In the Western press, the story of Syria’s beleaguered Kurdish population has been overshadowed by coverage of their immediate cousins, the U.S.-friendly Kurds of northern Iraq and those of T...
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
#US -led coalition strike killed dozens of civilian mourners 30km from Kirkuk – Russian MoD #Irak #Iraq
Sur les gauches .. à côté de la plaque concernant la Syrie depuis le début du conflit
Syria and the Left: Time to Break the Silence
By Eric Draitser
October 21, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "Counterpunch"- The cold, hard reality of the war in Syria is that the violence, bloodshed, and chaos continues unabated while the Left, such as it is, continues on in a state of schizophrenic madness. Different points of view, conflicting ideological tendencies, and a misunderstanding of the reality of the conflict are all relevant issues to be interrogated, with civility and reasoned debate in short supply. But those issues are not the urgent task of this article; the Left does need to seriously self-reflect though about just how it responds to crises of imperialism and issues of war and peace.
However, what is urgently needed at this moment is a clear and unequivocal position on the future of this war, and the lives of all Syrians – political allegiances notwithstanding – as the escalation of the war approaches. There is little doubt that Hillary Clinton will win the crown of ringmaster of the political circus that is the US election. And, as she eases her freshly osculated behind into the leather captain’s chair in the Oval Office, it is only a matter of time before she ratchets up US military involvement in Syria, with a full US war, and attempted regime change, becoming all but a certainty.
And where will the Left be then? This question is not merely rhetorical as the Left has found itself in the usual circular firing squad predicament over the war in Syria. And though the issue continues to be debated, what should be beyond dispute is what the position on intervention into the war should be.
And as I brace for the predictable barrage of hate mail and name-calling from both sides of this debate – I’m mostly inured to that sort of thing after years of it – I want to make one point that should be obvious, and yet has become somehow controversial: opposing the war is the duty of all true anti-war activists.
But what does it mean to oppose the war? Does it mean that we should be opposing just Russian and Syrian bombs being dropped? Does it mean that only US-Saudi-Turkey-Israeli supplied weapons are doing the killing? Sadly, these too are not rhetorical questions as so many on the Left, including many self-described anti-imperialists, have positioned themselves as hawks in a war that has utterly devastated the country. It seems that many, myself included up to a point, have gotten so enveloped in the embrace of partisanship in this war that we have forgotten that our responsibility is to the people of Syria and to peace and justice.
Some on the pro-Assad side of the argument will correctly note that the role of the anti-war activist in the West is, above all, to oppose the imperialism of the West itself. And indeed, that is a primary responsibility. Others on the Left will argue that the responsibility of activists is to support liberation struggles of fellow revolutionaries. And while the revolutionary content of the rebel side in Syria has been sidelined by a hodgepodge of Saudi and Qatari-financed jihadists – the uprising began as a response to the Syrian government’s neoliberal policies and brutality, among other things – this cannot be taken to mean that countless innocent men, women, and children have not been maimed and killed by Syrian and Russian weapons, jets, and fighters.
Be that as it may, the question now before us is this: where do you stand on direct US intervention?
In the long and convoluted history of this war there have been precious few moments of clear and unmistakable moral judgment. If anything, the portrait of the war in Syria is colored in shades of gray, with little black and white to be found.
If you’re supportive of the anti-Assad forces, then it’s quite likely you’ve chosen to ignore the mountains of evidence that there is no “revolution” in Syria but rather a vicious contra-style war being fomented by US-NATO and its toadies in the Gulf, Turkey, and Israel. If you’re supportive of Assad then it’s a certainty that you’ve chosen to ignore or downplay the horrific violence of the bombings, the brutality of the torture chambers, and other unspeakable atrocities (I admit that I have often strayed too far into the latter) out of a desire to uphold the nominally anti-imperialist position.
And where has this left Syria? Where has it brought the Left? We’re no closer to an end to this horrific war, nor are we any closer to a resolution to the cancerous spread of terrorism in the region. Maybe just a few more US-supplied weapons and US-funded fighters will do the trick? Maybe a few more Russian and Syrian bombs will solve the crisis? Well, if you’ve been paying attention, neither one of those has brought Syria any closer to peace. And isn’t that what we’re allegedly supposed to be upholding?
And how about the refugees? I’ve seen the fascist talking points spouted by many fake “anti-imperialists” who with one breath proclaim their commitment to peace and justice, and with another demonize and scapegoat Syrian refugees whose politics don’t align with the pro-Assad position. Words like “traitors,” “cowards,” and “terrorists,” are shamefully applied to ordinary Syrians fleeing to Europe and elsewhere in hopes of saving their families. Indeed, it is precisely this narrative that is at the core of the white supremacist, fascist ideology that underlies a significant amount of the support base for Assad and his allies (see David Duke, David Icke, Alexander Dugin, Brother Nathanel, Alex Jones, Mimi al-Laham, Ken O’Keefe, and on and on and on). I’m sorry to say it, but it’s true, and too many of the pro-Assad camp have willfully ignored this fundamental point.
On the other side though, the unwillingness of the “Syrian revolution” camp to face up to the fact that they have unwittingly made themselves into the left flank of US interventionism and imperialism is cause for public shaming as well. Were this the 1980s one wonders whether they’d be saying the same things about the “revolutionary” contras in Central America who, like the so-called rebels in Syria, were also backed with US weapons, money, and training. How about the mujahideen in Afghanistan? Has the collective memory of the Left gotten so short? And what about those foreign fighters fleeing Syria? Are they revolutionaries when they go back to Libya and engage in human trafficking for profit? Or to Chechnya to smuggle Afghan heroin? Or to Saudi Arabia or anywhere else?
Undoubtedly there are people on both sides of this debate who, if they’re still reading (doubtful), are frothing at the mouth with rage as they prepare to send their hate mail or attack this article and me on social media. All of that is perfectly fine by me as my feelings are of little consequence in this war that has killed hundreds of thousands, and displaced millions.
But the conversation I’m hoping to spur here is not about the past, but about the future.
And so I put out the call, here and now, to all people of the Left and all those who wrap themselves in the shroud of revolution and anti-imperialism: where do you stand on intervention?
To the anti-Assad camp, I ask: What will you be doing when Hillary’s fire burns and cauldron bubbles? Will you continue to ignore the material reality of this war in favor of the chimera of a revolution betrayed? Put simply: will you be supporting US imperialism in the name of the “revolution”?
To the pro-Assad Syria fetishists, I ask: Will you continue to pretend that the only crimes and atrocities being committed are those veiled behind Old Glory? Are you comfortable in the knowledge that this war will continue on indefinitely so long as all outside actors continue to use Syria as merely a square on their respective geopolitical chessboards? Will you continue to delude yourselves by refusing to accept the plainly obvious truth that no state or group has the best interests of Syrians at heart? Will you allow yourselves to be the useful idiots of carefully calculated political maneuvering?
I ask these questions as someone who took a firmly pro-Assad position from the very beginning, someone who felt (as I, and many others, still do) that Syria, like Libya, was a victim of US-NATO-GCC-Israel imperialism and that, as such, it should be defended. And while I still uphold that resistance, I also have enough humility to know that, in doing so, I abandoned other core beliefs such as defense of ALL oppressed people, including the ones with politics I reject.
I ask these questions as someone who takes the very notion of anti-imperialism seriously, and who is dismayed by the disgusting cooptation of that word by fascists, chauvinists, white supremacists, and neocolonial degenerates who use it for political expediency. This cannot be allowed to stand.
The direct US war in Syria is coming. Russia’s war in Syria is already active. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel have been fomenting war in Syria from the beginning, all in support of the Empire’s strategic goals. And hundreds of thousands of bodies have been buried in the sand and soil.
How many more bodies are we comfortable burying? How much longer before peace is once again on the table? How many more years before we realize that this war will never end on a battlefield?
Either way, I’ll see anyone who wants to join me on the front lines of protest when the Queen of Chaos launches her war. That’s where I’ve been many times before, and will be for years to come.
And that’s where the Left ought to be.
#BernieSanders Suggests #Election Is Rigged, Unendorses #HillaryClinton
People thought it was a horrible double standard when Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. However, in an unexpected announcement Bernie Sanders has suggested that the Presidential election may be rigged, leaving many to suggest that he is un-endorsing Hillary Clinton. In a cryptic Facebook message posted on Sunday, Sanders warned the American citizens…
Facts : #US biggest tax dodgers are #Clinton 's biggest donors
According to a new report from Bernie Sanders, who tracked earnings and tax reports from our biggest multinational corporations between the years of 2008 and 2012, our biggest tax dodgers are also Hillary Clinton's biggest donors. The Resident breaks it down. Follow The Resident at http://www.twitter.com/TheResident
Le genre de news dont Le Monde, le NY Times, etc glissent comme chat sur braise .. il y a des priorités éditoriales ..
#History #finance - #Citigroup Chose #Obama ’s 2008 Cabinet, #WikiLeaks Document Reveals
By Tom Eley
October 17, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "WSWS"- One month before the presidential election of 2008, the giant Wall Street bank Citigroup submitted to the Obama campaign a list of its preferred candidates for cabinet positions in an Obama administration. This list corresponds almost exactly to the eventual composition of Barack Obama’s cabinet.
The memorandum, revealed by WikiLeaks in a recent document release from the email account of John Podesta, who currently serves as Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair, was written by Michael Froman, who was then an executive with Citigroup and currently serves as US trade representative. The email is dated Oct. 6, 2008 and bears the subject line “Lists.” It went to Podesta a month before he was named chairman of President-Elect Obama’s transition team.
The email was sent at the height of the financial meltdown that erupted after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers on September 15. Even as Citigroup and its Wall Street counterparts were dragging the US and world economy into its deepest crisis since the 1930s, they remained, as the email shows, the real power behind the façade of American democracy and its electoral process.
Froman’s list proved remarkably prescient. As it proposed, Robert Gates, a Bush holdover, became secretary of Defense; Eric Holder became attorney general; Janet Napolitano, secretary of Homeland Security; Rahm Emanuel, White House chief of staff; Susan Rice, United Nations ambassador; Arne Duncan, secretary of Education; Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services; Peter Orszag, head of the Office of Management and Budget; Eric Shinseki, secretary of Veterans Affairs; and Melody Barnes, chief of the Domestic Policy Council.
For the highly sensitive position of secretary of the Treasury, three possibilities were presented: Robert Rubin and Rubin’s close disciples Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner. Obama chose Geithner, then president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Geithner, along with Bush Treasury Secretary (and former Goldman Sachs CEO) Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, had played the leading role in organizing the Wall Street bailout.
Rubin had served as Treasury secretary in the Bill Clinton administration from 1995 until 1999, when he was succeeded by Summers. In that capacity, Rubin and Summers oversaw the dismantling of the Glass-Steagall Act (1933), which had imposed a legal wall separating commercial banking from investment banking. Immediately after leaving Treasury, Rubin became a top executive at Citigroup, remaining there until 2009.
A notable aspect of the Froman memo is its use of identity politics. Among the Citigroup executive’s lists of proposed hires to Podesta were a “Diversity List” including “African American, Latino and Asian American candidates, broken down by Cabinet/Deputy and Under/Assistant/Deputy Assistant level,” in Froman’s words, and “a similar document on women.” Froman also took diversity into account for his White House cabinet list, “probability-weighting the likelihood of appointing a diverse candidate for each position.” This list concluded with a table breaking down the 31 assignments by race and gender.
Citigroup’s recommendations came just three days after then-President George W. Bush signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which allocated $700 billion in taxpayer money to rescue the largest Wall Street banks. The single biggest beneficiary was Citigroup, which was given $45 billion in cash in the form of a government stock purchase, plus a $306 billion government guarantee to back up its worthless mortgage-related assets.
Then-presidential candidate Obama played a critical political role in shepherding the massively unpopular bank bailout through Congress. The September financial crash convinced decisive sections of the US corporate-financial elite that the Democratic candidate of “hope” and “change” would be better positioned to contain popular opposition to the bailout than his Republican rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona.
As president, Obama not only funneled trillions of dollars to the banks, he saw to it that not a single leading Wall Street executive faced prosecution for the orgy of speculation and swindling that led to the financial collapse and Great Recession, and he personally intervened to block legislation capping executive pay at bailed-out firms.
The same furtive and corrupt process is underway in relation to a Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump administration. Froman’s email is one of many thousands released by WikiLeaks from the account of Podesta. Those communications, such as the Froman email, which expose who really rules America, have been virtually ignored by the media. The pro-Democratic Party New Republic called attention to it in an article published Friday, but the story has received little if any further coverage.
The media has instead focused on salacious details of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s sexual activities, designed, in part, to divert attention from the substance of the Clinton campaign-related emails being released by WikiLeaks and other sources.
The New Republic drew attention to the Froman memo not because it opposes such machinations, but as a warning to the interests it represents that they must move now to influence the eventual composition of a Hillary Clinton administration.
“If the 2008 Podesta emails are any indication, the next four years of public policy are being hashed out right now, behind closed doors,” wrote New Republic author David Dayen. “And if liberals want to have an impact on that process, waiting until after the election will be too late.”
Copyright © 1998-2016 World Socialist Web Site
Encore du très lourd sur la profonde corruption de #HillaryClinton revélée par Wikileaks
Pendant ce temps, on pointe nos regards sur le sexisme de Trump tout en nous cachant ces révélations
#WIKILEAKS :Emails Show #HillaryClinton Selling Access 2 #HumanRights Abusing Govt of #Morocco #corruption #Maroc
By Andrew Stiles | 12:33 pm, October 11, 2016
Hillary Clinton agreed to attend a Clinton Foundation event in Morocco as a “condition” set by the country’s authoritarian government, according to a November 2014 email published by WikiLeaks.
In the email, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin discusses some of the former secretary of state’s “schedule issues” for 2015. One of the bullet points reads [emphasis added]:
The Clinton Global Initiative conference in Marrakesh, hosted by Moroccan King Mohammed VI, was a lavish affair funded by a $1 million contribution from OCP, a phosphate conglomerate owned by the Moroccan royal family.
Hillary Clinton announced the conference in September 2015, calling Morocco a “vital hub for economic and cultural exchange,” and thanking the Moroccan government “for welcoming us and for its hospitality.”
Ultimately, Hillary did back out of the commitment. By April 2015, shortly before formally launching her presidential campaign, scrutiny of the Clinton Foundation and its long list of shady foreign donors had increased dramatically. The political optics of attending the conference would have been terrible for a candidate who had just announced her candidacy.
Politico reported at the time that Hillary was “unlikely” to attend the CGI event, although former President Bill Clinton did make an appearance at the ritzy gathering, where he cited “Morocco’s longstanding friendship to my family,” and personally thanked King Mohammed, who pledged as much as $500,000 to the construction toward the construction of the Clinton Library in Arkansas.
The CGI conference took place at a “lavish palm-tree-lined golf resort with a cocktail reception featuring Moroccan hors d’oeuvres and a saxophonist serenading about 50 donors, non-profit leaders and dignitaries including Saudi Prince Turki Al Faisal.”
The Washington Post reported that attendees in Marrakesh were “chauffeured across the city to an opulent 56-room palace that boasts a private collection of Arabian horses, overlooks the snow-capped Atlas Mountains and serves a fine-dining menu of ‘biolight’ cuisine.”
The Moroccan government is one of several foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation that have been widely denounced for abusing human rights. Amnesty International, in a report published several days after the CGI conference in 2015, blasted the Moroccan government for its abusive treatment of political prisoners.
According to the report, dissidents in Morocco are subjected to “beatings, stress positions, asphyxiation, simulated drowning, psychological and sexual violence,” as a means of securing confessions for alleged crimes against the state. One tactic, known as the “roast chicken,” involves “suspending detainees from an iron bar by their wrists and knees.”
Amnesty International Secretary General Salil Shetty denounced the Moroccan government’s human rights record in a statement. “Morocco’s leaders portray the image of a liberal, human-rights-friendly country,” said Shetty. “But as long as the threat of torture hangs over detention and dissent that image will just be a mirage.
Leaked #HillaryClinton Emails: Could #BernieSanders Have Won Primary If Leak Occurred Earlier? - DemocracyNow
On Friday, WikiLeaks began releasing thousands of John Podesta’s emails, including excerpts of Hillary Clinton’s paid remarks to Wall Street firms. The emails showed Clinton’s closed-door remarks were starkly at odds with many of her public positions. In one speech to a housing trade group in 2013, Clinton spoke of needing "both a public and a private position" when crafting laws. In other speeches, Clinton largely absolved Wall Street firms for the crash of 2008 and said financial reform "really has to come from the industry itself." The leaked emails also show Clinton openly boasted about her support of fracking while secretary of state. In a speech to Deutsche Bank in 2013, she said, "I’ve promoted fracking in other places around the world." We speak to Lee Fang of The Intercept, co-author of the recent piece, "Memo Shows What Major Donors Like Goldman Sachs Want from Democratic Party."
‘It’s different’: #US justifies #Saudi ‘self-defense’ in #Yemen , slams #Russia ’s actions in #Syria
The US says Saudi Arabia’s bombing of Yemen was an act of “self-defense” against Iranian missiles on its border. While there are similarities with the Syrian conflict, Washington sees “differences” between the deaths of over 150 civilians, blamed on Riyadh, and the situation in Aleppo.
“It is different,” the State Department’s John Kirby has told AP’s Matt Lee, when asked whether Capitol Hill sees a difference between the recent attack in Yemen and “what you accuse the Russians and the Syrians and the Iranians of doing in Syria, particularly Aleppo?”
The question specifically referred to an airstrike that targeted a funeral service in the Yemeni capital, Sana’a, killing more than 150 civilians and injuring over 525.
Located on opposite sides of Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Syria bear few similarities, but have one thing in common: a civil conflict between their governments and rebels, which later evolved into larger-scale wars, with the intervention of foreign forces. However, the rules of the game appear to be different for each case.
For the State Department, the Saudi pledge to investigate the bombing seems to offer some reduction in the significance of its actions.
“The Saudis publicly said that they were going to investigate this as – for the potential of it being, in fact, wrongly implemented and wrongly executed,” Kirby said. That is something, he added, he hasn’t seen the Syrian army or the Russian military do “not once.”
When asked about Russia’s recent demand for an investigation into an attack on a humanitarian convoy in Syria, Kirby said “it’s not exactly been a clarion call.”
Addressing the attack in Sana’a, the UN called the bombing “outrageous” and pointed out constant strikes, specifically at places of mass congregation, which lacked proper recourse.
“Since the beginning of this conflict in Yemen, weddings, marketplaces, hospitals, schools – and now mourners at a funeral – have been hit, resulting in massive civilian casualties and zero accountability for those responsible,” the UN said in a statement Monday.
Yet, when it comes to Saudi Arabia and its intervention in Yemen, the State Department said it is important to remember that Riyadh has a “pressing requirement for self-defense” because of threats it faces from Iranian missiles launched by Houthi rebels near the border.
However, there is no similar judgment regarding Syria, where rebel groups along with Al-Qaeda-linked terrorists presumably hold people at gunpoint in Aleppo.
Kirby accused Moscow and the Assad forces of “a concerted” and “very deliberate” effort to take “to subdue” the city by force.
As RT learned from locals still living in western Aleppo, it was not Russian forces that terrified them.
A woman said that everyone trying to get water from a well was also shot at while children described shells destroying their house.
RT has asked the State Department to comment on whether the people were effectively being “held” in Aleppo.
“I can’t confirm that report. You know I don’t get into battlefield reports; I’m not going to do that,” Kirby. “And your question about being held hostage, there should be – and I’ve seen reports that they’re allowed to leave,” he added, blaming the Syrian government and the Russian military.
The Department’s spokesman also declined to speak about Al-Qaeda-linked terrorists, who remain in the area along with anti-Assad rebels. Moscow has unsuccessfully been asking the US to dissociate terrorists from the so-called moderate opposition.
Kirby says it’s unlikely they would want to leave Aleppo, hinting that the responsibility also lay with Russia.
“They’re not likely to want to leave while they’re continuing to be bombed,” he said.
When specifically asked whether it was America’s strategy to let Al-Qaeda run the area, Kirby declined to answer.
Washington has been supplying rebels with arms, some of which it has admitted ended up in the hands on terrorists.
In September, a US military spokesman said that rebels surrendered six pick-up trucks and about one-quarter of their ammunition to Al-Qaeda linked Al-Nusra Front, now known as Jabhat Fatah al Sham, in exchange for safe passage.
When it comes to Yemen, the US also played, though indirectly, its part in the conflict aiding Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners with weapons, often used in attacks targeting civilians. Following the airstrike, the White House said it would reassess its help to Saudi Arabia.
Despite massive casualties and some opposition among lawmakers, US-Saudi arms sales have been thriving with the Senate just recently blocking a bipartisan bill that would stop the deal with Riyadh.
un scoop de ABC News et une casserole de plus pour Hillary
In #Haiti , a Factory Where #BigMoney, #StateDepartment & the #Clinton s Meet - ABCNews #hillary #humanitarian
ill and Hillary Clinton have hailed the factory churning out Old Navy sweatshirts in an industrial park here as a shining achievement in their efforts to rebuild this island nation after a destructive earthquake in 2010.
But the garment factory has underdelivered on projected jobs. Haitian workers have accused managers of bullying and sexual harassment. And an ABC News investigation has found that after opening its factory in the Haitian industrial park — built with $400 million of global aid — the Korean firm became a Clinton Foundation donor and its owner invested in a startup company owned by Hillary Clinton’s former chief of staff.
“This was ‘building back better,’ in the words of Bill Clinton,” said Jake Johnston, an analyst with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a nonpartisan group that has studied the earthquake reconstruction. “Haiti was going to stand on its own two feet. Certainly, by that standard, it’s been a complete failure … Six years later, it’s pretty clear that hasn’t happened.”(...)
L’ennemi commun des peuples : Le moment #Hillary par #BrunoGuigue
Source : Comité Valmy, Bruno Guigue, 03-10-2016Le moment Hillary
L’avantage, avec Hillary Clinton, c’est qu’elle annonce clairement la couleur. A grand renfort de rhétorique chauvine, la candidate démocrate galvanise les énergies du complexe militaro-industriel, du lobby sioniste et de la finance mondialisée. Elle est fière comme un Artaban de ses exploits guerriers en Libye. Elle promet de liquider sans délai Bachar Al-Assad. Elle couvre d’injures le président de la Russie et l’accuse de comploter contre son élection. D’une arrogance à toute épreuve, Hillary version 2016 incarne cette fraction de l’oligarchie yankee qui est prête à tout pour étendre sa domination. Mais pour bien comprendre cette séquence politique que j’appellerai le « moment Hillary », il faut la resituer dans un continuum historique.
Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama : depuis 1992, les trois présidents qui se sont succédé à la Maison Blanche n’ont pas ménagé leur peine pour servir une oligarchie qui se gave des prodigieux dividendes de la merveilleuse mondialisation libérale. Le plus décrié des trois, George W. Bush, n’a pas eu besoin, pourtant, d’inféoder la politique de son pays aux majors pétrolières et aux magnats de l’armement : elle était déjà sous leur coupe depuis longtemps ! Prototype du guerrier pacifiste, redoutable expert en communication, son prédécesseur Bill Clinton a largement contribué à cette inféodation, et il a légué un héritage politique dont on a parfois tendance à oublier l’importance.
Cet héritage, il faut le rappeler, est inséparable des circonstances exceptionnelles qui l’ont vu naître. L’élection de Bill Clinton eut lieu au lendemain d’un événement majeur, l’effondrement de l’URSS. Cette disparition de la superpuissance rivale ouvrit la voie à l’instauration d’un monde unipolaire. Poussant les feux de la globalisation économique, servant docilement les intérêts du capital financier, cet apôtre décontracté du mondialisme conforta la domination sans partage de Washington. Bill Clinton n’a pas inventé l’impérialisme, mais il l’a étendu à la planète. De quelle manière ? En réalisant trois avancées hégémoniques auxquelles Hillary compte bien s’arc-bouter pour repousser encore plus loin les limites du leadership US.
Lourde de conséquences, la première avancée hégémonique fut la transformation de l’OTAN en machine de guerre agressive. Bras séculier d’une alliance défensive destinée à parer à la « menace soviétique », cet appareil guerrier survécut à son ennemi potentiel. Au lieu de le dissoudre, les dirigeants US en firent une machine à émasculer les vieilles nations occidentales et l’instrument d’une offensive permanente contre Moscou. Provocation sans précédent, cette alliance belliqueuse élargie aux pays de l’Est européen a atteint les frontières occidentales de la Russie.
La deuxième avancée hégémonique de l’ère Clinton est de nature idéologique. Pour justifier l’intervention militaire contre un Etat souverain, on invoquerait désormais le prétexte des droits de l’homme. Cette doctrine fut expérimentée dans les Balkans, où la propagande humanitaire servit de paravent à l’ingérence dans les affaires intérieures de la Serbie, ce petit Etat au nationalisme ombrageux et jaloux de son intégrité territoriale. On inventa alors au Kosovo un génocide qui n’eut jamais lieu, on bombarda les infrastructures serbes, puis on confia le service après-vente de ce désastre à Bernard Kouchner, dont le don pour le maniement de la serpillière est de notoriété mondiale.
Cette opération militaire eut pour résultat de créer un Etat voyou, livré clé en main à une mafia particulièrement glauque dont le ralliement à l’Occident lui permit d’accroître les marges bénéficiaires de ses trafics en tout genre. Pour la première fois, un Etat-croupion fut porté sur les fonts baptismaux par une intervention militaire de l’OTAN en l’absence de mandat de l’ONU et en violation flagrante de la loi internationale. On croyait naïvement que l’intangibilité des frontières était un principe de droit international. C’est fini. La politique des droits de l’homme lui a tordu le cou.
Troisième avancée hégémonique, enfin : le génie inventif de la présidence Clinton porta sur la façon de faire la guerre. Avec les bombardements frénétiques infligés à la Somalie, à l’Irak et à la Serbie, le Pentagone expérimenta sa « révolution dans les affaires militaires ». Au lieu d’expédier sur place des troupes risquant de se faire hacher menu, Washington frappa ses ennemis, du haut du ciel, en déchaînant attaques aériennes et missiles de croisière. D’une parfaite asymétrie, ces frappes chirurgicales cumulaient les avantages de l’ubiquité, de la précision et de l’absence de pertes dans le camp du bien.
Embrigadement des alliés dans une OTAN sans frontières, droit-de-l’hommisme en casque lourd et déchaînement du feu céleste contre les récalcitrants : ces trois sauts qualitatifs ont fourni un modèle inoxydable de politique étrangère. Même les détracteurs républicains de Bill Clinton ont retenu la leçon. Ses successeurs George W. Bush et Barack Obama n’y ont pas dérogé. Le premier a profité du 11 septembre pour lâcher les faucons du Pentagone sur le Moyen-Orient, mais cet interventionnisme a fait l’effet d’un éléphant dans un magasin de porcelaine. Devant ce fiasco, le peuple américain élut en 2008 un démocrate plutôt avenant qui avait pour carte de visite son opposition à cette aventure guerrière. Hélas l’illusion fut de courte durée, et la politique néo-conservatrice continua de plus belle.
Afin de limiter l’envoi de troupes sur le champ de bataille, Barack Obama a préféré le « leading from behind » à l’intervention directe. Mais il a aussi intensifié la guerre des drones et maintenu le bagne de Guantanamo. Jouant avec le feu, il a pactisé avec Al-Qaida, fait détruire la Libye par ses larbins européens et vainement tenté d’anéantir la Syrie, où il est tombé sur un os nommé Poutine. C’est pourquoi il a installé en Europe un bouclier anti-missile qui menace Moscou, favorisé un coup d’Etat à Kiev et imposé à la Russie des sanctions que rien ne justifie.
La campagne au lance-flammes d’Hillary Clinton montre que la fraction belliciste de l’oligarchie est décidée à poursuivre cette politique agressive. Le secrétaire à la Défense, Ashton Carter, a récemment déclaré que les Etats-Unis se réservaient le droit d’utiliser l’arme nucléaire en première frappe. Sans état d’âme, les Docteur Folamour du néoconservatisme évoquent une future guerre avec la Russie ou la Chine. Une chose est sûre. Cette stratégie de la tension l’emportera si la candidate démocrate gagne l’élection du 8 novembre. Et le « moment Hillary » mettra la planète au bord du gouffre.
Source : Comité Valmy, Bruno Guigue, 03-10-2016