is how a debtor empire was born. A blessing or totalitarian curse? Let us briefly examine it.

The Soviet Union – much as (the pre-Deng’s) China itself – was far more of a classic continental military empire (overtly brutal; rigid, authoritative, anti-individual, apparent, secretive), while the US was more a financial-trading empire (covertly coercive; hierarchical, yet asocial, exploitive, pervasive, polarizing). On opposite sides of the globe and cognition, to each other they remained enigmatic, mysterious and incalculable: Bear of permafrost vs. Fish of the warm seas. Sparta vs. Athens. Rome vs. Phoenicia… However, common for the both was a super-appetite for omnipresence. Along with the price to pay for it.

Consequently, the Soviets went bankrupt by mid 1980s – they cracked under its own weight, imperially overstretched. So did the Americans – the ‘white man burden’ fractured them already by the Vietnam war, with the Nixon shock only officializing it. However, the US imperium managed to survive and to outlive the Soviets. How?

The United States, with its financial capital (or an outfoxing illusion of it), evolved into a debtor empire through the Wall Street guaranties. Titanium-made Sputnik vs. gold mine of printed-paper… Nothing epitomizes this better than the words of the longest serving US Federal Reserve’s boss, Alan Greenspan, who famously quoted J.B. Connally to then French President Jacques Chirac: “True, the dollar is our currency, but your problem”. Hegemony vs. hegemoney.

House of Cards

Conventional economic theory teaches us that money is a universal equivalent to all goods. Historically, currencies were a space and time-related, to say locality-dependent. However, like no currency ever before, the US dollar became – past the WWII – the universal equivalent to all other moneys of the world. According to history of currencies, the core component of the non-precious metals’ money is a so-called promissory note – intangible belief that, by any given point in future, a particular shiny paper (self-styled as money) will be smoothly exchanged for real goods.

Thus, roughly speaking, money is nothing else but a civilizational construct about imagined/projected tomorrow – that the next day (which nobody has ever seen in the history of humankind, but everybody operates with) definitely comes (i), and that this tomorrow will certainly be a better day then our yesterday or even our today (ii).

This and similar types of collective constructs (horizontal and vertical) over our social contracts hold society together as much as its economy keeps it alive and evolving. Hence, it is money that powers economy, but our blind faith in constructed (imagined) tomorrows and its alleged certainty is what empowers money.

Clearly, the universal equivalent of all equivalents – the US dollar – follows the same pattern: Bold and widely accepted promise. What does the US dollar promise when there is no gold cover attached to it ever since the time of Nixon shock of 1971?

Pentagon promises that the oceanic sea-lanes will remain opened (read: controlled by the US Navy), pathways unhindered, and that the most traded world’s commodity – oil, will be delivered. So, it is not a crude or its delivery what is a cover to the US dollar – it is a promise that oil of tomorrow will be deliverable. That is a real might of the US dollar, which in return finances Pentagon’s massive expenditures and shoulders its supremacy.

Admired and feared, Pentagon further fans our planetary belief in tomorrow’s deliverability – if we only keep our faith in dollar (and hydrocarbons’ energized economy), and so on and on in perpetuated circle of mutual reinforcements.

These two pillars of the US might from the East coast (the US Treasury/Wall Street and Pentagon) together with the two pillars of the West coast – both financed and amplified by the US dollar, and spread through the open sea-routs (Silicone Valley and Hollywood), are an essence of the US posture.

This very nature of power explains why the Americans have missed to take the mankind into completely other direction; towards the non-confrontational, decarbonized, de-monetized/de-financialized and de-psychologized, the self-realizing and green humankind. In short, to turn history into a moral success story. They had such a chance when, past the Gorbachev’s unconditional surrender of the Soviet bloc, and the Deng’s Copernicus-shift of China, the US – unconstrained as a lonely superpower – solely dictated terms of reference; our common destiny and direction/s to our future/s.

Winner is rarely a game-changer

Sadly enough, that was not the first missed opportunity for the US to soften and delay its forthcoming, imminent multidimensional imperial retreat. The very epilogue of the WWII meant a full security guaranty for the US: Geo-economically – 54% of anything manufactured in the world was carrying the Made in USA label, and geostrategically – the US had uninterruptedly enjoyed nearly a decade of the ‘nuclear monopoly’. Up to this very day, the US scores the biggest number of N-tests conducted, the largest stockpile of nuclear weaponry, and it represents the only power ever deploying this ‘ultimate weapon’ on other nation. To complete the irony, Americans enjoy geographic advantage like no other empire before. Save the US, as Ikenberry notes: “…every major power in the world lives in a crowded geopolitical neighborhood where shifts in power routinely provoke counterbalancing”. Look the map, at Russia or China and their packed surroundings. The US is blessed with its insular position, by neighboring oceans. All that should harbor tranquility, peace and prosperity, foresightedness.  

Why the lonely might, an empire by invitation did not evolve into empire of relaxation, a generator of harmony? Why does it hold (extra-judicially) captive more political prisoners on Cuban soil than the badmouthed Cuban regime has ever had? Why does it remain obsessed with armament for at home and abroad? Why existential anxieties for at home and security challenges for abroad ? (Eg. 78% of all weaponry at disposal in the wider MENA theater is manufactured in the US, while domestically Americans – only for their civilian purpose – have 1,2 small arms pieces per capita.)

Why the fall of Berlin Wall 30 years ago marked a beginning of decades of stagnant or failing incomes in the US (and elsewhere in the OECD world) coupled with alarming inequalities. What are we talking about here; the inadequate intensity of our tireless confrontational push or about the false course of our civilizational direction? 

Indeed, no successful and enduring empire does merely rely on coercion, be it abroad or at home. The grand design of every empire in past rested on a skillful calibration between obedience and initiative – at home, and between bandwagoning and engagement – abroad. In XXI century, one wins when one convinces not when one coerces. Hence, if unable to escape its inner logics and deeply-rooted appeal of confrontational nostalgia, the prevailing archrival is only a winner, rarely a game-changer.

To sum up; After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Americans accelerated expansion while waiting for (real or imagined) adversaries to further decline, ‘liberalize’ and bandwagon behind the US. Expansion is the path to security dictatum only exacerbated the problems afflicting the Pax Americana. That is how the capability of the US to maintain its order started to erode faster than the capacity of its opponents to challenge it. A classical imperial self-entrapment!!

The repeated failure to notice and recalibrate its imperial retreat brought the painful hangovers to Washington by the last presidential elections. Inability to manage the rising costs of sustaining the imperial order only increased the domestic popular revolt and political pressure to abandon its ‘mission’ altogether. Perfectly hitting the target to miss everything else …

Hence, Americans are not fixing the world any more. They are only managing its decline. Look at their (winner) footprint in former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria – to mention but a few.

*                *                      *                      *                     

When the Soviets lost their own indigenous ideological matrix and maverick confrontational stance, and when the US dominated West missed to triumph although winning the Cold War, how to expect from the imitator to score the lasting moral or even a momentary economic victory?

Neither more confrontation and more carbons nor more weaponized trade and traded weapons will save our day. It failed in past, it will fail again any given day.

Interestingly, China opposed the I World, left the II in rift, and ever since Bandung of 1955 it neither won over nor (truly) joined the III Way. Today, many see it as a main contestant. But, where is a lasting success?

(The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is what the most attribute as an instrument of the Chinese planetary posture. Chinese leaders promised massive infrastructure projects all around by burning trillions of dollars. Still, numbers are more moderate. As the recent The II BRI Summit has shown, so far, Chinese companies had invested $90 worldwide. Seems, neither People’s Republic is as rich as many (wish to) think nor it will be able to finance its promised projects without seeking for a global private capital. Such a capital –if ever – will not flow without conditionalities. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the BRICS or ‘New Development’ – Bank have some $150 billion at hand, and the Silk Road Infrastructure Fund (SRIF) has up to $40 billion. Chinese state and semi-private companies can access – according to the OECD estimates – just another $600 billion (much of it tight) from the home, state-controlled financial sector. That means that China runs short on the BRI deliveries worldwide. Ergo, either bad news to the (BRI) world or the conditionalities’ constrained China.)

Greening international relations along with a greening of economy – geopolitical and environmental understanding, de-acidification and relaxation is the only way out.

That necessitates both at once: less confrontation over the art-of-day technology and their monopolies’ redistribution (as preached by the Sino-American high priests of globalization) as well as the resolute work on the so-called Tesla-ian implosive/fusion-holistic systems (including free-energy technologies; carbon-sequestration; antigravity and self-navigational solutions; bioinformatics and nanorobotics). More of initiative than of obedience (including more public control over data hoovering). More effort to excellence (creation) than struggle for preeminence (partition).

Finally, no global leader has ever in history emerged from a shaky and distrustful neighborhood, or by offering a little bit more of the same in lieu of an innovative technological advancement. (Eg. many see the Chinese 5G as an illiberal innovation, which may end up servicing authoritarianism, anywhere. And indeed, the AI deep learning inspired by biological neurons (neural science) including its three methods: supervised, unsupervised and reinforced learning can end up used for the digital authoritarianism, predictive policing and manufactured social governance based on the bonus-malus behavioral social credits.)

Ergo, it all starts from within, from at home. Without support from a home base (including that of Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet), there is no game changer. China’s home is Asia. Its size and its centrality along with its impressive output is constraining it enough.

Hence, it is not only a new, non-imitative, turn of technology what is needed. Without truly and sincerely embracing mechanisms such as the NaM, ASEAN and SAARC (eventually even the OSCE) and the main champions of multilateralism in Asia, those being India Indonesia and Japan first of all, China has no future of what is planetary awaited – the third force, a game-changer, lasting visionary and trusted global leader.

Post Scriptum:

To varying degrees, but all throughout a premodern and modern history, nearly every world’s major foreign policy originator was dependent (and still depends) on what happens in, and to, Russia. It is not only a size, but also centrality of Russia that matters. It is as much (if not even more), as it is an omnipresence of the US and as it is a hyperproduction of the PR China.

Ergo, it is an uninterrupted flow of manufactured goods to the whole world, it is balancing of the oversized and centrally positioned one, and it is the ability to controllably destruct the way in and insert itself of the peripheral one. The oscillatory interplay of these three is what characterizes our

Author is chairperson and professor in international law and global political studies, Vienna, Austria.  He has authored six books (for American and European publishers) and numerous articles on, mainly, geopolitics energy and technology.

Professor is editor of the NY-based GHIR (Geopolitics, History and Intl. Relations) journal,

and editorial board member of several similar specialized magazines on three continents.

His 7th book, ‘From WWI to www. – Europe and the World 1918-2018’ has been realised earlier this year.

by Carlos Pereyra Méle – Director of the Argentina-based Dossier Geopolitico

If society is considered as an open, complex and dynamic system.  This system is attributed for the quality of both organizing and disorganizing.  Constructive chaos occurs when there is an attempt to harness these destructive and seemingly random forces, for strategic purposes.

The chaos strategy proposes the artificial creation of disorder and violence in a country or areas that are considered as an object. It can be secured through an unconventional war – use of different methods to achieve internal convulsions within a target country or the use of armed intermediaries to lead to a civil war scenario in a target country.  It is a standardized regime change approach when to topple government or to trigger political collapse of a country or entire region.

Chaos theory aroused great interest from a sector of the American elite. Different authors and protagonists, academics and practitioners, took theoretical premises of it to understand the mechanics of social movements in countries and operate on them to obtain designated objectives.  They would formulate their application as a strategy, through a built chaos, for the achievement of American geostrategic interests.

These models begin with the introduction of a colour revolution, or a “Spring”. That represents some kind of revolt or navigated or manufactured ‘spontaneity’ of a street demonstration. Certainly, it represents a clear cut case of a soft coup, which could then be followed by a hard blow, through an unconventional war.  If the first fails, population is exposed to social engineering methods and hybrid wars, so that they can escalate into violence, produce civil wars, the results are the change of government or the collapse of the State itself.

If this sequence is repeated in several countries of the same region, we can talk about areas that are not integrated (Gap) under Barnett’s parameters.

“Gradually, the imperial civilizing mission (Expansion is a path to Security) got a new form. It became a moral duty – R2P (Responsibility to Protect), as much as the parental duty is to raise their infant child. The handsome, masculine and strong Western Prince Charming has one duty – to emancipate his Eastern Sleeping Beauty. Giving a ‘kiss’ meant projecting the western physical military presence, and commerce” – remarks prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic in his brilliant geo-philosophical synthesis “Imperialism of Lullaby”.

Hence, what is a chaos?

Engineering the Chaos

Chaos theory applied as a strategy is simply a form of social engineering.

Based on a comparison of the main guidelines of the strategy of chaos and hybrid warfare, we find under deduction that chaos theory is understood as a variant of the hybrid and fourth generation paradigm of wars.  The objective is to change the regime of a country marked as objective, but it should not be ruled out that the collapse of the state structure is not a desired objective.

As we have observed in all these cases, Chaos Theory has been used as a geostrategic foundation of the US to strengthen its role as a global hegemon after the Cold War, mainly in the Middle East area.

Chaos theory seeks to provoke, induce attitudes, behaviours, through social engineering to the population of a target country in addition to infiltrating external elements, violence spreads like a computer virus, the expected result is that the system will “reset/restart” with a change of government or such a state disintegrated.  If that is the last case it will also be favourable for the US anyway.

Based on the historical methodology to analyse, and the prospective methodology to project, based on trend tracking.  Its future use in other scenarios is not ruled out. Just as Arab springs and colour revolutions have occurred in the former Soviet space, this does not mean that they cannot be introduced outside those geographical areas, according to the interests of contenders fighting for their interests.  Many of these patterns mentioned above are observed in Venezuela to date. 

Chaos theory and strategy is a paradigmatic methodology of the US, in the geopolitical plane its main objective is the fragmentation and fracturing of the Eurasian belt.

We must emphasize that this search for an unquestionable American unipolar hegemony project found its counterweight in recent years with the participation and active intervention in various scenarios and global situations of China and Russia, which to date seem to seek to consolidate a strategic partnership.

Motto: “It has been a long time since this thought crossed my mind that armies without a uniform are haunting Europe.

Mircea Diaconu – Romanian European MP

Corneliu PIVARIU

 The second quarter of 2019 which has just come to an end was characterised by outstanding geopolitical developments which will influence the future of international relations and tensions/conflicts within the reordering of the new poles of world and regional power as well as the further development of the globalisation process.

We are witnessing the development of more recent forms and methods than we used to encounter in the lap of time up to the end of the XXth century for securing the implementation of a new world order and the further development of the globalisation process, activities in which states do not play a permanent and crucial role any longer,  where supranational entities are more and more manifest as important players in the new evolution of the global and regional geopolitical situation.

Therefore, to this purpose certain topics highly popular among the masses of people are being used such as fighting corruption, the rule of law (a definition which hasn’t been agreed upon unanimously even within the European Union as well as the use of the justice system for reaching certain political objectives), minorities’ rights (which are pushed  that far as to become so positively discriminated to offend majority’s fundamental rights), migration, the manipulation of educational system for settling it on other bases aimed at levelling the populations without taking into account their history, traditions or other perrenial values of mankind, applying double standards, the employment of a vast network of NGOs, established in the course of time for attaining aims others than initially declared, the use of social platforms and developing means of communication to stir emotions to replace the truth up to the attainment of the set objectives etc.

A excellent brief review of the current situation was made up by  prof. Anis Bajrektarevic[1]: “economic downturn; recession of plans and initiatives; systematically ignored calls for a fiscal and monetary justice for all; Euro crisis; Brexit and irredentism in the UK, Spain, Belgium, France, Denmark and Italy; lasting instability in the Euro-Med theatre (debt crisis in the Europe’s south – countries scrutinized and ridiculed under the nick-name PIGS, coupled with the failed states all over MENA); terrorism; historic low with Russia along with a historic trans-Atlantic blow with Trump; influx of predominantly Muslim refugees from Levant in numbers and configurations unprecedented since WWII exodus; consequential growth of far-right parties who – by peddling reductive messages and comparisons – are exploiting fears of otherness, that are now amplified with already urging labor and social justice concerns; generational unemployment and socio-cultural anxieties, in the ricochet of the Sino-US trade wars… The very fundaments of Europe are shaking”.

Fighting corruption is a noble goal yet when it is diverted towards political and economic purposes it loses its virtues of redressing society and becomes a formidable weapon in achieving other ends. Actually, it seems that the most hunted for are the corrupt and not the corrupters too often being forgotten the fact that there are no corrupt without corrupters. According to some public data[2], first rated companies in countries such as the US, France, Germany, Holland, Sweden, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, etc, affect tens of the world states where in order to get financial benefits of billions of dollars they offer bribes. Only the fines applied to the companies of the said countries sum up to almost 11 billion dollars to say nothing of the penalties of some other tens of thousands of dollars imposed on some wellknown banks in these countries and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Leading banks in Europe have been found laundering hundreds of thousands of dollars for Russia during the last approximately ten years only.

Over recent decades the scope and role of the financial system changed substantially as it grew more rapidly and brought bigger profits than in other fields. In the US only, finance’s share of GDP grew from 14% to 21% between 1960 and 2017, while manufacturing’s fell from 27% to 11% and trade’s declined from 17% to 12%. The financial sector is twice as large as trade and manufacturing sectors.

During 1960-2017, finance almost doubled its profits, from 17% to 30% of total domestic corporate profits, while manufacturing’s share shrank by almost two thirds, from 49% to 17%.   

Thus, recent technological, ideological, institutional  and political changes have drastically transformed finance, enabling it to penetrate and influence all spheres of social life, so that  the experts in the field consider financialization as the new avatar of today’s world.

In relation to migration, the theories launched since 2000s concerning the necessity of a mass migration in order to replace the aging population and to secure the workforce needed by European economies, are confirmed by a 2018 World Health Organisation study which revealed that the total number of migrants in certain European countries is 3-4 times larger than the official figures. They would represent around 10% of Europe’s current population, namely roughly 91 million people, most of them in France – 7.9 million (12.2%), Germany – 12.1 million (14.8%), Spain – 5.9 million (12.8%), Holland – 2 million (12.1%), Sweden – 1.7 million (17.6%), Switzerland – 2.4 million (29.6%). As regards their integration into society, things are completely different to the way they are disclosed publicly. Whether over the previous decades the new comers sought, for the most part, to adjust and adapt to the European way of life, the massive groups of migrants haven’t got  the slightest intention to integrate themselves; on the contrary, and the examples presented by independent media are quite frequent. Does Germany agree with poligamy if it accepts Muslim refugees who brought with them their wives and children to whom all prerequisites are granted, including financial means of living, in order to settle there, even if they are not showing the slightest intention they want to integrate into society and have a job?

Under the complex circumstances of the current developments of the international situation, the 67th annual reunion of The Bilderberg Group took place in Montreux, Switzerland, between May 30th and June 2nd, 2019, and was attended by around 130 invitees from 23 countries. The Bilderberg  Group was established in 1954 to foster dialogue between Europe and North America and brings together political leaders, experts in sectors such as industry, finance, media, military, academics. Roughly two thirds of the invitees are coming from Europe (the easternmost countries represented are Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Finland, Estonia) and one third from North America. Around 25% of them are political and government personalities and 75% from other sectors. This year, the USA had 34 representatives, Great Britain – 12, France – 8, Germany – 8, Turkey – 5, Bulgaria – 1. No Romanian representative participated.

Among the 13 main topics we notice: A stable strategic order; What comes next for Europe? (Brexit was a separate topic); The future of capitalism; Climatic changes; China; Russia; The ethics of Artificial Intelligence.

In an analysis devoted to the 2019 reunion, International Policy Digest mentioned that one of the best characterisation of the Bilderberg Group could be a quotation from Joseph Stiglitz: “The ones at the top learned how to extort money from the rest of the world in a way the rest of the world was not aware. That’s their true innovation. Policy is the one which sets the rules of the market, yet policy was monopolized by the financial elites who filled their pockets.

It seems that among the topics discussed was the one concerned with securing that the chancellor position  after Angela Merkel’s will be transfered to Annegret Kramp Karrenbauer  (known under the acronym  of AKK). We do not rule out that the future leadership of the European Union, which will be voted by the middle of this month, has been decided on that occasion, too. Let us not forget that Ursula von der Leyen, intended to be Jean Claude Junker’s successor as president of the European Commission, is a member of the Bilderberg Group (she attended this year’s reunion). Her nomination stirred a huge wave of discontent in Germany and a recent poll shows that 53% of Germany’s population opposes her appointment, and president Junker considered that her nomination was made in a non transparent way. The current German minister of Defense, Ursula von der Leyen, is known as an advocate of setting up an European Army and in a recent interview to Der Spiegel she called for the establishment of an European super-state: “My goal is (the achievement of) the United States of Europe”… At the same time, the Belgian prime minister, Charles Michel, nominated to become the next president of the European Council, declared that the east-European countries opposed to taking over migrants should lose certain of their rights as full members of the Union. Even if all four nominees for key positions of the EU are known as advocates of federalising Europe, their task is by no means simple and easy and their being chosed exclusively from the western countries draws another thick line in Europe where the new eastern members are left on the second or third row. A multi-speed Europe is a reality, not a project, yet the dreamed for achievement of the United States of Europe cannot be reached through discriminating treatments. The declaration of a very important Dutch businessman who said enough time ago that the future of Europe is a union of 75 states having 5 to 10 million inhabitants each is still worrying. It seems that the dictum  divide et impera found a new application…

Divided by internal conflicts, the EU is not in a position to retrieve the cohesion and consistency of a long term strategic thinking and is losing – at least at the present moment  – the fight for the deserved place in the world hierarchy. Experimenting in Europe, before spreading globally, the uniformity of the populations, erasing the peculiarities of nations and abolishing national borders is presumably wished for in the most secret labs of globalisation. If this test would succeed in Europe, it has chances of success globally.

This is still far from being achieved even if different armies without a uniform are wandering all over Europe, if those who want this globalisation for their own benefit and not for the benefit of the entire society have enormous financial means, even if social engineering and Man 2.0 are looming in Silicon Valley. What does not kill us makes us stronger.


[1] Anthropo-geographic inversion and triangular trade – Geopolitical handbooks no.8 in moderndiplomacy.eu

[2] The US Securities and Exchange Commission – Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Moto: Mi s-a părut de mai multă vreme, de ani de zile,

că umblă prin Europa armate fără uniforme.

Mircea Diaconu – europarlamentar român

Corneliu PIVARIU

 Trimestrul doi al anului 2019, care abia s-a încheiat, a fost marcat de evoluții geopolitice importante, care vor avea consecințe pentru viitorul relațiilor internaționale și a tensiunilor/conflictelor în reașezarea noilor centre de putere mondială și regională, precum și în evoluția viitoare a procesului de globalizare.

Asistăm la dezvoltarea unor forme și metode mai noi, comparativ cu perioada de până la sfârșitul secolului XX, pentru asigurarea realizării unei noi ordini mondiale și continuarea procesului de globalizare, acțiuni în care statele nu mai dețin permanent un rol primordial, în care entități supranaționale se manifestă tot mai evident ca actori importanți în noua evoluție a situației geopolitice globale și regionale.

Astfel, în acest scop sunt folosite unele teme cu largă priză la mase, cum ar fi lupta împotriva corupției, edificarea statului de drept (o formulare asupra căreia nici cel puțin în interiorul Uniunii Europene nu s-a ajuns la o definiție unanim acceptată, precum și folosirea sistemului de justiție pentru atingerea unor obiective politice), drepturile minorităților (care sunt împinse să ajungă la o discriminare atât de pozitivă încât  să lezeze drepturi fundamentale ale majorității), migrația populației, manipularea sistemului de educație pentru punerea lui pe alte baze care să uniformizeze populațiile, fără a mai ține cont de istorie, tradiții, alte valorile perene ale umanității, aplicarea dublului standard, folosirea unei vaste rețele de ONG-uri, create în timp, pentru atingerea unor scopuri cu totul altele decât cele declarate, folosirea platformelor de socializare și a dezvoltării mijloacelor de comunicare pentru a dezvolta emoții, care să ia locul adevărului, până la atingerea obiectivelor propuse,  etc.

O trecere succintă în evidență a situație actuale o găsim excelent redată de către prof. Anis Bajrektarevic[1]: “scăderea economică; recesiunea planurilor și inițiativelor; ignorarea sistematică a cerințelor pentru o dreptate fiscală și monetară pentru toți; criza Euro; Brexit și iredentismul în Marea Britanie, Spania, Belgia, Franța, Italia și Danemarca; continuarea instabilității în teatrul Euro-Mediteraneean (criza datoriilor în Europa de Sud, țări ridiculizate și controlate, alături de state eșuate în toată zona MENA); terorismul; relațiile cu Rusia la cel mai scăzut nivel istoric, împreună cu cea mai mare cădere a relațiilor trans-atlantice cu Trump; influxul refugiaților predominant musulmani din Levant, într-un număr și o configurație fără precedent de la exodurile din Al Doilea Război Mondial; în consecință, creșterea partidelor de extremă-dreaptă care, prezentând mesaje reductive și comparații, exploatează teama altora, amplificând preocupările privind  locurile de muncă și justiția socială; șomajul generațional și anxietățile socio-culturale, în ricoșeu cu războiul comercial Sino-american… Fundamentele esențiale ale Europei sunt zguduite”.

Lupta împotriva corupției este un țel nobil dar, atunci când este deturnată în scopuri politice și economice își pierde virtuțile de asanare a societății și devine o armă redutabilă în atingerea acestor scopuri. De altfel, se pare că cei mai căutați sunt corupții și nu corupătorii, uitând prea des că fără corupători nu ar exista nici corupți. Conform unor date publice[2], companii de prim rang din țări ca SUA, Franța, Germania, Olanda, Suedia, Belgia, Luxemburg, Elveția, ș.a, afectează zeci de state ale lumii în care, pentru a obține beneficii financiare de miliarde de dolari, oferă mită. Numai amenzile pe care le-au primit companii din aceste țări însumează aproape 11 miliarde de dolari, în afară de amenzile  de alte zeci de miliarde de dolari primite de diferite bănci de renume din aceste țări, iar aceasta este numai partea vizibilă a aisbergului. Bănci de primă mărime din Europa sunt descoperite că au spălat sute de miliarde de dolari pentru Rusia, numai în ultimii circa zece ani.

În ultimele decenii scopul și rolul sistemului financiar s-au schimbat în mod semnificativ, sectorul financiar crescând mai rapid și aducând mai mult profit ca alte domenii. Numai în SUA, ponderea finanțelor în PIB a crescut de la 14% la 21% între 1960 și 2017, în timp ce producția de bunuri a scăzut de la 27% la 11%, iar comerțul de la 17% la 12%. Sectorul financiar are astfel o pondere aproape dublă față de comerț și producție.

Între 1960-2017 sectorul financiar și-a dublat profiturile, de la 17% la 30% din totalul profiturilor, în timp ce profitul producției de bunuri a scăzut cu aproape două treimi, de la 49% la 17%.

Astfel, împreună cu ultimele evoluții din tehnologie, ideologie, instituționale și politică, sistemul financiar penetrează și influențează toate domeniile vieții sociale, specialiștii în domeniu considerând financializarea ca un nou avatar al lumii de azi.

În ceea ce privește migrația, teoriile lansate încă din anii 2000 privind necesitatea unei migrații de masă, pentru a înlocui populația care îmbătrânește, asigurând forța de muncă necesară economiilor europene, sunt confirmate de un studiu din 2018 al Organizației Mondiale a Sănătății care relevă că numărul total al migranților în unele țări europene este de 3-4 ori mai mare decât îl arată documentele oficiale. Acesta ar reprezenta circa 10% din actuala populație a Europei, adică în jur de 91 milioane de oameni, cei mai mulți în Franța -7,9 milioane (12,2%), Germania – 12,1 milioane (14,8%), Spania -5,9 milioane (12,8%), Olanda -2 milioane (12,1%), Suedia 1,7 milioane (17,6%), Elveția 2,4 milioane (29,6%). În ceea ce privește integrarea lor în societate, lucrurile stau cu totul altfel decât sunt prezentate public. Dacă în deceniile anterioare cei veniți căutau, în mare parte, să se acomodeze și adapteze la modul de viață european, grupurile masive de migranți nu au cel mai mic gând să se integreze, dimpotrivă, iar exemplele în acest sens sunt prezentate destul de frecvent în media independentă. Oare Germania este de acord cu poligamia, dacă acceptă refugiați musulmani care și-au adus soțiile și copii și cărora le oferă toate condițiile, inclusiv mijloacele financiare necesare traiului, pentru a se stabili  acolo, chiar dacă nu dau nici un semn că ar dori să se integreze în societate și să aibă un loc de muncă?

În condițiile evoluției complexe a situației internaționale, în Elveția – la Montreux, a avut loc, în perioada 30 mai – 2 iunie 2019, a 67-a reuniune anuală a Grupului Bilderberg, la care au participat circa 130 de persoane din 23 de țări. Grupul Bilderberg  a fost creat în 1954 pentru promovarea dialogului dintre Europa și America de Nord și reunește lideri politici, experți din domenii ca industrie, finanțe, media, militari, academicieni. Circa două treimi din participanți provin din Europa (țările cel mai estice reprezentate sunt Turcia, România, Bulgaria, Finlanda, Estonia) și o treime din America de Nord. Circa 25% sunt personalități politice și guvernamentale, 75% din celelalte domenii. Anul acesta SUA a avut 34 reprezentanți, Marea Britanie – 12, Franța – 8, Germania – 8, Turcia – 5, Bulgaria -1. Din România nu a participat nimeni.

Din cele 11 teme principale de discuții remarcăm: O ordine strategică stabilă; Ce va urma pentru Europa? (un punct separat a fost Brexit); Viitorul capitalismului; Schimbările climatice; China; Rusia; Etica Inteligenței Artificiale.

Într-o analiză dedicată reuniunii din 2019, International Policy Digest menționa că una din cele mai bune caracterizări a Grupului Bilderberg ar putea fi un citat din Joseph Stiglitz: Cei de la vârf au învățat cum să stoarcă bani de la restul lumii într-un mod de care restul lumii nu este conștient. Asta este adevărata lor inovație. Politica este cea care dă regulile pieței, însă politica a fost monopolizată de elitele financiare care și-au umplut buzunarele.

Printre alte subiecte discutate se pare că a fost și acela al asigurării că postul de cancelar al Germaniei după Angela Merkel va fi deținut de Annegret Kramp Karrenbauer ( cunoscută ca și sub acronimul AKK). De asemenea nu excludem ca și viitoarea conducere a Uniunii Europene, ce va fi votată la mijlocul acestei luni, să fi fost definitivată tot cu această ocazie. Să nu uităm că Ursula von der Leyen, propusă a fi succesoarea lui Jean Claude Junker, ca președinte al Comisiei Europene, este membră Bilderberg (a și participat la reuniunea din acest an). Nominalizarea ei a trezit un val mare de nemulțumire în Germania, un sondaj recent arată că circa 53% din populație este împotriva acestei desemnări, iar președintele Junker a apreciat că nominalizarea acesteia a fost făcută netransparent. Actualul ministru german al apărării, Ursula von der Leyen, este cunoscută ca un adept al creării unei Armate Europene, iar într-un recent interviu acordat Der Spiegel a făcut apelul la crearea unui super-stat european: “Scopul meu este (realizarea) Statelor Unite ale Europei”… În același timp, primul ministru belgian, Charles Michel, nominalizat să fie următorul președinte al Consiliului European a spus că țările est-europene, opuse preluării migranților, ar trebui să piardă unele din drepturile lor ca membri deplini ai Uniunii. Chiar dacă toți cei patru nominalizați în posturile cheie ale UE  sunt cunoscuți ca adepți ai federalizării Europei, sarcina lor nu este de loc simplă și ușoară iar alegerea lor, numai din țările occidentale trasează o altă linie groasă în Europa, unde noile membre din Est sunt lăsate pe planul doi sau trei. Europa cu mai multe viteze este o realitate și nu un proiect, iar spre visata realizare a Statelor Unite ale Europei nu se va putea ajunge cu tratamente discriminatorii. Este totuși îngrijorătoare o trecută declarație a unui foarte important om de afaceri olandez, care spunea în urmă cu destul timp, că viitorul Europei este o uniune a 75 de state cu 5, 10 milioane de locuitori fiecare. Se pare că dictonul divide et impera și-a găsit o nouă aplicare…

Divizată în lupte interne UE nu este încă în măsură să-și regăsească coeziunea și coerența unei gândiri strategice în perspectivă și pierde – cel puțin în momentul de față – în lupta pentru locul meritat în ierarhia mondială. Probabil în laboratoarele cele mai secrete ale globalizării se dorește experimentarea, în Europa, înainte de a se extinde pe plan mondial, a uniformizării populațiilor, ștergerea particularităților națiunilor și desființarea granițelor naționale. Dacă acest test ar reuși în Europa, are șanse de succes pe plan mondial.

Acesta este cu siguranță încă departe de a se realiza, chiar dacă diferite armate fără uniformă se preumblă prin Europa, dacă cei care doresc această globalizare în beneficiul lor și nu al întregii societăți dispun de enorme mijloace financiare, chiar dacă ingineria socială și Omul 2.0 se prefigurează în Silicon Valley. Ceea ce nu ne omoară ne face mai puternici.


[1] Anthropo-geographic inversion and triangular trade – Geopolitical handbooks no.8 in moderndiplomacy.eu

[2] The US Securities and Exchange Commission – Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Translate »