N° 80 : Europe, region and unity | The Malian Ordeal | The Chinese CINC

Posted on by A M

Abstracts of the articles

Europe, region and unity

It is an understatement to say that the Catalan issue has revealed an avalanche of unspoken things and contradictions : Beyond the Spanish situation, it brings us back to the relationship between the Union and the Nation and, more generally speaking, to the link between legality and sovereignty. Catalonia or the egotism of the rich. The Catalan claim should be appreciated for what it is : The will of the rich to isolate themselves from their community of origin and benefit from self-segregation. We can however add history and identity, that makes this issue uncomfortable and remains a source of ambiguity. But let us not be mistaken : It is selfishness of the priviledged that don’t want to for the collective solidarity anymore. In fact they proclaim it openly : « We provide 20% of the Spanish GDP, why should we pay for the rest of the country ? ». This point raises one of the essential roots of national cohesion, that of territorial solidarity. […]

The Malian ordeal

After the thawing of the bipolar order of the cold war, a certain number of States were subjected to strong internal constraints that weakened them nay threatened their very existence ( dissidence, internal conflicts, ethnoreligious conflicts, mafias and latent criminality). But the collapse of some of them would alter the established order of Yalta, or even that of Westphalia. The French armed forces were therefore engaged on the outside, in emergency situations and in support of the endangered States. After the missions in ex-Yugoslavia and in Rwanda in the 1990’s, there were the expeditions in Afghanistan in the 2000’s and then those of Libya, the Ivory Coast, Malia and the CAR.  Not forgetting the incessant maritime battle against piracy and narcos. It was about preserving a certain state of organization of the world founded on the States, basic pawns of the international society, actors of joyful globalization. In the legal framework of the United Nations Security Counsel, military action was lead within coalitions supported more or less directly by the UN, NATO or the EU.

These military actions contrasted with the anterior missions of support and peace driven according to the Agenda for Peace of the UN or the Petersberg Tasks of the EU. They were high intensity combat missions in a Euro-Atlantic collective. This was not the case however in Malia. The Serval operation triggered in the beginning of 2013 showed France was very lonely on the front line. Operation Barkhane that replaced it, and tthe Sahel G5 force that could support it or substitute it remained just as solitary. Notice that there is for France a strong strategic exposure in a Malia whose security and political situation evades them. […]

Lorgnette : The Chinese CINC

JDOK

Crédit : Rob Shenk via VisualHunt.com / CC BY-SA

Indecisive decisions

Posted on by A M

Observers of international affairs sometimes have trouble understanding the scope of the decisions announced with much communication.

Last week, two examples of these « indecisive decisions » were offered up to us.

A savoir avant de se décider Source

The first is that of Carles Puigdemont, the leader of the Catalan independence movement. After having been constantly maximalist these past five years, always choosing the most radical way, he’s hesitating. While he had just organized a referendum, albeit very controversial and foregoing any democratic guarantees we can expect from any State, be it African or fallen under the watchful eye of the « International Community », here he is balking at the ultimate hurdle. Declaring without really declaring, but declaring Catalan independence and provoking dissatisfaction from everyone, Spaniards and Catalans alike whether they are anti-independence, or fairly to vehemently pro-independence… Mind boggling. In fact, the Spanish PM, Mr Rajoy asked Mr Puigdemont to clarify what he meant by his obtuse declaration…

The second is the declaration of D. Trump voicing all the bad things he had to say about the Iranian nuclear deal, and then in the end asked Congress to seriously think about it even if he thinks they shouldn’t certify the deal. Do you understand ? We don’t. Is he for it ? Against it ? He’s against it, but not enough to it, just enough to not say he’s for it.  So here we have a non-decision that only has disadvantages : It aggravates the Iranians, turns the International Community against him, doesn’t weigh in the balance, leaves it up to Congress…(see Thomas Flichy de La Neuville‘s article).

Many examples of these non-decisive decisions could be given.

They illustrate the contemporary difficulty with doing real politics. The end of ideologies and collective causes prevents the formation of new divides that orders society and incites them to regulate themselves. An impression of disorder and inefficiency then follows due to the gap between a system that is too complex and the peoples aspiration for cut and dry simplicity. Non-completion becomes the norm and clogs up situations in unsatisfactory middle ground.

Deciding ?  An illusion !

 

JDOK

The « Decertification » by Mr. Trump (TFN)

Posted on by A M

Certification of the Iranian nuclear deal, beyond political communication

1 – The Iranian nuclear question, central in political communication is not the heart of the Iranian problem. If Iran is confined, from an economic point of view, it is for a very different reason : the country is the laboratory for counter-globalization. If it bothers us, it’s because it has put in place an extremely elaborate ideological system extolling the re-establishment of border control, the perpetuation of identities and having globalism and its motor as a designated enemy.

Iran: Trump garde l'accord sur le nucléaire mais va imposer d'autres sanctionsSource

2 –  Since the beginning of his electoral campaign, President Trump has advocated an isolationist line for the United States, therefore opposing the warmongering neo-conservatism of Hilllary Clinton. But this opposition belies on one issue : Iran. On this particular issue, there is a switch in the position of the two former candidates :Trump wanting to dismantle the agreement wanted by Obama with Iran. The american president is therefore only faithful to the neoconservative line with regards to the Iranian question, that is no doubt non-negotiable for him. He cannot publicly support the driving force of counter-globalization.

3 – In the battle of power that is being waged in Washington, the isolationist positions of Mr Trump have been methodically undermined. His close advisors have been systematically pushed aside. The President is, for all intents and purposes, the next on the list. Incidentally, the question of impeachment is openly brought up with the republicans today. In this context, the non-certification of the Iranian nuclear deal is a token given to the neo-conservatives by Trump, allowing him some respite.

4 –  In Iran, President Rohani, who governs subtly in the center, being mindful to give his opposition some free space (thus how  Ahamadinejad came back onto the political scene), is the man who managed to negociate the nuclear deal. If this deal becomes null and void, the conservative opposition – who already consider him to be a traitor to Iran because of his ability to negotiate with his opponents – will take advantage of the situation to marginalize him. A  hardening of the Iranian State Apparatus would then follow. It is the reason why Israel doesn’t necessarily want to disturb the existing status quo, the geo-economic confinement of Iran, using the nuclear pretense.

5 – If the deals is not certified, we must see that the interpretation that Iran will have will be nothing like we imagined. Shaped by our Roman judicial culture, we would imagine a unilateral end and failure. Nothing of the sort in Iran where every deal is renegotiated infinitely until its death. The history of the oil contracts between Persia and Great Britain is proof of that to us. In any case the Iranians view Trump as an american version of Ahmadinejad. A man who makes a lot of noise but has trouble making any progress on foreign policy issues. They don’t expect anything of him. As a matter o fact, it is likely that certification or not, the impact on Iranian economy will be non-existent. Indeed, the previous agreement did not reopen Iran up to investments.

 

Thomas Flichy de La Neuville

Persistent nuclear background noise

Posted on by A M

As the summer is drawing to a close, the pressure around North Korea’s nuclear power is monopolizing attention (as is Iran’s request, to a lesser degree). Their lead correspondent being the United State’s, the world’s biggest nuclear power. But in the beginning of summer, we remember the resignation of the « C.E.M.A »(Chief of the general staff headquarters of the Armies) during a budget related controversy due to, amongst other things, the renewal of our strategic nuclear arsenal.

Let us not forget that the nuclear issue is a passionate one, and that from Hiroshima to Fukushima to Chernobyl, it rouses the sciences as much as consciences.

Source

So where does our reluctance, nay our overall hostility for the exploitation of the atom come from? The answer is well known: From it’s first use which was a military one, and a tragic one.

The military use of the atom stems from the great scientific adventure of the 1920’s that was then put to use by the military necessities of the 1940’s. The atomic bombs that were then dropped on Japan revealed the unequalled power of unbridled nuclear energy, but also indefinitely branded it with the hallmark of inhumanity. Indeed, the atomic bomb combines power and lethal lasting damage, never before seen with another explosive. As no shield can protect from it’s effects, no war based on an exchange of nuclear strikes was therefore winnable in a useful way.

Thus, after 1945, the emergence of the atomic bomb  contributed to the progressive change in the way we wage wars now. If the victors of 1945 made war illegal with the U.N Charter, the atomic bomb made it unwinnable and those that had it, untouchable.

The dynamics of strategic nuclear deterrence progressively developed on this basis at the end of the Second World War to then establish itself at the heart of the strategic equation of the Cold War. Then it was perverted in the world in crisis that succeeded the bipolar balance of terror.

Continue reading “Persistent nuclear background noise” →