Miroslav Antić


Archive for novembar 2015

Turkey Has Destroyed Russia’s Hope Of Western Cooperation — Pau l Craig Roberts

leave a comment »


Turkey Has Destroyed Russia’s Hope Of Western Cooperation — Paul Craig Roberts

Turkey Has Destroyed Russia’s Hope Of Western Cooperation

Paul Craig Roberts

UPDATE: A friend, George Abert, suggested a reason why the Turks shot down the Russian fighter-bomber over Syria. The Russians have a technology that they recently demonstrated against the newest US missile cruiser and Israel’s US jet fighters. The technology shuts down the communication systems of hostile forces, leaving them blind. He wonders if the Russian aircraft was shot down in order to encourage the Russians to use its unknown technology whenever Russian aircraft are in the vicinity of NATO and Israeli aircraft. He bets that the US has sent every Raven and ELINT specialist to the area in hopes that Russia’s use of the technology will allow them to learn enough about the system to duplicate it or learn how to block it.

Turkey’s unprovoked shoot-down of a Russian military aircraft over Syria raises interesting questions. It seems unlikely that the Turkish government would commit an act of war against a much more powerful neighbor unless Washington had cleared the attack. Turkey’s government is not very competent, but even the incompetent know better than to put themselves into a position of facing Russia alone.

If the attack was cleared with Washington, was Obama bypassed by the neocons who control his government, or is Obama himself complicit? Clearly the neoconservatives are disturbed by the French president’s call for unity with Russia against ISIL and easily could have used their connections to Turkey to stage an event that Washington can use to prevent cooperation with Russia.

Washington’s complicity is certainly indicated, but it is not completely out of the question that the well-placed Turks who are purchasing oil from ISIL took revenge against Russia for destroying their oil tanker investments and profitable business. But if the attack has a private or semi-private origin in connections between gangsters and military, would Turkey’s president have defended the shoot-down on such spurious grounds as “national defense”? No one can believe that one Russian jet is a threat to Turkey’s security.

Don’t expect the presstitutes to look into any such questions. The presstitutes, such as the BBC’s Moscow correspondent Sarah Rainsford, are spinning the story that the loss of the Russian aircraft, and earlier the airliner, proves that Putin’s policy of air strikes against iSIL has backfired as Russians are not safer.

The responses to the shoot-down are also interesting. From what I heard of Obama’s press conference, Obama’s definition of “moderate Syrian rebels” includes all the extremist jihadish groups, such as al Nursa and ISIL, that are the focus of the Russian attacks. Only Assad is an extremist. Obama, following the neocon line, says that Assad has too much blood on his hands to be allowed to remain president of Syria.

Obama is not specific about the “blood on Assad’s hands,” but we can be. The blood is the blood of ISIL forces fighting the Syrian army. Obama doesn’t refer to the blood on ISIL’s hands, but even the presstitutes have told us the horror stories associated with the blood on ISIL’s hands, with whom Obama has allied us.

And what about the blood on Obama’s hands? Here we are talking about a very large quantity of blood: the blood of entire countries—Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, and the blood that Obama’s puppet government in Kiev has spilled of the ethnic Russian inhabitants of Ukraine, not to forget the Palestinian blood spilled by Israel using US supplied weapons.

If the blood on Assad’s hands disqualifies Assad from office, the much greater quantity on Obama’s hands disqualifies Obama. And Cameron. And Hollande. And Merkel. And Netanyahu.

Throughout the entire Washington orchestrated conflicts in the Middle East, Africa, and Ukraine, the Russian government has spoken reasonably and responded in a diplomatic manner to the many provocations. The Russian government relied on European governments realizing that Europe does not benefit from conflicts generated by Washington and separating themselves from a policy that is against their interests. But Europe proved to be a collection of American vassals, not independent countries capable of independent foreign policies.

In its campaign against ISIL in Syria, the Russian government relied on the agreement made with NATO countries to avoid engaging in the air. Now Turkey has violated this agreement.

I will be surprised if the Russian government any longer places any trust in the words of the West and any hope in diplomacy with the West. By now the Russian government and the Russian people will have learned that the Wolfowitz doctrine means what it says and is in force against Russia.

From the Ukrainian attack on Crimea’s power supply and the blackout that is affecting Crimea, the Russian government has also learned that Washington’s puppet government in Kiev intends further conflict with Russia.

Washington has made it clear from the beginning that Washington’s focus is on overthrowing Assad, not ISIL. Despite the alleged attack on France by ISIL, the US State Department press spokesperson, Admiral John Kirby, said that Russia cannot be a member of the coalition against ISIL until Russia stops propping up Assad.

To the extent that the shoot-down of the Russian military aircraft has a silver lining, the incident has likely saved the Russian government from a coalition in which Russia would have lost control of its war against ISIL and would have had to accept the defeat of Assad’s removal.

Each step along the way the Russian government has held strong cards that it did not play, trusting instead to diplomacy. Diplomacy has now proven to be a deadend. If Russia does not join the real game and begin to play its strong cards, Russia will be defeated.


11475 Big Canoe
Big Canoe Ga 30143

Unsubscribe | Change Subscriber Options



Written by Mika

24. novembra 2015. at 22:36

Objavljeno u Uncategorized

This is why they hate us: The real American history neither Ted Cruz nor the New York Times will tell you

leave a comment »


This is why they hate us: The real American history neither Ted Cruz nor the New York Times will tell you

Ben Norton

The soi-disant Land of the Free and Home of the Brave has a long and iniquitous history of overthrowing democratically elected leftist governments and propping up right-wing dictators in their place.

U.S. politicians rarely acknowledge this odious past — let alone acknowledge that such policies continue well into the present day.

In the second Democratic presidential debate, however, candidate Bernie Sanders condemned a long-standing government policy his peers rarely admit exists.

“I think we have a disagreement,” Sanders said of fellow presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. “And the disagreement is that not only did I vote against the war in Iraq. If you look at history, you will find that regime change — whether it was in the early ’50s in Iran, whether it was toppling Salvador Allende in Chile, or whether it was overthrowing the government of Guatemala way back when — these invasions, these toppling of governments, regime changes have unintended consequences. I would say that on this issue I’m a little bit more conservative than the secretary.”

“I am not a great fan of regime changes,” Sanders added.

“Regime change” is not a phrase you hear discussed honestly much in Washington, yet it is a common practice in and defining feature of U.S. foreign policy for well over a century. For many decades, leaders from both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, have pursued a bipartisan strategy of violently overthrowing democratically elected foreign governments that do not kowtow to U.S. orders.

In the debate, Sanders addressed three examples of U.S. regime change. There are scores of examples of American regime change, yet these are perhaps the most infamous instances.

Iran, 1953

A tank in the streets of Tehran during the 1953 CIA-backed coup
(Credit: Wikimedia Commons/Public domain)

Iran was once a secular democracy. You would not know this from contemporary discussions of the much demonized country in U.S. politics and media.

What happen to Iran’s democracy? The U.S. overthrew it in 1953, with the help of the U.K. Why? For oil.

Mohammad Mosaddegh may be the most popular leader in Iran’s long history. He was also Iran’s only democratically elected head of state.

In 1951, Mosaddegh was elected prime minister of Iran. He was not a socialist, and certainly not a communist — on the contrary, he repressed Iranian communists — but he pursued many progressive, social democratic policies. Mosaddegh pushed for land reform, established rent control, and created a social security system, while working to separate powers in the democratic government.

In the Cold War, however, a leader who deviated in any way from free-market orthodoxy and the Washington Consensus was deemed a threat. When Mossaddegh nationalized Iran’s large oil reserves, he crossed a line that Western capitalist nations would not tolerate.

The New York Times ran an article in 1951 titled “British Warn Iran of Serious Result if She Seizes Oil.” The piece, which is full of orientalist language, refers to Iranian oil as “British oil properties,” failing to acknowledge that Britain, which had previously occupied Iran, had seized that oil and claimed it as its own, administering it under the auspices of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which later became the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and eventually British Petroleum and modern BP.

The Times article noted that the U.S. “shares with Britain the gravest concern about the possibility that Iranian oil, the biggest supply now available in the Near East, might be lost to the Western powers.” The British government is quoted making a thinly veiled threat.

This threat came into fruition in August 1953. In Operation Ajax, the CIA, working with its British equivalent MI6, carried out a coup, overthrowing the elected government of Iran and reinstalling the monarchy. The shah would remain a faithful Western ally until 1979, when the monarchy was abolished in the Iranian Revolution.

Guatemala, 1954

A CIA cable documenting Guatemalan dictator Castillo Armas’ plan to overthrow the elected government (Credit: CIA FOIA)

Less than a year after overthrowing Iran’s first democratically elected prime minister, the U.S. pursued a similar regime change policy in Guatemala, toppling the elected leader Jacobo Árbenz.

In 1944, Guatemalans waged a revolution, toppling the U.S.-backed right-wing dictator Jorge Ubico, who had ruled the country with an iron fist since 1931. Ubico, who fancied himself the 20th-century Napoleon, gave rich landowners and the U.S. corporation the United Fruit Company (which would later become Chiquita) free reign over Guatemala’s natural resources, and used the military to violently crush labor organizers.

Juan José Arévalo was elected into office in 1944. A liberal, he pursued very moderate policies, but the U.S. wanted a right-wing puppet regime that would allow U.S. corporations the same privileges granted to them by Ubico. In 1949, the U.S. backed an attempted coup, yet it failed.

In 1951, Árbenz was elected into office. Slightly to the left of Arévalo, Árbenz was still decidedly moderate. The U.S. claimed Árbenz was close to Guatemala’s communists, and warned he could ally with the Soviet Union. In reality, the opposite was true; Árbenz actually persecuted Guatemalan communists. At most, Árbenz was a social democrat, not even a socialist.

Yet Árbenz, like Mosaddegh, firmly believed that Guatemalans themselves, and not multinational corporations, should benefit from their country’s resources. He pursued land reform policies that would break up the control rich families and the United Fruit Company exercised over the country — and, for that reason, he was overthrown.

President Truman originally authorized a first coup attempt, Operation PBFORTUNE, in 1952. Yet details about the operation were leaked to the public, and the plan was abandoned. In 1954, in Operation PBSUCCESS, the CIA and U.S. State Department, under the Dulles Brothers, bombed Guatemala City and carried out a coup that violently toppled Guatemala’s democratic government.

The U.S. put into power right-wing tyrant Carlos Castillo Armas. For the next more than 50 years, until the end of the Guatemalan Civil War in 1996, Guatemala was ruled by a serious of authoritarian right-wing leaders who brutally repressed left-wing dissidents and carried out a campaign of genocide against the indigenous people of the country.

Chile, 1973

Pinochet’s soldiers burning left-wing books after the 1973 U.S.-backed coup in Chile (Credit: CIA FOIA/Weekly Review)

September 11 has permanently seared itself into the memory of Americans. The date has also been indelibly imprinted in the public consciousness of Chileans, because it was on this same day in 1973 that the U.S. backed a coup that violently overthrew Chile’s democracy.

In 1970, Marxist leader Salvador Allende was democratically elected president of Chile. Immediately after he was elected, the U.S. government poured resources into right-wing opposition groups and gave millions of dollars to Chile’s conservative media outlets.

The CIA deputy director of plans wrote in a 1970 memo, “It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup… It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG [U.S. government] and American hand be well hidden.” President Nixon subsequently ordered the CIA to “make the economy scream” in Chile, to “prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him.”

Allende’s democratic government was violently overthrown on September 11, 1973. He died in the coup, just after making an emotional speech, in which he declared he would give his life to defend Chilean democracy and sovereignty.

Far-right dictator Augusto Pinochet, who combined fascistic police state repression with hyper-capitalist free-market economic policies, was put into power. Under Pinochet’s far-right dictatorship, tens of thousands of Chilean leftists, labor organizers, and journalists were killed, disappeared, and tortured. Hundreds of thousands more people were forced into exile.

One of the most prevailing myths of the Cold War is that socialism was an unpopular system imposed on populations with brute force. Chile serves as a prime historical example of how the exact opposite was true. The masses of impoverished and oppressed people elected many socialist governments, yet these governments were often violently overthrown by the U.S. and other Western allies.

The overthrow of Allende was a turning point for many socialists in the Global South. Before he was overthrown, some leftists thought popular Marxist movements could gain state power through democratic elections, as was the case in Chile. Yet when they saw how the U.S. violently toppled Allende’s elected government, they became suspicious of the prospects of electoral politics and turned to guerrilla warfare and other tactics.

Modern example: Egypt, 2013

Protesters in the August 2013 Raba’a massacre, carried out by Sisi’s U.S.-backed coup government (Credit: Wikimedia Commons/Flickr/Mosa’ab Elshamy)

These are just a small sample of the great many regime changes the U.S. government has been involved in. More recent examples, which were supported by Hillary Clinton, as Sanders implied, include the U.S. government’s overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Qadhafi in Libya. In these cases, the U.S. was overthrowing dictators, not democratically elected leaders — but, as Sanders pointed out, the results of these regime changes have been nothing short of catastrophic.

The U.S. is also still engaging in regime change when it comes to democratically elected governments.

In the January 2011 revolution, Egyptians toppled dictator Hosni Mubarak, a close U.S. ally who ruled Egypt with an iron fist for almost 30 years.

In July 2013, Egypt’s first democratically elected president, Mohammed Morsi, was overthrown in a military coup. We now know that the U.S. supported and bankrolled the opposition forces that overthrew the democratically elected president.

Today, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, a brutal despot who is widely recognized as even worse than Mubarak, reigns over Egypt. In August 2013, Sisi oversaw a slaughter of more than 800 peaceful Egyptian activists at Raba’a Square. His regime continues to shoot peaceful protesters in the street. An estimated 40,000 political prisoners languish in Sisi’s jails, including journalists.

In spite of his obscene human rights abuses, Sisi remains a close ally of the U.S. and Israel — much, much closer than was the democratically elected President Morsi.

In the second Democratic presidential debate, when Sanders called Clinton out on her hawkish, pro-regime change policies, she tried to blame the disasters in the aftermath in countries like Iraq and Libya on the “complexity” of the Middle East. As an example of this putative complexity, Clinton cited Egypt. “We saw a dictator overthrown, we saw Muslim Brotherhood president installed, and then we saw him ousted and the army back,” she said.

Clinton failed to mention two crucial factors: One, that the U.S. backed Mubarak until the last moment; and two, that the U.S. also supported the coup that overthrew Egypt’s first and only democratically elected head of state.

Other examples

The political cartoon “Ten Thousand Miles from Tip to Tip,” published in the Philadelphia Press in 1898 (Credit: Public domain)

There are scores of other examples of U.S.-led regime change.

  • In 1964 the U.S. backed a coup in Brazil, toppling left-wing President João Goulart.
  • In 1976, the U.S. supported a military coup in Argentina that replaced President Isabel Perón with General Jorge Rafael Videla.
  • In 2002, the U.S. backed a coup that overthrew democratically elected Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Chávez was so popular, however, that Venezuelans filled the street and demanded him back.
  • In 2004, the U.S. overthrew Haiti’s first democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
  • In 2009, U.S.-trained far-right forces overthrew the democratically elected government of Honduras, with tacit support from Washington.

The list goes on.

Latin America, given its proximity to the U.S. and the strength of left-wing movements in the region, tends to endure the largest number of U.S. regime changes, yet the Middle East and many parts of Africa have seen their democratic governments overthrown as well.

From 1898 to 1994, Harvard University historian John Coatsworth documented at least 41 U.S. interventions in Latin America — an an average of one every 28 months for an entire century.

Numerous Latin American military dictators were trained at the School of the Americas, a U.S. Department of Defense Institute in Fort Benning, Georgia. The School of the Americas Watch, an activist organization that pushes for the closing of the SOA, has documented many of these regime changes, which have been carried out by both Republicans and Democrats.

Diplomatic cables released by whistleblowing journalism outlet WikiLeaks show the U.S. still maintains a systematic campaign of trying to overthrow Latin America’s left-wing governments.

By not just acknowledging the bloody and ignominious history of U.S. regime change, but also condemning it, Sen. Sanders was intrepidly trekking into controversial political territory into which few of his peers would dare to tread. Others would do well to learn from Bernie’s example.

Written by Mika

21. novembra 2015. at 09:58

Objavljeno u Uncategorized

WSJ: Global Anti-ISIS Alliance Begins to Emerge

leave a comment »


Global Anti-ISIS Alliance Begins to Emerge

Nathan Hodge in Moscow, William Horobin in Paris and Philip Shishkin in Washington

Updated Nov. 17, 2015 11:27 p.m. ET

France, Russia and the U.S. moved beyond talk of cooperation and into the far more difficult realm of action, as the “grand and single coalition” French President François Hollande called for to combat Islamic State began coming into view.

President Barack Obama said Wednesday that if Russia shifts its military strategy in Syria to focus on Islamic State, the U.S. would welcome cooperation with Moscow on an intensified military campaign. He said he conveyed that message to Russian President Vladimir Putin in a meeting in Turkey earlier this week.

“That is something that we very much want to see,” Mr. Obama said while in the Philippines for a summit of Asian nations.

Mr. Hollande telephoned his Russian counterpart Tuesday to discuss possible joint plans, and made arrangements to visit Washington and Moscow next week to pursue the formation of a major new alliance. France launched a third round of airstrikes Tuesday night against Islamic State’s de facto capital of Raqqa, Syria, while waves of Russian warplanes and cruise missiles struck the same area in the daytime.

The effort could yet dissolve, as major problems—especially the legacy of Russia’s involvement in Ukraine and discord over Syria’s future—haven’t gone away. The involvement of Arab allies with overlapping and uneven agendas complicates regional diplomacy.

But among the signs of potential progress, Russia gave Washington advance notice of its airstrikes Tuesday—the first time it had done so since the Russian bombing campaign started Sept. 30. U.S. officials said Russia conducted between 12 and 20 strikes Tuesday—some cruise missiles from Russian ships and some strikes by TU-22 backfire bombers.

Moscow’s determination on Tuesday that a bomb had destroyed a Russian jetliner last month over Egypt accentuated the appearance of common cause.

Mr. Putin now is looking less like a global pariah and more like the indispensable man for a combined global effort to tackle Islamic State.

A short time ago, cooperation was nearly unthinkable. Following Russia’s move last year to annex the Crimean peninsula, the U.S. and its European allies imposed economic sanctions on Moscow. Ever since, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been in the midst of refocusing its energies on countering the potential military threat from Russia.

Starting in September, Mr. Putin has played an aggressive hand to shift the geopolitical balance.

Days after he called for a unified front against Islamic State at the United Nations, the Russian military launched its own airstrikes in Syria, angering Washington. The Obama administration said Russia’s military efforts appeared primarily aimed at propping up the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and focused little on hitting Islamic State. The U.S., France and other Arab and Western allies want Mr. Assad out.

The Paris attacks on Friday, with their Sept. 11-style resonance for France, created an opening for Mr. Putin.

Aleksei Pushkov, the head of the Russian parliament’s foreign affairs committee, said they were forcing Moscow and the West closer together.

“We have had disagreements in the past, in the 1930s, but that didn’t stop us from creating a coalition against Hitler, and it was effective,” Mr. Pushkov said Tuesday in Brussels, according to the Russian news agency Interfax. “Today, we also need to form a new coalition against this qualitatively new challenge.”

In the U.K., Prime Minister David Cameron said he would lay out the case to his Parliament in the coming days for joining international efforts against Islamic State in Syria. In Germany, a threatened terrorist attack forced the cancellation of a soccer game Tuesday, and likely will add to a national discussion over that country’s role in the counterterrorism campaign.

“What’s happening is precisely what we’ve wanted to happen: more contributions from allies like France to the counter-ISIL campaign, and more of a focus on ISIL from Russia in its air campaign,” a senior Obama administration official said, using an acronym for Islamic State. “As to going forward, we’ll want to make sure this is coupled with continued cooperation from Russia on the Vienna process.”

Leaders of more than a dozen countries have been meeting in Vienna to plot a possible political resolution to the crisis in Syria. Mr. Obama said Russia has been a “constructive partner” in diplomatic talks in Vienna about Syria, although the two leaders still disagree on the future of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president.

But some Western military and political leaders remain uneasy about Mr. Putin. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg on Tuesday sounded notes of caution.

“Russia can play a constructive role in Syria, but what we have seen so far is most of their military actions have been targeted not in ISIL controlled areas,” he said. “The effort should be about fighting ISIL, not supporting the regime, which is what Russia has done so far.”

Current and former Obama administration officials expressed a similar sentiment, cautioning that obstacles to meaningful cooperation remain, chief among them the issue of Mr. Assad’s future.

“As long as Putin’s theory of the conflict is inverse of what the rest of the world thinks, it’s impossible for me to see that there would be any military cooperation with the Russians,” Derek Chollet, former assistant secretary of defense, said Monday. “What could happen diplomatically is Russia could deliver Assad, get him to agree to a process that would lead to his departure.”

A Russian diplomat familiar with the Middle East said the Paris attacks opened the door toward a U.S.-Russian rapprochement, but also cautioned that Moscow’s cooperation proposals are “suspended in the air” without a formal U.S. response.

Washington’s Mideast allies have split over whether to cooperate with both the U.S. and Russia.

Countries most supportive of Syria’s moderate, anti-Assad rebels—Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar—still want an exit date set for Mr. Assad, even if he’s allowed to stay in power during a transition, according to U.S. and Mideast diplomats.

Other American allies, including Jordan, Egypt, Israel and the United Arab Emirates, have become more accepting of the role Russia is playing.

“For a political solution in Syria, Moscow is key,” Jordan’s King Abdullah II said in an interview with Euronews last week. “They are the ones that can give the guarantees to the regime that they have a stake in the future.”

Iran is another potential wild card, for Western countries and their Arab allies, but also possibly for Russia.

Iranian diplomats have said in recent days that they have blocked efforts by the U.S. and others to prevent Mr. Assad from running for re-election.

Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, told state media on Sunday that during talks in Vienna, Iran “stressed unequivocally that only Assad himself can decide on his participation or nonparticipation in the elections.”

The position seems to signal an emerging fissure in the Iranian-Russian alliance on Syria, U.S. and European officials said. Moscow has shown more willingness to accept a settlement that blocks Mr. Assad from running for re-election, they said.

“There are signs that they don’t share long-term interests,” said a senior European diplomat who attended the Vienna talks.

—Carol E. Lee in Antalya, Turkey, and Jay Solomon in Washington contributed to this article.

Write to Nathan Hodge at nathan.hodge, William Horobin at William.Horobin and Philip Shishkin at philip.shishkin

Written by Mika

18. novembra 2015. at 09:28

Objavljeno u Uncategorized

Europe in Crisis: The End Result of Egalitarianism

leave a comment »

Europe in Crisis: The End Result of Egalitarianism

Dr. Tomislav Sunic


… There is a visible sense of resignation among many Europeans and Americans … I will try to single out three factors which largely explain the causes of our decline … Capitalism shares a major portion of the blame for the rising interracial tensions and rising social disruptions both in America and Western Europe. It is in the interest of big business in Europe and the USA to import the army of cheap labor into Europe and America … Non-European immigrants know well that they can thrive best in the guilt-ridden post-Christian Europe and America, two continents deeply paralyzed by self-hate and the alleged evils of the legacy of colonialism, slavery and fascism.

Written by Mika

16. novembra 2015. at 23:14

Objavljeno u Uncategorized

International Conference „Yalta, Potsdam, Helsinki, Belgrade: in search of security order“.

leave a comment »

Zivadin Jovanovic, Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals


Uniting against terrorism but – under UN umbrella. Terrorism – to deal with roots. Readmission, 21st century deportation method.

This month, 24rth and 25th of November, Serbian capital Belgrade will be the venue of the Scientific International Conference titled „Yalta, Potsdam, Helsinki, Belgrade: in search of security order“. The gathering of scientists, diplomats, politicians and public personalities from about 20 countries of Europe and the World is devoted to 70th anniversary of Yalta and Potsdam conferences (1945) and 40th anniversary of adoption of the Helsinki Final Document (1975). The Organizers are The Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals and two Russian organizations – Center of National Glory and the Fund of Saint Andrew. One week later (December 3rd and 4rth) Belgrade will host Ministerial OSCE Conference in order to sum up results of one year of Serbia`s presiding of this organization, commemorating important jubilee and giving impetus to strengthening its peace, security and cooperation role today and in the future.
Security and stability in Europe is indivisible from security and stability in surrounding regions and the world. That’s why the future of peace and stability in Europe cannot be properly perceived if it is not closely linked with peace and stability in the Middle East, Asia, Northern Africa (Maghreb) and Africa, as a whole.
Unfortunately, nowadays world is faced with growing risks and threats to security and stability. Mutual respect and trust among powers is in profound crisis. Some powers have proclaimed themselves exempted from the Law Order established and developed after the Second World War. Whenever the law stays on the way of their imperial expansion they simply ignore or remove it and abide by rule – might is right! Taking the role of an ultimate arbiter and executor at the same time, power centers have been intervening militarily all over the world. Violations the basic principles of International Law, including UN Charter, Helsinki Final Document, bypassing the authority of UN Security Council since 90th of the 20th century have become order of the day. It is appropriate to remember that Serbia (FRY) was the first European victim of unprovoked and illegal military NATO aggression in 1999. This turned to have become a blue-print to ensuing aggressions and military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Mali Syria. We need to ask ourselves what these aggressions have brought to the peoples of the Balkans, Europe, Middle East, Maghreb, Africa.? To the world? To UN and OSCE? To the International Law Order? Who can profit from fragmentation of viable states, from national, tribal and religious divisions, from chaos, hundreds of thousands of killed people, millions of refugees, displaced, emigrants.? Who were (are) those leaders, masters of our destiny, „independent“ thinkers, philosophers, journalists, public figures in general, who believe(d) that taking part in, or publically defending, or justifying military aggressions, illegal regime changes and destabilization of sovereign states was the right way to reinforce human rights, introduce democracy, freedom and prosperity?
Following the first NATO war on European soil since Yalta and Potsdam agreements we have witnessed kind of a new edition the old strategy „Drang Nach Osten“, namely mushrooming in USA military basis towards Russian borders.
In 1999, taking part in NATO aggression, Europe participated in the war against itself, against own stability. More than that: This was a turning point binding NATO/EU member countries to take part in many other imperial wars and regime changes. Regrettably, Europe participated in destabilization of Ukraine and in sanctions, apparently, against Russia, in fact, again, against own interests.
Europe can hardly be amnestied of responsibility for destructions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria… Unprecedented flow of refugees and immigrants which has caused state of emergency on the continent has to be attributed to the lack of responsibility, vision and statesmanship of EU (NATO) leaders.
Nowadays, Europe is suffering consequences of own terrible mistakes. Of hazardous behavior. The level of egoism and unwillingness of EU leadership to recognize real causes of the problem and deal with roots, not only with consequences – are astonishing and do not promises positive outcome.
Enormous flow of immigrants is certainly not only humanitarian, social and economic problem. It is security problem, too. Nevertheless the problem cannot be solved by erection of new wars, massive police and military border patrols, refugee centers like concentration camps of 21st century, even less by invoking the Dublin principles or so-called readmission agreements, kind of 21st century deportation models.
Right now the world public is mourning the victims of unprecedented terrorist attacks in Paris. While sincere expressions of solidarity with bereaved families and with the whole French nation come from all corners of the world, sense of uncertainty, insecurity and fear – who is next – is very much in the whole atmosphere. No doubt that the terrorism is universal, extremely serious threat to the security, stability and cooperation – in Europe and the world. In spite of all various actions and „successes“ in the struggle against terrorism, it has not diminished, in reality, it has been rapidly growing. Spectacular military actions against international terrorism after 2001 may have killed some terrorist leaders, may have destroyed some terrorist headquarters but certainly have not dealt with ideology and roots of this evil.
Calls to unite the world in the struggle against terrorism are logic, welcome and necessary. To act seriously and responsibly, to our opinion, means uniting under the authority of United Nations, i.e. UN Security Council. Further, this require coming to consensus as to definitions of terrorism, terrorist and terrorist acts in the manner that excludes „good“
and „bed“, „our“ and „your“ terrorism and terrorists. Double standard approaches and abuse of the struggle against terrorism for promotion of egoistic or geopolitical objectives must be excluded. Struggle against terrorism includes use of adequate military means, efficient processing and punishment of the terrorists. But, what has been lacking so far is understanding of the complexity of the problem which is deep-rooted and long lasting. It has political, socio-economic and religious roots. To eradicate the causes, in my opinion, is necessary to return to: – Negotiations, peaceful, political, compromised solution of all
problems, respecting legitimate interests of all involved parties, without any prejudices and double standards, be it in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, or any other country; – stopping financing, training and arming terrorist groups and organizations;
– equal, universal standards to terrorism and terrorists;
– Respecting basic principle of international relations such as
freedom of choice in internal and foreign policy, sovereignty and territorial integrity, including respect of sovereignty over natural and economic recourses of any country; – Socio-economic development of the countries of origin of terrorism
and emigration, including plans for reconstruction, education and employment of young generations, particularly in war-torn regions (Middle East, Maghreb, Sub-Sahara); Is it not the right moment to initiate convening of the UN World Conference on the struggle against terrorism with the objective to set up organization, mandate and time/table for adoption of World Convention on Terrorism?



Written by Mika

16. novembra 2015. at 09:34

Objavljeno u Uncategorized

NYT: Fearing Fear Itself

leave a comment »


Fearing Fear Itself

Paul Krugman

Like millions of people, I’ve been obsessively following the news from Paris, putting aside other things to focus on the horror. It’s the natural human reaction. But let’s be clear: it’s also the reaction the terrorists want. And that’s something not everyone seems to understand.

Take, for example, Jeb Bush’s declaration that “this is an organized attempt to destroy Western civilization.” No, it isn’t. It’s an organized attempt to sow panic, which isn’t at all the same thing. And remarks like that, which blur that distinction and make terrorists seem more powerful than they are, just help the jihadists’ cause.

Think, for a moment, about what France is and what it represents. It has its problems — what nation doesn’t? — but it’s a robust democracy with a deep well of popular legitimacy. Its defense budget is small compared with ours, but it nonetheless retains a powerful military, and has the resources to make that military much stronger if it chooses. (France’s economy is around 20 times the size of Syria’s.) France is not going to be conquered by ISIS, now or ever. Destroy Western civilization? Not a chance.

So what was Friday’s attack about? Killing random people in restaurants and at concerts is a strategy that reflects its perpetrators’ fundamental weakness. It isn’t going to establish a caliphate in Paris. What it can do, however, is inspire fear — which is why we call it terrorism, and shouldn’t dignify it with the name of war.

The point is not to minimize the horror. It is, instead, to emphasize that the biggest danger terrorism poses to our society comes not from the direct harm inflicted, but from the wrong-headed responses it can inspire. And it’s crucial to realize that there are multiple ways the response can go wrong.

It would certainly be a very bad thing if France or other democracies responded to terrorism with appeasement — if, for example, the French were to withdraw from the international effort against ISIS in the vain hope that jihadists would leave them alone. And I won’t say that there are no would-be appeasers out there; there are indeed some people determined to believe that Western imperialism is the root of all evil, and all would be well if we stopped meddling.

But real-world examples of mainstream politicians, let alone governments, knuckling under to terrorist demands are hard to find. Most accusations of appeasement in America seem to be aimed at liberals who don’t use what conservatives consider tough enough language.

A much bigger risk, in practice, is that the targets of terrorism will try to achieve perfect security by eliminating every conceivable threat — a response that inevitably makes things worse, because it’s a big, complicated world, and even superpowers can’t set everything right. On 9/11 Donald Rumsfeld told his aides: “Sweep it up. Related and not,” and immediately suggested using the attack as an excuse to invade Iraq. The result was a disastrous war that actually empowered terrorists, and set the stage for the rise of ISIS.

And let’s be clear: this wasn’t just a matter of bad judgment. Yes, Virginia, people can and do exploit terrorism for political gain, including using it to justify what they imagine will be a splendid, politically beneficial little war.

Oh, and whatever people like Ted Cruz may imagine, ending our reluctance to kill innocent civilians wouldn’t remove the limits to American power. It would, however, do wonders for terrorist recruitment.

Finally, terrorism is just one of many dangers in the world, and shouldn’t be allowed to divert our attention from other issues. Sorry, conservatives: when President Obama describes climate change as the greatest threat we face, he’s exactly right. Terrorism can’t and won’t destroy our civilization, but global warming could and might.

So what can we say about how to respond to terrorism? Before the atrocities in Paris, the West’s general response involved a mix of policing, precaution, and military action. All involved difficult tradeoffs: surveillance versus privacy, protection versus freedom of movement, denying terrorists safe havens versus the costs and dangers of waging war abroad. And it was always obvious that sometimes a terrorist attack would slip through.

Paris may have changed that calculus a bit, especially when it comes to Europe’s handling of refugees, an agonizing issue that has now gotten even more fraught. And there will have to be a post-mortem on why such an elaborate plot wasn’t spotted. But do you remember all the pronouncements that 9/11 would change everything? Well, it didn’t — and neither will this atrocity.

Again, the goal of terrorists is to inspire terror, because that’s all they’re capable of. And the most important thing our societies can do in response is to refuse to give in to fear.


Written by Mika

16. novembra 2015. at 09:11

Objavljeno u Uncategorized

Emil Vlajki: U knjizi „izdajem“ Dodika, za njegovo i srpsko dobro!

leave a comment »

U knjizi "izdajem" Dodika, za njegovo i srpsko dobro!

15.11.2015. • 12:47h • Press / Saša Bižić

Emil Vlajki, potpredsjednik Republike Srpske u periodu od 2010. do 2014. godine, doktor političkih nauka i profesor emeritus Univerziteta u Banjaluci, nedavno je objavio novi roman "Druga Judina izdaja"!

Foto: Emil Vlajki

Ova knjiga poznatog intelektualca sigurno će privući značajnu pažnju javnosti, a zasad se može pronaći u banjalučkim knjižarama "Kultura" i "Libra". Izdavači su Partija ekonomske i socijalne pravde, čiji je Vlajki lider, te banjalučka "Besjeda" i frankfurtske "Vesti".

Za čitaoce će posebno atraktivna biti činjenica da se Vlajkijev novi roman odnosi na dvije ličnosti koje on ima u sebi i koje se međusobno ne slažu, zatim na predsjednika Republika Srpske Milorada Dodika, te na Isusa i Judu. Upravo zbog toga, razgovor za Press započeo je pitanjem u kakvoj vezi je njegova podijeljena ličnost sa proteklom decenijom postojanja RS, ključnim figurama Srpske i događajima iz Svetog pisma.

– Dobro ste primijetili da u meni postoje bar dvije ličnosti. Jedna je racionalna, naučna, "luciferska", faustovska. Druga je puna obzira prema bližnjem svom, bez obzira na razlike u obrazovanju, socijalnom statusu, nacionalnosti i vjeri. U svakodnevnom životu, moja druga, idealistička ličnost prevladava nad onim što je najvažnije u ovom društvu, nad profitnom racionalnošću. Drugim riječima, nema tih para na svijetu kojima bih mogao da budem kupljen i korumpiran, tako da odustanem od svojih ubjeđenja i da radim nešto nečasno, nemoralno, a isplativo. Zbog toga sam bio i ostao siromašan kao "crkveni miš". Za vrijeme mog mandata kao potpredsjednika RS, u više navrata bio sam izložen pokušajima političke i materijalne korupcije, što sam, naravno, odbijao. Kao takav, "neprilagodljiv", bio sam blaćen i vrijeđan sa svih strana – kaže Vlajki.

· Ko vas je i zbog čega osporavao dok ste bili potpredsjednik RS?

– Bošnjaci su me vrijeđali jer sam se borio protiv političke islamizacije ovih prostora, dakle ne protiv islama kao vjere. Hrvati su to isto radili jer nisam pripadao katoličkim i HDZ-ovskim strukturama i njihovom načinu mišljenja. Vladajuće srpske strukture u RS napadale su me jer sam oštro kritikovao njihovu socijalnu i ekonomsku politiku. "Međunarodna zajednica" nije mogla da me smisli jer sam razotkrivao njenu imperijalističku politiku, kako na globalnom, tako i na lokalnom nivou, posebno onu protiv srpskog naroda. Sve u svemu, nisam nikom odgovarao, pa sam konačno bio politički eliminisan. I Isusov lik, gledajući istoriju, nije nikada nikome bio po volji, iako su se svi uvijek kleli u njegova načela.

Možda moje vrijeme tek dolazi!

· Vidimo da je vaša književna aktivnost u punom zamahu. S druge strane, da li je, završetkom vašeg mandata potpredsjednika RS, okončana i vaša politička karijera, ili je to samo "zatišje pred buru"?

– Nemojte me provocirati i tjerati me da sam sebe previše hvalim. Vi znate da se unutar političke elite u RS ističem svojim kvalitetima, poštenjem, obrazovanjem, idealizmom, kao i međunarodnom prepoznatljivošću, budući da se moje naučne knjige nalaze u oko 250 biblioteka širom svijeta. Za vrijeme mog mandata, narod se uvjerio da sam bio potpredsjednik svih građana RS i ljudi me zbog toga cijene. Osim toga, znam kako efikasno izaći iz ekonomske i socijalne bijede u kojoj se nalazimo. Ne šalim se kada to kažem, ja to "čudo" mogu da postignem. Polit-ekonomista po obrazovanju, ja sam strateg, razmišljam globalno, građanski, socijalkapitalistički, i potrebna mi je jedino dobra ekipa, "trust mozgova" koji bi mogao realizovati moje zamisli. U sadašnjem patološkom, bolesnom, banditskom, feudalnom sistemu, apsolutno sam beskoristan. Ali ko zna? Možda moje vrijeme tek dolazi.

· Budući da živimo u politički oštro polarizovanom društvu, šta u "Drugoj Judinoj izdaji" mogu da nađu oni koji očekuju apologetski odnos prema prvom čovjeku RS, a šta oni koji pretpostavljaju da je riječ o kritici iz (ne)očekivanog pravca?

– Bio sam i ostao "apologeta" Dodikove spoljne politike usmjerene protiv američkog "novog svjetskog poretka", kao i napora Milorada Dodika za jačanje i osamostaljivanje RS u smislu izvornog Dejtona. S druge strane, osuđivao sam njegovu unutrašnju, počesto štetnu ekonomsku i socijalnu politiku i njegov nedostatak strategije za ovaj entitet. Istovremeno, protiv sam onog dijela opozicije koja, paktirajući sa antisrpskim Zapadom i ekstremnim bošnjačkim krugovima, (ne)svjesno ruši RS, a mogu se složiti sa mnogim njenim kritikama Dodikove unutrašnje politike. Napominjem da ovo društvo jeste pljačkaško i banditsko, ali za to su odgovorne sve političke elite, od Dejtona do danas, koje su šurovale sa strancima i sa mafijom. Tragično je, međutim, što taj dio opozicije pokazuje neukusno sluganstvo.

· Možete li da takvu tvrdnju ilustrujete konkretnim primjerima?

– Nedavno je, zamislite, britanski ambasador došao iz Sarajeva u Banjaluku da bi promovisao neki petparački film o Džejmsu Bondu! U stvari, on je tu došao da simbolički pokaže britansku moć koja će, u vidu poznatog britanskog špijuna, srušiti srpsku "Spectru", dakle "zlu RS" i Dodika, koji se opiru "humanom" Zapadu. Pritom je ambasador pozvao dio političke elite, posebno viđenije opozicionare, da prisustvuju ovoj svinjariji, dakle projekciji filma. I umjesto da pozvani bojkotuju taj poziv, dajući Britancima na znanje da ne smiju da se miješaju u unutrašnje stvari RS, pogotovo nakon njihovog pokušaja da se u UN Srbi proglase genocidnim narodom, oni su, naivno ili ne, pogazili svoj ponos i time naznačili sadašnjim antisrpskim mešetarima na ovim prostorima da se na njih uvijek može računati. Da bi vam bilo jasnije, zamislite situaciju da su Britanci u UN pokušali da Hrvate prikažu kao ustaško-genocidne. Da su, nakon toga, u Zagrebu organizovali projekciju istog filma i pozvali probranu političku elitu da tome prisustvuje, ko bi im od Hrvata došao na tu projekciju?!

· Bez želje da čitaocima otkrivamo zaplet romana, pitamo vas: kakvu ulogu ima tema žrtvovanja u vašoj novoj prozi, a kakvu težinu može imati u neizvjesnim danima i mjesecima bliske političke budućnosti u RS?

– Dodik će, svakako, otići 2018. godine, ali bi bilo dobro za RS, pa i za njega, da ode prije tog roka. Ne zato što je, kako tvrdi opozicija, on pljačkao ovu zemlju: nisam ni policija, ni tužilaštvo da bih nešto takvo mogao da tvrdim. Jednostavno, zemlja je blokirana stvorenom političkom netrpeljivošću iz koje se ne vidi izlaz, a narod, bez obzira na to ko je kriv za tu blokadu, predstavlja najveću žrtvu takvog stanja.

U mom romanu, dakle fikciji, izmišljenim događajima, ja "izdajem" Dodika kako za dobro naroda, tako i za njegovo dobro. Čini mi se, naime, da će u najskorijoj budućnosti uslijediti hapšenja bliskih Dodikovih saradnika da bi se ubrzao njegov pad. Po meni, bolje je da on ne doživi takav kraj. Pa ako je, simbolično posmatrano, potrebno da ja kao Juda, budem kriv za sve nevolje RS, a da on koliko je to moguće, što časnije ode i da na taj način, uz moju žrtvu, ujedini srpski narod, ja sam i na to spreman. Smatram da je, u jednom takvom scenariju, apsolutno nužno sljedeće: oni koji su stvarali RS, dakle izvorni SDS i borci, zajedno sa inteligencijom, kojima će se priključiti svi rodoljubi iz svih stranaka, moraju se politički organizovati da bi, nakon njegovog odlaska, preuzeli rukovođenje ovom zemljom.

· U realnosti, vrh Republike Srpske, bar deklarativno, ide prema referendumu o Sudu i Tužilaštvu BiH. Da li predstojeći rasplet te situacije ima sudbinsko i prelomno značenje, baš onakvo kakva je i atmosfera vaše knjige, ili postoji mogućnost da to bude tek još jedan dnevnopolitički "hit za jednu sezonu"?

– Vi ste, Saša, bili i ostali Nevjerni Toma. Što se mene tiče, daj bože da referenduma bude. Ako ništa drugo, a ono zbog toga da srpski narod, makar i simbolično, povrati samosvojnost i čast. Da svojim prkosom pokaže stranom okupatoru u vidu OHR-a i visokog predstavnika, da Srbi nisu obične marionete stranaca, te da mogu samostalno da odlučuju o svojoj sudbini.

· U "Drugoj Judinoj izdaji", tzv. međunarodnu zajednicu, što je čest naziv za Vašington i njegove satelite, sarkastično zovete SS-om, uvodeći skraćenicu za navodni "slobodni svijet". Da li su se na toj adresi umorili od Srba s obje strane Drine ili su u proteklom periodu samo "punili baterije" za nove eksperimente nad RS i Srbijom, koje ćemo uskoro moći vidjeti?

– Iskreno se nadam da se takozvani slobodni svijet, SS-ovski po zlodjelima, umorio od Srba koje je bombardovao, satanizovao, ucjenjivao i otkidao im teritorije, tako da se konačno više nikada ne pojavi u srpskom vidokrugu. Ali to su, nažalost, puste želje, jer nakon SS-ovskih poraza u Ukrajini, Iranu, Siriji i njihovih poraza u nametanju sankcija Rusiji, teško da će oni htjeti da ispuste "lagan srpski zalogaj". Bili bi zauvijek osramoćeni, a to neće dozvoliti, osim ako ne budu prisiljeni.

· Ima li SS alternativu, i u vašoj knjizi i u realnom životu? Da se poslužimo biblijskim metaforama: mogu li Srbi, kao Jevreji u Egiptu pod vođstvom Mojsija, da politički, a ne doslovno, krenu na istok? Šta ih čeka tamo, ako analiziramo odnos Moskve prema Banjaluci i Beogradu tokom posljednjih godina?

– Ljudi mi često kažu da su Rusi ovakvi i onakvi, da su nepouzdani i da im ne treba vjerovati. Sigurno u tome ima istine. Ali nisu, kao Zapad, bombama ubijali nevine srpske civile, uništavali dječja obdaništa, škole, vodovode, električna postrojenja i stambene objekte, niti su silom otkidali srpske teritorije. Naprotiv, Rusi u UN ne dozvoljavaju da samoproklamovano Kosovo uđe u ovu svjetsku organizaciju, ne dozvoljavaju da UN osudi Srbe kao genocidan narod, širom otvaraju svoje tržište srpskim proizvodima itd. Dakle, Srbi imaju izbor između jalove ideologije ljudskih prava i evroatlantskih integracija "bez alternative", što može da koristi tek uskom krugu elite, i jasne, konkretne ruske pomoći u svim važnim domenima života, što je od koristi čitavom srpskom narodu.

· Ko aktuelnom predsjedniku RS najviše "radi o glavi", u smislu političke sudbine: vi kao autor "Druge Judine izdaje", njegova politička konkurencija iz opozicije, Sarajevo, Zapad ili "mangupi iz sopstvenih redova"?

– Bože, kako ste pametni! Vi u pitanju dajete odgovor, a ja treba da to potvrdim, pa da ispadne kao da sam ja to rekao. U nečem ste se ipak prevarili. Između svih nabrojanih, ja sam jedini koji mu ne radi o glavi i koji ga i dalje podržava u spoljnoj politici. S tim da u vaš nabrojani spisak treba da ubacite i njega samog, jer ponekad svojim nesmotrenim javnim nastupima i te kako škodi sam sebi. Daću vam najnoviji primjer. Na nedavnoj proslavi 40. godišnjice Univerziteta u Banjaluci, on ne samo da se nije pojavio, što može da bude opravdano, nego, kao predsjednik RS, nije čak ni poslao pozdravni telegram, što se ne može ni na koji način opravdati. Što se mene tiče, ponavljam, htio bih da on ostane u svijesti i postupcima mnogih u RS kao kohezioni faktor, čime će biti nastavljena borba za osamostaljivanje i jačanje RS. Čitava moja knjiga ide u tom pravcu.

http://pressrs.ba/info/vijesti/u-knjizi-izdajem-dodika-za-njegovo-i-srpsko-dobro-14-11-2015 http://pressrs.ba/info/vijesti/u-knjizi-izdajem-dodika-za-njegovo-i-srpsko-dobro-14-11-2015

Written by Mika

15. novembra 2015. at 10:48

Objavljeno u Uncategorized