Géopolitique/Geopolitics

Jeudi 15 juillet 2010 4 15 /07 /2010 23:56

Almanar.com

En Français: http://www.wmaker.net/infopnv/Sanctions-Contre-l-Iran-La-Russie-S-Est-Elle-Soumise-Au-Dictat-Des-USA-En-Echange-D-Un-Coke-Et-D-Un-Hamburger_a2238.html


Y. Fernandez
July 14, 2010
 
 
 
In recent months, Russia´s policy started to retreat from some nationalist positions that were taken by then President Vladimir Putin. Russian President Dimitri Medvedev changed Russian foreign policy around. He signed the new START treaty, agreed to transit war materiel to Afghanistan and has supported US-sponsored sanctions against Iran.
 
Actually, Putin´s strategy to reassert Russian control in Central Asia and the Caucasus and prevent the US from increasing its influence in these regions was very succesful. Russia has developed a military alliance, the Cooperation and Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which has been seen as a counterweight to NATO and US penetration in the region. In August 2008, Russian army achieved a rapid victory over the Georgian forces that had invaded pro-Russian breakaway province of South Ossetia. In the political terrain, Ukraine´s recent elections have brought the pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovich to power and eliminated the anti-Russian and pro-Western candidate Viktor Yushchenko. The country´s bid to join NATO has been killed by Yanukoich. Moreover, Moscow is now closer to its goal of creating a custom union with Belarus and Kazakhstan.
 
However, things appear to be changing. In June, Medvedev made a visit to the US where he was showed drinking Coke and eating hamburgers with his “new” friend Barack Obama. On July 13, the Voice of Russia reported that Medvedev had held a meeting with Russian ambassadors and diplomats in which he said that Russia “needs special alliances for modernization first of all with Germany, France, Italy, the EU in general, and with the US.” For the first time, the former Soviet countries seem to occupy a secondary place as strategic partners of Moscow.
 
President of the American University in Moscow Edward Lozansky told the Voice of Russia that the country´s priority is currently its economic and technological modernization effort. “Despite Russia’s undoubtedly essential contacts with the CIS (former Soviet) countries, the success of modernization efforts today is above all determined by adequate relations and investment exchange with the United States. Our country’s priorities may vary over time, and for the time being the top priority is the US.”
 
This new policy has led Russia to downgrade its relations with Iran. Under Washington´s pressure, Russia has cancelled the S-300 missile contract, which was signed with Iran in 2005, when Russia´s relations with the US were at an all-time low after Washington supported anti-Russian colour revolutions in Kyrgyzstan, Georgia and Ukraine.
 
The decision came as an unpleasant surprise to many. After the UN Security Council approved the new sanctions, on June 9, Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said “Russia is in no way bound by the UN Security Council resolution in relation to supplies of the S-300 air-defense systems to Iran, and work on that contract is underway.” Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also showed his support for the agreement to the end, saying on 11 June that the decision to cancel would require a presidential decree.
 
The cancellation of the contract was a success for Washington and a blow to those who had come to expect Russia to take an independent role in world affairs. First of all, by bowing to US pressure Russia showed that it is not already a reliable partner for the developing countries that trusted Moscow in the past to get weapons for their defense. If Russian contracts ultimately depend on US adquiescence, many clients in the word will have second thoughts before buying  weapons to Russia.
 
The cancellation will cost Russia around 400 million dollars in a forfeit penalty, in addition to the 800 million dollars of the sale. Commentators in the Russian media have been highly critical. Defence Ministry adviser Ruslan Pukhov told Global Research that Iran, which has been buying 500 million dollars worth of arms from Russia annually, could now turn to China for its future weapons and military equipment needs. Iran has already cancelled plans to purchase Russian civilian aircraft. “Russia is losing the whole Middle East arms market because it wants to kowtow before America,” commentator Alexei Pushkov said.
 
Actually, Medvedev would be a complete naive person if he thinks that the US has any intention of allowing Russia to become a superpower or sharing its influence with Moscow.
 
While Medvedev was tasting his Coke and hamburger with Obama, he completely ignored that the FBI had already informed Obama that it was about to break an alleged Russian spy network. Therefore, Medvedev´s position in Russia became an embarrassing fiasco. Reuters reported a recent poll in which 53% of Russians claimed that they believed the arrests had been orchestrated by the US intelligence services. They said the arrests “were a provocation by American special services aimed at undermining relations between the United States and Russia,” according to Russia's Levada Center. Only 10% believed that the US had arrested real Russian spies.
 
Some analysts share this opinion and think that the arrests were aimed at undermining Russian-US rapprochement. They argue that detente is not in the interest of either the Pentagon or military industries, which obtain huge benefits from international conflicts.
 
On the other hand, US plan to station 100 US Patriot missiles 80 kms from the Russian border in Poland is going ahead. Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov claims that these plans are “unjustified.” Russia has been critical of the US anti-missile system, arguing that it is a threat to its sovereignty and that it seeks to undermine its ballistic capability.
 
Washington is also wary of Russia´s attempts to develop its economic and security ties with Europe, especially with Germany. Last year, Moscow proposed a wew European security treaty in Europe and Germany welcomed the offer. However, NATO and the US reject any agreement competing with the Atlantic Alliance in the field of security. The US does not want to see Russia as a strong member of an independent Europe, but a weak and isolated country.
 
Therefore, the US´s lack of interest towards a real partnership with Russia is not the only challenge for Medvedev´s new political orientation. There is also an erroneous belief on the part of Russian leaders that some countries having an independent policy -such as Iran, Belarus or Venezuela for example- do not have another choice that developing their ties with Russia -independently of the way Russia is treating them-. However, these countries have more options than treating with Moscow. They may develop their links with new emerging powers, such as China, Brazil and others, instead or setting up greater regional alliances in order to increase their economic and military capacities.
 
The Declaration of Tehran, signed on May 17, showed that some emerging powers -such as Brazil and Turkey- are now expanding their roles in the international stage and playing a decisive role in world affairs. Iran itself is rising in the Caspian-Central Asian geopolitics. In fact, Iran along with Muslim Turkey and progressive emerging power Brazil created a strategic precedence, showing to the world that when things are done free from Western interference, better results are achieved.
 
Russia needs a Iran as an energy partner to develop its strategies and regulate prices. Iran and Russia are drafting a road map for future energy cooperation likely to be signed during the Iranian oil minister's upcoming visit to Moscow. Iran's Deputy Oil Minister for International and Commercial Affairs, Hossein Esmaeli Shahmirzadi, said Iran and Russia have presented their proposals for drafting the road map, Iranian Oil Ministry's website Shana reported on July 13.
 
Iranian Oil Minister Massoud Mirkazemi arrived in Moscow on July 14 to hold talks with his Russian counterpart Sergei Shmatko. A statement by the Russian oil ministry said, “The ministers will discuss the current situation in Russia-Iranian energy cooperation and will outline prospects for future cooperation.” “The ministries will study issues linked to the creation of favourable conditions to intensify and make cooperation in the energy sphere between Iran and Russia more concrete,” it added.
 
Russia also realizes that if it loses Iran as its associate, it will also lose an important bargaining leverage against the West. Actually, if Iran changed its policies to get closer to Western countries, it would prove to be a strategic disaster for Moscow, where leaders remember how important the Shah´s Iran was within the US strategy to encircle the Soviet Union during the Cold War. If Iran reached a compromise with the West, Russia would become the big loser of the game.
 
Furthermore, a clear pro-US stance on the Iran issue would fill the Russian Muslim population (more than 20 million) with outrage. There is no doubt that the Islamic factor will have increasingly importance for the design of future policies in Russia.
 
Therefore, Russian short-sighted subordination to US polices will be very costly for Moscow. Russia has showed it is no longer the alternative power in which developing countries could trust on. Although Moscow will try to rebuild its damaged relation with Iran by offering some compromises, such as the upcoming launch of the Bushehr nuclear plant, Iran will probably have understood that the creation of new alliances and networks among the South emerging powers are the best way to build a new multipolar world and counteract US hegemony and threats.
http://www.almanar.com
http://www.internationalnews.fr/article-has-russia-bowed-to-the-us-over-iran--54273212.html

 

 

 

Publié dans : Géopolitique/Geopolitics
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 0 commentaires
Vendredi 16 avril 2010 5 16 /04 /2010 02:11

WSWS

13 avril 2010


 

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c60bf53ef0120a5f53d7c970c-500wi


La définition de la nouvelle doctrine nucléaire des Etats Unis, dite Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) publiée par le Pentagone mardi est saluée par les apologistes du gouvernement Obama comme un pas en avant vers un désarmement nucléaire à l'échelle mondiale. Mais il n'en est rien.


Le document expose un raisonnement qui justifierait l'utilisation d'armes nucléaires contre un Etat ne disposant pas de l'arme nucléaire, et ce pour la première fois depuis le bombardement atomique américain d'Hiroshima et Nagasaki. L'Iran et la Corée du nord sont désignés du doigt comme cibles potentielles.


Ce document de 72 pages a été publié la veille de la visite d'Obama à Prague, capitale de la République Tchèque où il va signer un traité sur les armes nucléaires avec le président russe Dmitri Medvedev jeudi. Comme le NPR, ce nouveau traité est annoncé par la Maison Blanche comme un effort visant à réduire les stocks d'armes nucléaires et rendre moins probables leur utilisation. Cela aussi est un écran de fumée politique visant à dissimuler le danger croissant d'une guerre.


De nombreux détails de ce traité américano-soviétique demeurent obscurs, mais le consensus des professionnels du contrôle des armes est que les réductions sont en grande partie superficielles et en fait plus petites proportionnellement que lors du dernier accord de ce type négocié par le gouvernement Bush en 2002. Les Etats-Unis et la Russie vont réduire à 700 chacun le nombre de missiles et bombardiers potentiellement nucléaires déployés, soit une réduction d'environ 100 à 200 chacun. Mais les définitions sont tellement imprécises que le nombre réel d'ogives disponibles pour utilisation restera quasiment le même.


Le document NPR a été publié par le secrétaire à la Défense d'Obama, Robert Gates, rescapé du gouvernement Bush et un pur et dur de la CIA tout au long des deux dernières décennies de la Guerre froide. Cela en soi devrait réfuter les déclarations selon lesquelles la nouvelle doctrine nucléaire est un pas vers le désarmement, sans parler de pacifisme. C'est Gates qui avait déclaré, il y a de cela moins de deux ans, que Washington avait besoin de préserver le droit au recours à la première frappe nucléaire dans l'éventualité d'attaques bactériologiques ou chimiques sur des cibles aux Etats-Unis ou chez les puissances alliées.


Ce document rejette les appels à déclarer que « l'unique objectif » de la possession d'armes nucléaires est de dissuader les autres de les utiliser, aussi décrite comme l'engagement au non emploi « en première frappe », ce qui laisse ouverte la possibilité que les armes nucléaires pourraient être utilisées dans une opération militaire américaine qui commence comme une guerre conventionnelle, telle la Guerre du Golfe de 1990-1991 ou les guerre actuellement en cours en Irak et en Afghanistan.


La Maison Blanche est aussi revenue sur une promesse d'Obama durant la campagne présidentielle de retirer les armes nucléaires américaines de l'alerte appelée « hair-trigger alert », selon laquelle elles peuvent être lancées sur-le-champ contre des cibles en Russie. Les hauts gradés militaires se seraient élevés contre cette démarche et il n'y aura pas de changement significatif sur le statut de l'alerte concernant l'immense arsenal nucléaire américain.


Le changement majeur de ce nouveau document consiste à déplacer le point de mire immédiat du projet d'armes nucléaires américain de la Russie et de la Chine, principales cibles pendant toute la période de Guerre froide, vers ce que le gouvernement Bush appelait « les Etats voyous » et que le gouvernement Obama désigne sous le nom de « outliers »[littéralement « marginaux »], c'est à dire ces pays qui sont les cibles les plus vraisemblables de l'action militaire américaine.


La nouvelle doctrine du Pentagone interdit l'autorisation de frappes nucléaires contre un pays ne disposant pas de l'arme nucléaire et qui utilise des armes bactériologiques ou chimiques, mais cette promesse n'est que pour la galerie étant donné que les Etats-Unis se réservent le droit de changer de politique dans le cas d'avancées significatives dans la capacité des armes bactériologiques à l'avenir.


Plus significatif encore: Cette « interdiction » exclut tout spécifiquement les pays désignés comme n'étant pas en conformité avec le Traité de non prolifération (NPT.) Les Etats-Unis considèrent officiellement que la Corée du nord et l'Iran ne sont pas en conformité, bien que l'Iran n'ait pas été ainsi désignée par l'agence des Nations-Unies, l'Agence internationale de l'énergie atomique, qui applique ce traité. La Corée du nord s'était retirée du NPT avant de procéder à son premier essai nucléaire réussi en 2006.


Gates a rendu explicite le ciblage de ces deux pays en disant ors d'une conférence de presse du Pentagone: « Il y a ici un message pour l'Iran et la Corée du nord... Si vous ne respectez pas les règles du jeu, si vous allez proliférer en matière de nucléaire, alors toutes les options sont ouvertes quant à la manière dont nous allons réagir envers vous. »


Dans d'autres domaines de la stratégie nucléaire, le gouvernement Obama poursuit en grande partie la politique de George W. Bush, même s'il le fait à grand renfort de posture injustifiée sur la paix et le désarmement, du type qui avait été récompensé l'an dernier par le prix Nobel de la paix.


Le Pentagone a déclaré que les Etats-Unis ne construiraient plus de nouvelles armes nucléaires. « Plus de nouveaux essais, plus de nouvelles ogives, a dit le général de Marine James Cartwright, président adjoint des des Etats majors réunis et principal commandant des forces de frappe nucléaire américaines. Mais le Los Angeles Times a fait remarquer, « Des officiels ont ensuite fait remarquer que cette politique pourrait leur permettre de ressortir des composants et modèles de vieilles ogives testées pour construire ce qui serait, à toutes fins pratiques, une nouvelle arme. »


Le budget du gouvernement Obama comprend 5 milliards de dollars pour que le département de l'énergie mette en place ce que Gates appelle « un projet de modernisation crédible pour maintenir l'infrastructure nucléaire et soutenir la force de dissuasion de notre pays. » Il y a aussi des milliards mis de côté pour que des radars et des détecteurs très perfectionnés rendent les frappes des missiles non nucléaires plus précis et efficaces.


Le NPR fait aussi des systèmes de défense antimissile un objectif stratégique majeur. Le gouvernement a réfuté les demandes des Russes d'inclure la défense antimissile dans le traité sur les armes nucléaires qu'Obama et Medvedev vont signer jeudi. Prenant la parole mardi à Moscou, le ministre des Affaires étrangères russe Sergei Lavrov a averti que la Russie pourrait se retirer du traité si elle sentait que ses forces nucléaires stratégiques étaient menacées par des avancées dans les défenses antimissiles américaines.


La publication de la doctrine sur les armes nucléaires a provoqué chez les ténors républicains des fulminations prévisibles concernant la politique d'apaisement et le désarmement. Rudolph Giuliani, ancien maire de New York et candidat présidentiel, a dit sur National Review Online, « Un monde sans nucléaire est un rêve de la gauche, vieux de 60 ans, tout comme le service de santé socialisé. Cette nouvelle politique, tout comme le programme de santé d'Obama géré par le gouvernement est un pas de géant dans cette direction. »


La comparaison est pertinente, mais pas pour les raisons avancées par Giuliani. Tout comme la « réforme » de la santé, la doctrine d'Obama sur les armes nucléaires est un effort pour diriger la politique gouvernementale vers la droite tout en utilisant une phraséologie réformiste. La restructuration des soins de santé va diminuer les dépenses globales allouées aux services médicaux des Américains, tout comme la « réduction » du nucléaire va augmenter les dépenses militaires et rendre dans les faits plus probable l'utilisation des armes nucléaires en temps de guerre.


Les sénateurs républicains, John McCain et Jon Kyl ont publié une déclaration commune exigeant que le gouvernement Obama « ne retire de la table aucune option » de sa politique sur les armes nucléaires. On ne sait pas encore si les républicains du Sénat vont chercher à faire barrage au nouveau traité américano-russe qui requiert une majorité de 67 voix au Sénat pour être ratifié.


D'anciens représentants de Bush ont toutefois mis l'accent sur la continuité de la politique entre les deux gouvernements. Gates, bien sûr, a eu le dernier mot sur la doctrine nucléaire, ainsi que les officiers militaires de haut rang tel le président des Etats majors réunis, l'amiral Michael Mullen, lui aussi venu de l'ère Bush.

Nicholas Burns, sous-secrétaire d'Etat aux Affaires politiques sous Bush a salué la nouvelle politique et « sa ligne très dure » concernant l'Iran. « Les Etats voyous comme l'Iran et la Corée du nord sont réellement perturbateurs et représentent une menace pour le monde, » a-t-il dit. « Il me semble que cette nouvelle définition de la politique nucléaire du gouvernement Obama consolide la capacité des Etats-Unis à contrer cette menace et à sauvegarder les intérêts américains. »


Le Wall Street Journal, farouche opposant du gouvernement Obama dans la plupart des domaines, a publié un article sur la doctrine des armes nucléaires déclarant qu'elle ne représentait que « de modestes changements aux forces nucléaires américaines, laissant intacte la menace américaine de longue date d'avoir recours à la première frappe nucléaire même contre des pays n'ayant pas l'arme nucléaire. »


Dans une interview accordée au New York Times lundi, Obama a renchéri ses exigences sur l'Iran, déclarant que ce n'était pas seulement que le gouvernement américain s'opposait à la possession par l'Iran d'armes nucléaires, mais que l'Iran ne devait pas devenir 'un Etat capable du nucléaire.' »


« Je pense que la communauté internationale ressent fortement ce que cela signifie de rechercher l'énergie nucléaire civile dans un but pacifique et contrairement à cela la capacité à construire des armes, » a-t-il dit. « Et une capacité à construire des armes est évidemment significative au moment où nous évaluons si oui ou non l'Iran ou tout autre pays fait preuve de sérieux concernant ces questions. »


Etant donné que le terme « capacité » se réfère principalement à la possession de la connaissance scientifique et technologique cruciale, une telle capacité requerrait la destruction de l'infrastructure d'équipement avancée que l'Iran a développée au cours de nombreuses décennies.


Source: http://www.wsws.org/

Les emphase sont d'IN

Url de cet article: http://www.internationalnews.fr/article-la-nouvelle-doctrine-nucleaire-americaine-cible-l-iran-et-la-coree-du-nord-par-patrick-martin-48754329.ht
Communauté : Actualités Internationales - Publié dans : Géopolitique/Geopolitics
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 0 commentaires
Samedi 30 janvier 2010 6 30 /01 /2010 12:06
Global Research
January 27, 2010
Stop NATO - 2010-01-26

http://www.russiablog.org/nato_russia_missiles-map-sm.jpg
Source: russiablog.org


Afghanistan is occupying center stage at the moment, but in the wings are complementary maneuvers to expand a string of new military bases and missile shield facilities throughout Eurasia and the Middle East.

The advanced Patriot theater anti-ballistic missile batteries in place or soon to be in Egypt, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Poland, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates describe an arc stretching from the Baltic Sea through Southeast Europe to the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and the Caucasus and beyond to East Asia. A semicircle that begins on Russia's northwest and ends on China's northeast.


Over the past decade the United States has steadily (though to much of the world imperceptibly) extended its military reach to most all parts of the world. From subordinating almost all of Europe to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization through the latter's expansion into Eastern Europe, including the former Soviet Union, to arbitrarily setting up a regional command that takes in the African continent (and all but one of its 53 nations). From invading and establishing military bases in the Middle East and Central and South Asia to operating a satellite surveillance base in Australia and taking charge of seven military installations in South America. In the vacuum left in much of the world by the demise of the Cold War and the former bipolar world, the U.S. rushed in to insert its military in various parts of the world that had been off limits to it before.

And this while Washington cannot even credibly pretend that it is threatened by any other nation on earth.

It has employed a series of tactics to accomplish its objective of unchallenged international armed superiority, using an expanding NATO to build military partnerships not only throughout Europe but in the Caucasus, the Middle East, North and West Africa, Asia and Oceania as well as employing numerous bilateral and regional arrangements.

The pattern that has emerged is that of the U.S. shifting larger concentrations of troops from post-World War II bases in Europe and Japan to smaller, more dispersed forward basing locations south and east of Europe and progressively closer to Russia, Iran and China.

The ever-growing number of nations throughout the world being pulled into Washington's military network serve three main purposes.

First, they provide air, troop and weapons transit and bases for wars like those against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, for naval operations that are in fact blockades by other names, and for regional surveillance.

Second, they supply troops and military equipment for deployments to war and post-conflict zones whenever and wherever required.

Last, allies and client states are incorporated into U.S. plans for an international missile shield that will put NATO nations and select allies under an impenetrable canopy of interceptors while other nations are susceptible to attack and deprived of the deterrent effect of being able to retaliate.  

The degree to which these three components are being integrated is advancing rapidly. The war in Afghanistan is the major mechanism for forging a global U.S. military nexus and one which in turn provides the Pentagon the opportunity to obtain and operate bases from Southeast Europe to Central Asia.

One example that illustrates this global trend is Colombia. In early August the nation's vice president announced that the first contingent of Colombian troops were to be deployed to serve under NATO command in Afghanistan. Armed forces from South America will be assigned to the North Atlantic bloc to fight a war in Asia. The announcement of the Colombian deployment came shortly after another: That the Pentagon would acquire seven new military bases in Colombia.

When the U.S. deploys Patriot missile batteries to that nation - on its borders with Venezuela and Ecuador - the triad will be complete.

Afghanistan is occupying center stage at the moment, but in the wings are complementary maneuvers to expand a string of new military bases and missile shield facilities throughout Eurasia and the Middle East.

On January 28 the British government will host a conference in London on Afghanistan that, in the words of what is identified as the UK Government's Afghanistan website, will be co-hosted by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Afghanistan's President Karzai and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and co-chaired by British Foreign Minister David Miliband, his outgoing Afghan counterpart Rangin Spanta, and UN Special Representative to Afghanistan, Kai Eide. 

The site announces that "The international community are [sic] coming together to fully align military and civilian resources behind an Afghan-led political strategy." [1] 

The conference will also be attended by "foreign ministers from International Security Assistance Force partners, Afghanistan’s immediate neighbours and key regional player [sic]." 

Public relations requirements dictate that concerns about the well-being of the Afghan people, "a stable and secure Afghanistan" and "regional cooperation" be mentioned, but the meeting will in effect be a war council, one that will be attended by the foreign ministers of scores of NATO and NATO partner states.

In the two days preceding the conference NATO's Military Committee will meet at the Alliance's headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. "Together with the Chiefs of Defence of all 28 NATO member states, 35 Chiefs of Defence of Partner countries and Troop Contributing Nations will also be present." [2]

That is, top military commanders from 63 nations - almost a third of the world's 192 countries - will gather at NATO Headquarters to discuss the next phase of the expanding war in South Asia and the bloc's new Strategic Concept. Among those who will attend the two-day Military Committee meeting are General Stanley McChrystal, in charge of all U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan; Admiral James Stavridis, chief U.S. military commander in Europe and NATO's Supreme Allied Commander; Pakistani Chief of the Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and Israeli Chief of General Staff Gabi Ashkenazi. 

Former American secretary of state Madeleine Albright has been invited to speak about the Strategic Concept on behalf of the twelve-member Group of Experts she heads, whose task it is to promote NATO's 21st century global doctrine.

The Brussels meeting and London conference highlight the centrality that the war in Afghanistan has for the West and for its international military enforcement mechanism, NATO.
   
During the past few months Washington has been assiduously recruiting troops from assorted NATO partnership program nations for the war in Afghanistan, including from Armenia, Bahrain, Bosnia, Colombia, Jordan, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Ukraine and other nations that had not previously provided contingents to serve under NATO in the South Asian war theater. Added to forces from all 28 NATO member states and from Partnership for Peace, Mediterranean Dialogue, Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, Adriatic Charter and Contact Country programs, the Pentagon and NATO are assembling a coalition of over fifty nations for combat operations in Afghanistan.

Almost as many NATO partner nations as full member states have committed troops for the Afghanistan-Pakistan war: Afghanistan itself, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Colombia, Egypt, Finland, Georgia, Ireland, Jordan, Macedonia, Mongolia, Montenegro, New Zealand, Pakistan, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, Ukraine and the United Arab Emirates.

The Afghan war zone is a colossal training ground for troops from around the world to gain wartime experience, to integrate armed forces from six continents under a unified command, and to test new weapons and weapons systems in real-life combat conditions.

Not only candidates for NATO membership but all nations in the world the U.S. has diplomatic and economic leverage over are being pressured to support the war in Afghanistan.

The American Forces Press Service featured a story last month about the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force's Regional Command East which revealed: "In addition to...French forces, Polish forces are in charge of battle space, and the Czech Republic, Turkey and New Zealand manage provincial reconstruction teams. In addition, servicemembers and civilians from Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates work with the command, and South Korea runs a hospital in the region."

With the acknowledgment that Egyptian forces are assigned to NATO's Afghan war, it is now known that troops from all six populated continents are subordinated to NATO in one war theater. [3]

How commitment to the Alliance's first ground war relates to the Pentagon securing bases and a military presence spreading out in all directions from Afghanistan and how worldwide interceptor missile plans are synchronized with both developments can be shown region by region.

Central And South Asia

After the U.S. Operation Enduring Freedom attacks on and subjugation of Afghanistan began in October of 2001 Washington and its NATO allies acquired the indefinite use of air and other military bases in Afghanistan, including Soviet-built airfields. The West also moved into bases in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and with less fanfare in Pakistan and Turkmenistan. It has also gained transit rights from Kazakhstan and NATO conducted its first military exercise in that nation, Zhetysu 2009, last September.

The U.S. has lobbied the Kazakh government to supply troops for NATO in Afghanistan (as it had earlier in Iraq) under the bloc's Partnership for Peace provisions.

The Black Sea    

The year after Romania was brought into NATO as a full member in 2004 the U.S. signed an agreement to gain control over four bases in Romania, including the Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base. The next year a similar pact was signed with Bulgaria for the use of three military installations, two of them air bases. The Pentagon's Joint Task Force-East (which operates from the above-named base) conducted nearly three-month-long joint military exercises last summer in Bulgaria and Romania in preparation for deployment to Afghanistan.

On January 24 eight Romanian and Bulgaria soldiers were wounded in a rocket attack on a NATO base in Southern Afghanistan. Three days earlier Romania announced that it would deploy 600 more troops to that nation, bringing its numbers to over 1,600. Bulgaria has also pledged to increase its troop strength there and is considering consolidating all its forces in the country in Kandahar, one of the deadliest provinces in the war zone.

Late last November Foreign Minister Rumyana Zheleva of Bulgaria was in Washington, D.C. to "hear the ideas of US President Barack Obama's administration on the strategy of the anti-missile defense in Europe." [4]

During the same month Bogdan Aurescu, State Secretary for Strategic Affairs in the Romanian Foreign Ministry, stated that "The new variant of the US anti-missile shield could cover Romania." [5] A local newspaper at the time commented on Washington's new "stronger, smarter, and swifter" missile shield plans that "A strong and modern surveillance system located in Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey could monitor three hot areas at once: the Black Sea, the Caucasus and the Caspian and relevant zones in the Middle East." [6]

Also last November a Russian news source wrote that "Anonymous sources in the Russian intelligence community say that the United States plans to supply weapons, including a Patriot-3 air defense system and shoulder-launched Stinger missiles, worth a total of $100 million, to Georgia." [7] In October the U.S. led the two-week Immediate Response 2009 war games to prepare the first of an estimated 1,000 Georgian troops for counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan, prompting neighboring Abkhazia - which knew who the military training was also aimed against - to stage its own exercises at the same time.

American Patriot Advanced Capability-3 interceptor missiles in Georgia would be deployed against Russia, as they will be 35 miles from its border in Poland.

Former head of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency Lt. Gen. Henry Obering stated two years ago that Georgia and even Ukraine were potential locations for American missile shield deployments.

Middle East

Last October and November the U.S. and Israel held their largest-ever joint military exercise, Operation Juniper Cobra 10, which established another precedent in addition to the number of troops and warships involved: The simultaneous testing of five missile defense systems. An American military official present at the war games was one of several sources acknowledging that the exercises were in preparation for the Barack Obama administration's more extensive, NATO-wide and broader, missile interception system. Juniper Cobra was the initiation of the U.S. X-Band radar station opened in 2008 in Israel's Negev Desert. Over 100 American service members are based there for the foreseeable future, the first U.S. troops formally deployed in that nation.

In December the Jerusalem Post quoted an unnamed Israeli defense official as saying "The expansion of the war in Afghanistan opens a door for us." 

The same source wrote "the NATO-U.S. plan to deploy a cross-continent missile shield in Europe also represents an opportunity for the Jewish state to market its military platforms...." [8] 

"Meanwhile, recent months have seen several senior NATO officials travel to Israel for discussions that reportedly focused on, among other things, how
Israel could help NATO troops fight in Afghanistan." [9]

Last June Israeli President Shimon Peres led a 60-member delegation that included Defense Ministry Director-General Pinhas Buchris to Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, on opposite ends of the Caspian Sea. A year ago "Kazakhstan's defense ministry said...it had asked Israel to help it modernize its military and produce weapons that comply with NATO standards." [10]

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is the first Arab country to provide troops to NATO for Afghanistan. It has a partnership arrangement with NATO under provisions of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative for Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members. 

Early this month a local newspaper announced that "the UAE became the largest foreign purchaser of US defence equipment with sales of $7.9bn, ahead of Afghanistan ($5.4bn), Saudi Arabia ($3.3bn) and Taiwan ($3.2bn).

"The spending included orders for munitions for the UAE's F-16 fighter jets as well as a new Patriot defensive missile system and a fleet of corvettes for the navy." [11]

Nine days later the same newspaper reported on a visit by Lt. Gen. Michael Hostage, commander of the U.S. Air Force Central Command, to discuss "the possibility of setting up a shared early warning system and enhancing the
region's ballistic-missile deterrence."

Hostage was quoted as saying "I am attempting to organize a regional integrated air and missile defense capability with our GCC partners." [12]

An Emirati general added, "The GCC needs a national and multinational ballistic missile defence (BMD) to counter long-range proliferating regional ballistic missile threats." [13]

The missile shield is aimed against Iran.

Last September Pentagon chief Robert Gates said, "The reality is we are working both on a bilateral and a multilateral basis in the Gulf to establish the same kind of regional missile defense [as envisioned for Europe] that would protect our facilities out there as well as our friends and allies." [14]

"In a September 17 briefing, Gates said...the United States has already formed a Gulf missile defense network that consisted of PAC-3 and the Aegis sea-based systems." The exact system soon to be deployed in the Baltic Sea and Mediterranean and afterwards the Black Sea.

In addition, the "UAE has ordered the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, designed to destroy nuclear missiles in the exoatmosphere.

"Over the last two years, the Pentagon has been meeting GCC military chiefs to discuss regional and national missile defense programs....At the same time, the U.S. military has been operating PAC-3 in Kuwait and Qatar. The U.S. Army has also been helping Saudi Arabia upgrade its PAC-2 fleet." [15]

Turkey's Hurriyet Daily News reported at the end of last year that "Turkey is set to make crucial defense decisions in 2010 as the U.S. offer to join a missile shield program and multibillion-dollar contracts are looming over the country's agenda.

"If a joint NATO missile shield is developed, such a move may force Ankara to join the mechanism despite the possible Iranian reaction....U.S. President Barack Obama's administration has invited Ankara to join a Western missile shield system...." [16] 

An account of the broader strategy adds:

"U.S. officials are also urging Turkey to choose the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) against Russian and Chinese rivals competing for a Turkish contract for the purchase of high-altitude and long-range antimissile defense systems....[A] new plan calls for the creation of a regional system in southeastern Europe, the Mediterranean and part of the Middle East. 

"In phase one of the new Obama plan, the U.S. will deploy SM-3 interceptor missiles and radar surveillance systems on sea-based Aegis weapons systems by 2011. In phase two and by 2015, a more capable version of the SM-3 interceptor and more advanced sensors will be used in both sea-and land-based configurations. In later phases three and four, intercepting and detecting capabilities further will be developed." [17]

One of Russia's main news agencies reported on U.S. plans to incorporate Turkey into its new missile designs, with Turkey as the only NATO state bordering Iran serving as the bridge between a continent-wide system in Europe and its extension into the Middle East: "According to the Milliyet daily, U.S. President Barack Obama last week proposed placing a 'missile shield' on Turkish soil....Both Russia and Iran will perceive that [deployment] as a threat,' a Turkish military source was quoted as saying." [18]

A broader description of the interceptor missile project in progress includes: "Obama's team has...sought to 'NATO-ise' the US plan by involving other allies more closely in its development and deployment. The idea is to create a NATO chain of command similar to that long used for allied air defences. That would involve a NATO 'backbone' for command-and-control jointly funded by the allies, into which the US sea-based defences and other national assets, such as short-range Patriot missile interceptors purchased by European nations including Germany, the Netherlands and Greece, could be 'plugged in' to the NATO system creating a multi-layered defence shield." [19]

The advanced Patriot theater anti-ballistic missile batteries in place or soon to be in Egypt, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Poland, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates describe an arc stretching from the Baltic Sea through Southeast Europe to the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and the Caucasus and beyond to East Asia. A semicircle that begins on Russia's northwest and ends on China's northeast.

Baltic Sea

Poland's Defense Ministry revealed on January 20 that the U.S. will deploy a Patriot Advanced Capability anti-ballistic missile battery and 100 troops to a Baltic Sea location 35 miles from Russian territory.

The country's foreign minister - former investment adviser to Rupert Murdoch and resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. -Radek Sikorski, recently pledged to increase Polish troop numbers in Afghanistan from the current 1,955. "We will be at 2,600 by April and 400 additional troops on standby, which we will deploy if there is a need to strengthen security." [20]

Fellow Baltic littoral states Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania combined have almost 500 troops in Afghanistan, a number likely to rise. The Lithuanian Siauliai Air Base was ceded to NATO in 2004 after the three Baltic states became full members. The Alliance has flown regular air patrols in the region, with U.S. warplanes participating in six-month rotations, ever since. Within a few minutes flight from Russia.

The three nations will be probable docking sites for U.S. Aegis-class warships and their Standard Missile-3 interceptors under new Pentagon-NATO missile shield deployments.

Far East Asia

South Korea pledged 350 troops for NATO's Afghan war last year and in late December Seoul announced that it would send a ranking officer for the first time "to attend a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) conference to seek ways to strengthen cooperation with other nations in dispatching troops to Afghanistan and coordinate military operations there," [21] likely a reference to the January 26-27 Military Committee meeting.

In the middle of January the U.S. conducted Beverly Bulldog 10-01 exercises in South Korea which "involved more than 7,200 U.S. airmen at Osan and Kunsan air bases and other points around the peninsula in an air war exercise" and "about 125 soldiers of the U.S. Army's Patriot missile unit in South Korea...." [22]

On January 14 the new government of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama ended Japan's naval refuelling mission carried out in support of the U.S. war in Afghanistan since 2001. However, pressure will be exerted on Tokyo at the January 28 conference in London, particularly by Hillary Clinton, to reengage in some capacity.

On last year's anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, the U.S. and Japan held joint war games, Yama Sakura (Mountain Cherry Blossom), on the island of Hokkaido in northernmost Japan, that part of the country nearest Russia on the Sea of Japan. North Korea was the probable alleged belligerent. 

Over 5,000 troops participated in drills that included "battling a regional threat that includes missile defenses, air defense and ground-forces operations...."

"Japan's military has been actively developing its anti-missile defenses in cooperation with the United States. It currently has deployed Patriot PAC-3 missile defenses at several locations and also has two sea-based Aegis-equipped Kongo-class warships with anti-missile interceptors," [23] the latter having engaged in joint SM-3 missile interceptions with the U.S. off Hawaii.

If support for the war in Afghanistan is linked with deployment of tactical missile shield installations in Israel and Poland, in the first case aimed at Iran and in the second at Russia, the case of Taiwan is even more overt.

Almost immediately after announcements that the U.S. would provide it with over 200 Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles and double the amount of frigates it had earlier supplied, with Taiwan planning to use the warships for Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System upgrades, the nation's China Times newspaper wrote that "Following a recent US-Taiwan military deal, the Obama administration has demanded that Taiwan provide non-military aid for troops in Afghanistan....The US wants Taiwan to provide medical or engineering assistance to US troops in Afghanistan that will be increased...." [24] Dispatching troops to Afghanistan would be too gratuitous an incitement against China (which shares a narrow border with the South Asian nation), but Taiwan will nevertheless be levied to support the war effort there.

Wars: Stepping Stones For New Bases, Future Conflicts

The 78-day U.S. and NATO air war against Yugoslavia in 1999, Operation Allied Force, allowed the Pentagon to construct the mammoth Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo and within ten years to incorporate five Balkans nations into NATO. It also prepared the groundwork for U.S. Navy warships to dock at ports in Albania, Croatia and Montenegro.

Two years later the attack on Afghanistan led to the deployment of U.S. and NATO troops, armor and warplanes to five nations in Central and South Asia. The war in Afghanistan and Pakistan has also contributed to the Pentagon's penetration of the world's second most populous nation, India, which is being pulled into the American military orbit and integrated into global NATO. The U.S. and Israel are supplanting Russia as India's main arms supplier and U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently returned from India where his mission included "lifting bilateral military relations from a policy-alignment plane to a commercial platform that will translate into larger contracts for American companies." [25]

With the quickly developing expansion of the Afghanistan-Pakistan war into an Afghanistan-Pakistan-Yemen-Somalia theater, NATO warships are in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean and the U.S. has stationed Reaper drones, aircraft and troops in Seychelles. [On the same day as the London conference on Afghanistan a parallel meeting on Yemen will be held in the same city.]

After the 2003 invasion of Iraq the Pentagon gained air and other bases in that nation as well as what it euphemistically calls forward operating sites and base camps in Jordan, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. 

In less than a decade the Pentagon and NATO have acquired strategic air bases and ones that can be upgraded to that status in Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania and Romania.

Global NATO And Militarization Of The Planet

The January 26 Chief of Defense session of NATO's Military Committee with top military leaders of 63 countries attending - while the bloc is waging and escalating the world's largest and lengthiest war thousands of miles away from the Atlantic Ocean - is indicative of the pass that the post-Cold War world has arrived at. Never in any context other than meetings of NATO's Military Committee do the military chiefs of so many nations (including at least five of the world's eight nuclear powers), practically a third of the world's, gather together. 

That the current meeting is dedicated to NATO operations on three continents and in particular to the world's only military bloc's new Strategic Concept for the 21st century - and for the planet - would have been deemed impossible twenty or even ten years ago. As would have been the U.S. and its NATO allies invading and occupying a Middle Eastern and a South Asian nation. And the elaboration of plans for an international interceptor missile system with land, air, sea and space components. In fact, though, all have occurred or are underway and all are integrated facets of a concerted drive for global military superiority.


Notes

1) http://afghanistan.hmg.gov.uk/en/conference
2) NATO, Allied Command Transformation, January 22, 2010
3) http://www.isaf.nato.int/en/article/news/u.s.-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-of-staff-tours-bases-outposts.html
4) Standart News, November 25, 2009
5) ACT Media, November 16, 2009
6) The Diplomat, November, 2009
7) RosBusinessConsulting/Komsomolskaya Pravda, November 10, 2009
8) Jerusalem Post, December 3, 2009
9) Xinhua News Agency, December 3, 2009
10) Agence France-Presse, January 22, 2009
11) The National, January 2, 2010
12) The National, January 11, 2010
13) Gulf News, January 12, 2010
14) World Tribune, September 30, 2009
15) Ibid
16) Hurriyet Daily News, December 30, 2009
17) Ibid
18) Russian Information Agency Novosti, December 16, 2009
19) Europolitics, January 20, 2010
20) Sunday Telegraph, January 17, 2010
21) Xinhua News Agency, December 22, 2009
22) Stars and Stripes, January 16, 2010
23) Washington Times, December 3, 2009
24) China Times, December 27, 2009
25) The Telegraph (Calcutta), January 2, 2009

Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

http://www.globalresearch.ca

Url of this article: http://www.internationalnews.fr/article-bases-missiles-wars-u-s-consolidates-global-military-network-by-rick-rozoff-43985530.html

Communauté : Géopolitique - Publié dans : Géopolitique/Geopolitics
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 0 commentaires
Samedi 30 janvier 2010 6 30 /01 /2010 11:41

GlobalResearch

January 30, 2010


President becomes UN Special Envoy to earthquake-stricken Haiti.

A born-again neo-conservative US business wheeler-dealer preacher claims Haitians are condemned for making a literal ‘pact with the Devil.’

Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, Bolivian, French and Swiss rescue organizations accuse the US military of refusing landing rights to planes bearing necessary medicines and urgently needed potable water to the millions of Haitians stricken, injured and homeless.

 

Behind the smoke, rubble and unending drama of human tragedy in the hapless Caribbean country, a drama is in full play for control of what geophysicists believe may be one of the world’s richest zones for hydrocarbons-oil and gas outside the Middle East, possibly orders of magnitude greater than that of nearby Venezuela.


Haiti, and the larger island of Hispaniola of which it is a part, has the geological fate that it straddles one of the world’s most active geological zones, where the deepwater plates of three huge structures relentlessly rub against one another—the intersection of the North American, South American and Caribbean tectonic plates. Below the ocean and the waters of the Caribbean, these plates consist of an oceanic crust some 3 to 6 miles thick, floating atop an adjacent mantle. Haiti also lies at the edge of the region known as the Bermuda Triangle, a vast area in the Caribbean subject to bizarre and unexplained disturbances.


This vast mass of underwater plates are in constant motion, rubbing against each other along lines analogous to cracks in a broken porcelain vase that has been reglued. The earth’s tectonic plates typically move at a rate 50 to 100 mm annually in relation to one another, and are the origin of earthquakes and of volcanoes. The regions of convergence of such plates are also areas where vast volumes of oil and gas can be pushed upwards from the Earth’s mantle. The geophysics surrounding the convergence of the three plates that run more or less directly beneath Port-au-Prince make the region prone to earthquakes such as the one that struck Haiti with devastating ferocity on January 12.


A relevant Texas geological project


Leaving aside the relevant question of how well in advance the Pentagon and US scientists knew the quake was about to occur, and what Pentagon plans were being laid before January 12, another issue emerges around the events in Haiti that might help explain the bizarre behavior to date of the major ‘rescue’ players—the United States, France and Canada. Aside from being prone to violent earthquakes, Haiti also happens to lie in a zone that, due to the unusual geographical intersection of its three tectonic plates, might well be straddling one of the world’s largest unexplored zones of oil and gas, as well as of valuable rare strategic minerals.


The vast oil reserves of the Persian Gulf and of the region from the Red Sea into the Gulf of Aden are at a similar convergence zone of large tectonic plates, as are such oil-rich zones as Indonesia and the waters off the coast of California. In short, in terms of the physics of the earth, precisely such intersections of tectonic masses as run directly beneath Haiti have a remarkable tendency to be the sites of vast treasures of minerals, as well as oil and gas, throughout the world.


Notably, in 2005, a year after the Bush-Cheney Administration de facto deposed the democratically elected President of Haiti, Jean-Baptiste Aristide, a team of geologists from the Institute for Geophysics at the University of Texas began an ambitious and thorough two-phase mapping of all geological data of the Caribbean Basins. The project is due to be completed in 2011. Directed by Dr. Paul Mann, it is called “Caribbean Basins, Tectonics and Hydrocarbons.” It is all about determining as precisely as possible the relation between tectonic plates in the Caribbean and the potential for hydrocarbons—oil and gas.


Notably, the sponsors of the multi-million dollar research project under Mann are the world’s largest oil companies, including Chevron, ExxonMobil, the Anglo-Dutch Shell and BHP Billiton.[1] Curiously enough, the project is the first comprehensive geological mapping of a region that, one would have thought, would have been a priority decades ago for the US oil majors. Given the immense, existing oil production off Mexico, Louisiana, and the entire Caribbean, as well as its proximity to the United States – not to mention the US focus on its own energy security – it is surprising that the region had not been mapped earlier. Now it emerges that major oil companies were at least generally aware of the huge oil potential of the region long ago, but apparently decided to keep it quiet..


Cuba’s Super-giant find


Evidence that the US Administration may well have more in mind for Haiti than the improvement of the lot of the devastated Haitian people can be found in nearby waters off Cuba, directly across from Port-au-Prince. In October 2008 a consortium of oil companies led by Spain’s Repsol, together with Cuba's state oil company, Cubapetroleo, announced discovery of one of the world’s largest oilfields in the deep water off Cuba. It is what oil geologists call a ‘Super-giant’ field. Estimates are that the Cuban field contains as much as 20 billion barrels of oil, making it the twelfth Super-giant oilfield discovered since 1996. The discovery also likely makes Cuba a new high-priority target for Pentagon destabilization and other nasty operations.


No doubt to the dismay of Washington, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev flew to Havana one month after the Cuban giant oil find to sign an agreement with acting-President Raul Castro for Russian oil companies to explore and develop Cuban oil.[2]


Medvedev’s Russia-Cuba oil agreements came only a week after the visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to meet the recuperating Fidel Castro and his brother Raul. The Chinese President signed an agreement to modernize Cuban ports and discussed Chinese purchase of Cuban raw materials. No doubt the mammoth new Cuban oil discovery was high on the Chinese agenda with Cuba.[3] On November 5, 2008, just prior to the Chinese President’s trip to Cuba and other Latin American countries, the Chinese government issued their first ever policy paper on the future of China’s relations with Latin America and Caribbean nations, elevating these bilateral relations to a new level of strategic importance. [4]


The Cuba Super-giant oil find also leaves the advocates of ‘Peak Oil’ theory with more egg on the face. Shortly before the Bush-Blair decision to invade and occupy Iraq, a theory made the rounds of cyberspace, that sometime after 2010, the world would reach an absolute “peak” in world oil production, initiating a period of decline with drastic social and economic implications. Its prominent spokesmen, including retired oil geologist Colin Campbell and Texas oil banker Matt Simmons, claimed that there had not been a single new Super-giant oil discovery since 1976, or thereabouts, and that new fields found over the past two decades had been “tiny” compared with the earlier giant discoveries in Saudi Arabia, Prudhoe Bay, Daquing in China and elsewhere. [5]


It is critical to note that, more than half a century ago, a group of Russian and Ukrainian geophysicists, working in state secrecy, confirmed that hydrocarbons originated deep in the earth’s mantle under conditions similar to a giant burning cauldron at extreme temperature and pressure. They demonstrated that, contrary to US and accepted Western ‘mainstream’ geology, hydrocarbons were not the result of dead dinosaur detritus concentrated and compressed and somehow transformed into oil and gas millions of years ago, nor of algae or other biological material.[6]


The Russian and Ukrainian geophysicists then proved that the oil or gas produced in the earth’s mantle was pushed upwards along faults or cracks in the earth as close to the surface as pressures permitted. The process was analogous to the production of molten lava in volcanoes. It means that the ability to find oil is limited, relatively speaking, only by the ability to identify deep fissures and complex geological activity conducive to bringing the oil out from deep in the earth. It seems that the waters of the Caribbean, especially those off Cuba and its neighbor Haiti, are just such a region of concentrated hydrocarbons (oil and gas) that have found their way upwards close to the surface, perhaps in a magnitude comparable to a new Saudi Arabia.[7]


Haiti, a new Saudi Arabia?


The remarkable geography of Haiti and Cuba and the discovery of world-class oil reserves in the waters off Cuba lend credence to anecdotal accounts of major oil discoveries in several parts of Haitian territory. It also could explain why two Bush Presidents and now special UN Haiti Envoy Bill Clinton have made Haiti such a priority. As well, it could explain why Washington and its NGOs moved so quickly to remove-- twice-- the democratically elected President Aristide, whose economic program for Haiti included, among other items, proposals for developing Haitian natural resources for the benefit of the Haitian people.


In March 2004, some months before the University of Texas and American Big Oil launched their ambitious mapping of the hydrocarbon potentials of the Caribbean, a Haitian writer, Dr. Georges Michel, published online an article titled ‘Oil in Haiti.’ In it, Michel wrote,


… .[I]t has been no secret that deep in the earthy bowels of the two states that share the island of Haiti and the surrounding waters that there are significant, still untapped deposits of oil. One knows not why they are still untapped. Since the early twentieth century, the physical and political map of the island of Haiti, erected in 1908 by Messrs. Alexander Poujol and Henry Thomasset, reported a major oil reservoir in Haiti near the source of the Rio Todo El Mondo, Tributary Right Artibonite River, better known today as the River Thomonde. [8]


According to a June 2008 article by Roberson Alphonse in the Haitian paper, Le Nouvelliste en Haiti, “The signs, (indicators), justifying the explorations of oil (black gold) in Haiti are encouraging. In the middle of the oil shock, some 4 companies want official licenses from the Haitian State to drill for oil.”


At the time, oil prices were climbing above $140 a barrel -- on manipulations by various Wall Street banks. Alphonse’s article quoted Dieusuel Anglade, the Haitian State Director of the Office of Mining and Energy, telling the Haitian press: "We've received four requests for oil exploration permits…We have had encouraging indicators to justify the pursuit of the exploration of black gold (oil), which had stopped in 1979."[9]


Alphonse reported the findings from a 1979 geological study in Haiti of 11 exploratory oil wells drilled at the Plaine du Cul-de-sac on the Plateau Central and at L'ile de La Gonaive: “Surface (tentative) indicators for oil were found at the Southern peninsula and on the North coast, explained the engineer Anglade, who strongly believes in the immediate commercial viability of these explorations.”[10]


Journalist Alphonse cites an August 16, 1979 memo by Haitian attorney Francois Lamothe, in which he noted that “five big wells were drilled” down to depths of 9000 feet and that a sample that “underwent a physical-chemical analysis in Munich, Germany” had “revealed tracks of oil.” [11]


Despite the promising 1979 results in Haiti, Dr. Georges Michel reported that, “the big multinational oil companies operating in Haiti pushed for the discovered deposits not to be exploited.” [12] Oil exploration in and offshore Haiti ground to a sudden halt as a result.


Similar if less precise reports claiming that Haitian oil reserves could be vastly larger than those of Venezuela have appeared in Haitian websites. [13] Then in 2010 the financial news site Bloomberg News carried the following:


The Jan. 12 earthquake was on a fault line that passes near potential gas reserves, said Stephen Pierce, a geologist who worked in the region for 30 years for companies that included the former Mobil Corp. The quake may have cracked rock formations along the fault, allowing gas or oil to temporarily seep toward the surface, he said Monday in a telephone interview. ‘A geologist, callous as it may seem, tracing that fault zone from Port-au-Prince to the border looking for gas and oil seeps, may find a structure that hasn't been drilled,’ said Pierce, exploration manager at Zion Oil & Gas Inc., a Dallas-based company that's drilling in Israel. [14]


In an interview with a Santo Domingo online paper, Leopoldo Espaillat Nanita, former head of the Dominican Petroleum Refinery (REFIDOMSA) stated, “there is a multinational conspiracy to illegally take the mineral resources of the Haitian people.” [15] Haiti’s minerals include gold, the valuable strategic metal iridium and oil, apparently lots of it.


Aristide’s development plans

 

Marguerite Laurent ('Ezili Dantò'), president of the Haitian Lawyers’ Leadership Network (HLLN) who served as attorney for the deposed Aristide, notes that when Aristide was President -- up until his US-backed ouster during the Bush era in 2004 -- he had developed and published in book form his national development plans. These plans included, for the first time, a detailed list of known sites where the resources of Haiti were located. The publication of the plan sparked a national debate over Haitian radio and in the media about the future of the country. Aristide’s plan was to implement a public-private partnership to ensure that the development of Haiti’s oil, gold and other valuable resources would benefit the national economy and the broader population, and not merely the five Haitian oligarchic families and their US backers, the so-called Chimeres or gangsters. [16]


Since the ouster of Aristide in 2004, Haiti has been an occupied country, with a dubiously-elected President, Rene Preval, a controversial follower of IMF privatization mandates and reportedly tied to the Chimeres or Haitian oligarchs who backed the removal of Aristide. Notably, the US State Department refuses to permit the return of Aristide from South African exile.


Now, in the wake of the devastating earthquake of January 12, the United States military has taken control of Haiti’s four airports and presently has some 20,000 troops in the country. Journalists and international aid organizations have accused the US military of being more concerned with imposing military control, which it prefers to call “security,” than with bringing urgently needed water, food and medicine from the airport sites to the population.


A US military occupation of Haiti under the guise of earthquake disaster ‘relief’ would give Washington and private business interests tied to it a geopolitical prize of the first order. Prior to the January 12 quake, the US Embassy in Port-au-Prince was the fifth largest US embassy in the world, comparable to its embassies in such geopolitically strategic places as Berlin and Beijing.[17] With huge new oil finds off Cuba being exploited by Russian companies, with clear indications that Haiti contains similar vast untapped oil as well as gold, copper, uranium and iridium, with Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela as a neighbor to the south of Haiti, a return of Aristide or any popular leader committed to developing the resources for the people of Haiti, -- the poorest nation in the Americas -- would constitute a devastating blow to the world’s sole Superpower. The fact that in the aftermath of the earthquake, UN Haiti Special Envoy Bill Clinton joined forces with Aristide foe George W. Bush to create something called the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund ought to give everyone pause.


According to Marguerite Laurent ('Ezili Dantò') of the Haitian Lawyers’ Leadership Network, under the guise of emergency relief work, the US, France and Canada are engaged in a balkanization of the island for future mineral control. She reports rumors that Canada wants the North of Haiti where Canadian mining interests are already present. The US wants Port-au-Prince and the island of La Gonaive just offshore – an area identified in Aristide’s development book as having vast oil resources, and which is bitterly contested by France. She further states that China, with UN veto power over the de facto UN-occupied country, may have something to say against such a US-France-Canada carve up of the vast wealth of the nation. [18]


Notes:

1 Paul Mann, Caribbean Basins, Tectonic Plates & Hydrocarbons, Institute for Geophysics, The University of Texas at Austin, accessed in
www.ig.utexas.edu/research/projects/cbth/.../ProposalCaribbean.pdf .

2 Rory Carroll, Medvedev and Castro meet to rebuild Russia-Cuba relations, London Guardian, November 28, 2008 accessed in http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/28/cuba-russia.

3 Julian Gavaghan, Comrades in arms: When China’s President Hu met a frail Fidel Castro, London Daily Mail, November 19, 2008, accessed in http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1087485/Comrades-arms-When-Chinas-President-Hu-met-frail-Fidel-Castro.html.

4 Peoples’ Daily Online, China issues first policy paper on Latin America, Caribbean region, November 5, 2008, accessed in http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90776/90883/6527888.html .

5 Matthew R. Simmons, The World’s Giant Oilfields, Simmons & Co. International, Houston, accessed in http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/giantoilfields.pdf .

6 Anton Kolesnikov, et al, Methane-derived hydrocarbons produced under upper-mantle conditions, Nature Geoscience, July 26, 2009.

7 F. William Engdahl, War and Peak Oil—Confessions of an ‘ex’ Peak Oil believer, Global Research, September 26, 2007, accessed in http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6880 .

8 Dr. Georges Michel, Oil in Haiti, English translation from French, Pétrole en Haiti, March 27, 2004, accessed in http://www.margueritelaurent.com/pressclips/oil_sites.html#oil_GeorgesMichelEnglish .

9 Roberson Alphonse, Drill, and then pump the oil of Haiti! 4 oil companies request oil drilling permits, translated from the original French, June 27, 2008, accessed in
http://www.bnvillage.co.uk/caribbean-news-village-beta/99691-drill-then-pump-oil-haiti-4-oil-companies-request-oil-drilling-permits.html

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid. The full text indicated that, “five big wells were drilled at Porto Suel (Maissade) of a depth of 9000 feet, at Bebernal, 9000 feet, at Bois-Carradeux (Ouest), at Dumornay, on the road Route Frare and close to the Chemin de Fer of Saint-Marc. A sample, a ‘carrot’ (oil reservoir) drilled up from the well of Saint-Marc in the Artibonite underwent a physical-chemical analysis in Munich, Germany, at the request of Mr. Broth. ‘The result of the analysis was returned on October 11, 1979 and revealed tracks of oil,’ confided the engineer, Willy Clemens, who had gone to Germany.”

12 Dr. Georges Michel, op. cit.

13 Marguerite Laurent, Haiti is full of oil, say Ginette and Daniel Mathurin, Radio Metropole, Jan 28, 2008, accessed in
http://www.margueritelaurent.com/pressclips/oil_sites.html#full_of_oil.  

14 Jim Polson, Haiti earthquake may have exposed gas, aiding economy, Bloomberg News, January 26, 2010.

15 Espaillat Nanita revela en Haiti existen grandes recursos de oro y otros minerals, Espacinsular.org, 17 November, 2009, accessed in
http://www.espacinsular.org/spip.php?article8942 .

16 The Aristide development plan was contained in the book published in Haiti in 2000, Investir dans l’Human. Livre Blanc de Fanmi Lavalas sous la Direction de Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Port-au-Prince, Imprimerie Henri Deschamps, 2000. It contained detailed maps, tables, graphics, and a national development plan for 2004 “covering agriculture, environment, commerce and industry, the financial sector, infrastructure, education, culture, health, women's issues, and issues in the public sector.” In 2004, using NGOs and the UN and a vicious propaganda campaign to vilify Aristide, the Bush administration got rid of the elected President.

17 Cynthia McKinney, Haiti: An Unwelcome Katrina Redux, Global Research, January 19, 2010, accessed in
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17063.  

18 Marguerite Laurent (Ezili Danto), Did mining and oil drilling trigger the Haiti earthquake?, OpEd News.com, January 23, 2010, accessed in
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Did-mining-and-oil-drillin-by-Ezili-Danto-100123-329.html



http://www.globalresearch.ca

Url of this article: http://www.internationalnews.fr/article-the-fateful-geological-prize-called-haiti-by-f-william-engdahl-43983929.html

Communauté : Géopolitique - Publié dans : Géopolitique/Geopolitics
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 0 commentaires
Vendredi 29 janvier 2010 5 29 /01 /2010 16:15
http://www.iceagenow.com/hugo-chavez.jpg

Chavez est interviewé par la télévision colombienne au sujet de l'éventualité d'une guerre entre le Venezuela et la Colombie.

Publié dans : Géopolitique/Geopolitics
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 0 commentaires
Jeudi 28 janvier 2010 4 28 /01 /2010 20:12
http://www.jonesreport.com/images/250407_binLaden-Brzezinski.gif
Brzezinski and Ben Laden

TheRealNews

Zbigniew Brzezinski (The inventor of the Talibans) on Afghanistan and the American strategy for Eurasia and the world
Pt1



http://www.internationalnews.fr/article-brzezinski-on-the-afghan-war-pt1-43390254.html
Communauté : Géopolitique - Publié dans : Géopolitique/Geopolitics
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 0 commentaires
Dimanche 24 janvier 2010 7 24 /01 /2010 08:48
Mondialisation.ca
Le 20 janvier 2010
Le Parisien


Titre original : Un sismologue haïtien accuse : «On savait que ça arriverait»


Alors qu'Haïti continue à enterrer ses morts après le séisme de mardi dernier, la polémique commence à monter autour de la prévention de la catastrophe et du rôle des Etats-Unis dans les opérations de secours. Un spécialiste en sismologie haïtien, le docteur Daniel Mathurin, accuse le de son pays de ne pas avoir pris en compte les mises en garde répétées sur un risque de tremblement de terre en 2010.


«On savait que ça devait arriver», a-t-il asséné lundi matin sur Europe 1. Le chercheur, qui avait lui même prédit de forts risques sismiques pour cette année, assure que des universitaires américains avaient placé des capteurs tout au long de la ligne de faille et qu'ils auraient averti les autorités dominicaines et haitiennes des risques. «En République dominicaine, ils ont pris 20 des 22 dispositions préconisées : informer la population, renforcer les bâtiments.... Il n'y a eu aucun , indique le scientifique. Haïti n'a pris aucune de ces dispositions. Ils n'ont rien fait.»

Réserves en hydrocarbures


Cela fait vingt ans que Daniel avertit les autorités du risque sismique en Haïti, des dangers posés par les constructions anarchique et par la déforestation.


Avec sa femme Ginette, il a également étudié les gisements en hydrocarbures et en combustibles fossibles du sous-sol haïtien. «Nous avons relevé 20 sites pétrolifères», expliquait-il en 2008, assurant que les réserves pétrolifères d’Haïti étaient plus importantes que celles du Vénézuela. Une richesse qui augmente l'intérêt stratégique du pays. Pourquoi, dans ce cas, ces réserves ne sont-elles pas exploitées ? Pour Ginette Mathurin, «ces gisements sont déclarés réserves stratégiques des Etats-Unis d’Amérique».


Petrole


L'aide américaine en question


Bien que saluée, l'aide massive des Américains envers Haïti - où la secrétaire d'Etat Hillary Clinton s'est rendue samedi - a suscité de nombreuses questions. Lundi, Alain Joyandet a demandé à ce que le rôle des Etats-Unis soit précisé par l'ONU. «Il s'agit d'aider d'Haïti, il ne s'agit pas d'occuper Haïti, il s'agit de faire en sorte qu'Haïti puisse reprendre vie», a estimé le secrétaire d'Etat à la coopération sur Europe 1. De son côté, le président sandiniste du Nicaragua Daniel Ortega, connu pour ses positions anti-américaines, n'a pas hésité à déclarer : «On est en train de profiter d'un drame pour installer en Haïti des troupes américaines qui ont déjà pris le contrôle militaire de l'aéroport».


Les Etats-Unis assument de facto la coordination des secours sur place et contrôlent l'aéroport de Port-au-Prince. Ils ont déployé une aide massive après le séisme : 48 millions de dollars apportés au fonds du Programme alimentaire mondial (PAM) de l'ONU, un projet de pont aérien entre Haïti et les Etats-Unis et des centaines de spécialistes sur le terrain. Un navire commercial est attendu lundi au port des Cayes avec une cargaison de farine et d'huile végétale susceptible de nourrir 130.000 personnes pendant 30 jours. Enfin, le porte-avions nucléaire Carl Vinson, avec 19 hélicoptères à bord, et plusieurs autres navires militaires amarrés à proximité de Port-au-Prince, servent de base logistique.



Pour plus d'information sur le pétrole en Haïti,  lire l'article publié en 2005 : Du pétrole en Haïti ! Oui!

http://www.mondialisation.ca/

http://www.internationalnews.fr/article-seisme-et-reserves-hydrocarbures-a-haiti-interview-d-un-sismologue-haitien-43725534.html
Communauté : Actualités Internationales - Publié dans : Géopolitique/Geopolitics
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 0 commentaires
Dimanche 24 janvier 2010 7 24 /01 /2010 03:59

Mémoires des Luttes

Janvier 2010


http://axisoflogic.com/artman/uploads/1/us-bases-latin_america.jpg

Source: http://axisoflogic.com


L’entrée en fonctions, le 2 février 1999, au Venezuela, du président Hugo Chávez a pratiquement coïncidé avec un événement militaire très traumatisant pour les Etats-Unis : l’évacuation de leur principale installation militaire dans la région, la base Howard, située au Panama, fermée en vertu des traités Torrijos-Carter signés en 1977.


Les troupes de Howard furent d’abord déplacées à Porto Rico. Mais, là encore, un massif mouvement populaire de refus contraignit très vite le Pentagone à les retirer, à fermer la gigantesque base de Roosevelt Roads et à les transférer au Texas et en Floride. Tandis que le quartier général du Commando Sud (SouthCom [1]) était lui-même déplacé à Miami [2].


Pour remplacer ces installations et accroître son emprise sur Amérique Latine, le Pentagone choisit quatre localités stratégiquement situées et y installa (ou renforça) des bases militaires : à Manta en Equateur, à Comalapa au Salvador et dans les îles d’Aruba et Curaçao (Royaume des Pays-Bas). En plus de leurs "traditionnelles" missions d’espionnage, ces installations se virent confier de nouvelles fonctions officielles : surveiller les trafics de drogue et combattre l’immigration clandestine vers les Etats-Unis. Ainsi que d’autres tâches occultes : contrôler les flux de pétrole et de minerais, avoir l’œil sur les immenses ressources en eau douce et inventorier la biodiversité. Mais dès le début, leurs objectifs principaux étaient clairs : il s’agissait surtout de surveiller le Venezuela et d’aider à déstabiliser la révolution bolivarienne.


Après les attentats du 11 septembre 2001, le Secrétaire d’Etat américain à la défense, M. Donald Rumsfeld, définit une nouvelle doctrine militaire pour affronter le "terrorisme international". Il décide de modifier la stratégie de déploiement militaire à l’étranger fondée jusqu’alors sur l’existence d’un nombre réduit de très grandes bases dotées d’équipements lourds et de personnels fort nombreux. Il remplace ces mégabases par un nombre beaucoup plus élevé de Foreign Operating Locations (FOL, Site opérationnel prépositionné) et de Cooperative Security Locations (CSL, Site de sécurité en coopération) avec très peu d’effectifs militaires mais équipés de technologies les plus avancées en matière de détection (radars de dernière génération, antennes paraboliques sophistiquées, avions espions Orion et Awacs, drones de surveillance, etc.).


Résultat : très rapidement, la quantité d’installations militaires américaines à l’étranger atteint le nombre insolite de 865 bases de type FOL ou CSL déployées dans quelque 46 pays [3]. Jamais dans l’histoire, une puissance a multiplié de telle sorte ses positions militaires de contrôle pour s’implanter à travers le monde.


En Amérique Latine, ce redéploiement va permettre à la base de Manta (Equateur) de participer au coup d’Etat raté du 11 avril 2002 contre le président Chávez. La pression sur le Venezuela s’accentue. Washington orchestre notamment une campagne médiatique et lance de fausses informations sur une présumée présence dans ce pays de cellules appartenant à des organisations comme Hamas, Hezbollah et même Al-Qaeda qui disposeraient de "camps d’entraînement sur l’île Margarita [4]".


Sous le prétexte de surveiller ces "cellules terroristes" et en représailles contre le gouvernement de Caracas qui a mis fin, en mai 2004, à un demi siècle de présence militaire américaine au Venezuela, le Pentagone renouvelle, en 2005, l’accord avec le gouvernement des Pays Bas pour développer ses bases militaires dans les îles d’Aruba et de Curaçao, situées à quelques encablures des côtes vénézuéliennes. L’activité militaire au sein de ces bases redouble et s’intensifie [5], ce qui a été récemment dénoncé par le président Chávez : "Il est bon que l’Europe sache que l’empire américain est en train d’armer jusqu’aux dents et de remplir d’avions et de vaisseaux de guerre les îles d’Aruba et de Curaçao (...) J’accuse le Royaume des Pays Bas, membre de l’Union européenne - et j’aimerais à cet égard savoir ce qu’en dit l’Union européenne -, de préparer, avec les Etats-Unis, une agression contre le Venezuela [6]."


L’Alliance Bolivarienne pour les Amériques (ALBA) est créée en 2005, Hugo Chávez est réélu l’année suivante et on commence à parler, à Caracas, de "socialisme du XXIe siècle". Washington réagit en imposant un embargo sur la vente d’armes et de matériels militaires au Venezuela, sous le fallacieux prétexte que Caracas "ne collabore pas suffisamment dans la guerre contre le terrorisme". Les avions F-16 des forces aériennes vénézuéliennes se retrouvent sans pièces de rechange. Devant une telle situation, le gouvernement bolivarien se tourne vers la Russie et signe un accord pour équiper son aviation de chasseurs Sukhoï. Washington dénonce un soi-disant "réarmement massif" du Venezuela, oubliant de rappeler que les principaux budgets militaires d’Amérique Latine sont ceux du Brésil, de la Colombie et du Chili. Et que, chaque année, la Colombie reçoit une aide militaire américaine de quelque 630 millions de dollars (environ 420 millions d’euros).


A partir de là, les choses s’accélèrent. Le 1° mars 2008, grâce à l’aide logistique fournie par la base de Manta, des troupes colombiennes attaquent un camp des Forces armées révolutionnaires de Colombie (FARC) situé à l’intérieur du territoire équatorien. Quito riposte en décidant de ne pas renouveler l’accord de location de la base de Manta qui arrive à terme en novembre 2009. Washington répond, le mois suivant, en réactivant la IVe Flotte (démantelée il y a soixante ans, en 1948...) dont la mission sera de surveiller et de contrôler la côte atlantique de l’Amérique du Sud. Un mois plus tard, les Etats sud-américains, réunis à Brasilia, décident de créer l’Union des nations sud-américaines (UNASUR) puis, en mars 2009, le Conseil de défense sud-américain.


Quelques semaines plus tard, l’ambassadeur des Etats-Unis à Bogota annonce que la base de Manta sera remplacée par celle de Palanquero en Colombie. En juin, avec le soutien technique de la base américaine de Soto Cano (Palmerola), un coup d’Etat au Honduras renverse le président Manuel Zelaya, coupable d’avoir fait adhérer son pays à l’ALBA. En août, le Pentagone révèle qu’il disposera, en Colombie, de sept nouvelles bases militaires... Et, en octobre, le président conservateur du Panama, Ricardo Martinelli, admet que son gouvernement a cédé aux Etats-Unis l’usage de quatre autres bases.


Le Venezuela et la révolution bolivarienne se retrouvent donc encerclées par pas moins de treize bases américaines situées en Colombie, Panama, Aruba et Curaçao, ainsi que par les porte-avions et les vaisseaux de la IVe Flotte. Le président Barack Obama semble avoir donné carte blanche au Pentagone. Tout paraît annoncer une agression militaire. Les peuples du monde accepteront-ils que soit commis un nouveau crime contre la démocratie en Amérique latine ?


http://www.medelu.org

Rrl de cet article:
http://www.internationalnews.fr/article-le-venezuela-encercle-par-ignacio-ramonet-43548539.html

Communauté : Géopolitique - Publié dans : Géopolitique/Geopolitics
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 0 commentaires
Dimanche 24 janvier 2010 7 24 /01 /2010 00:27
http://odishari.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/grand-chessboard1.jpg
Full book downloadable: http://www.activistmagazine.com/images/stories/PDF/zbigniew-brzezinski_grand-chessboard.pdf

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/february2007/060207brez3.jpg
Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com


January 10 2010

Brzezinski: Six months before Soviet invasion, we financed the Mujahideen



Communauté : Géopolitique - Publié dans : Géopolitique/Geopolitics
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 0 commentaires
Samedi 23 janvier 2010 6 23 /01 /2010 13:43
atlasalternatif
29 décembre 2009



Le 14 décembre dernier, la République populaire de Chine a officiellement ouvert un gazoduc au départ du camp de Samandepe au Turkménistan en présence des présidents de Chine, d'Ouzbékistan et du Kazakhstan (pays que traverse le gazoduc). Ce gazoduc de 7 000 km devrait acheminer 40 milliards de mètres cubes par an en Chine.


La semaine suivante on apprenait que la Russie après des tensions avec le Turkménistan suite à une explosion de gazoduc en avril dernier venait de signer un accord pour une livraison de 30 milliards de mètres cubes de gaz par an.



Ces accords semblent signer le glas des espoirs américains de voir le gouvernement turkmène exporter son gaz vers l'Occident via le pipeline qui traverse la Turquie. L'option du pipeline occidental avait été déjà affaiblie par le mémorandum signé en mars entre la société azerbaïdjanaise SOCAR et le russe Gazprom. Par ailleurs la guerre d'Afghanistan continue d'affaiblir la politique des Etats-Unis en Asie centrale. Alexander Cooley de l'université de Columbia, notait récemment que l'utilisation des pays d'Asie centrale pour l'approvisionnement des troupes américaines en Afghanistan dans le cadre du Northern Distribution Network (NDN) - un tiers des approvisionnemet des troupes transitent par ces pays désormais - pourrait prochainement nuire à la stabilité de ces pays en faisant des cibles potentielles des talibans, et rend Washington dépendant de leur bon vouloir.


En Irak où les Etats-Unis firent la guerre entre autres pour accaparer les ressources en hydrocarbures, leur position est aussi loin d'être hégémonique. Le 12 décembre dernier, le russe Loukoil en partenariat avec le norvégien StatoilHydro a remporté le marché d'exploitation du champ pétrolifère Kourna Ouest (West Qurna)-2 tandis que Shell et China national petroleum company obtenaient d'autres champs. L'Irak produit 2,5 millions de barils par jour. Il espère passer à 7 millions dans six ans. West Qurna-2 exploité par les Russes pourrait produire 1,8 millions de barils.


En termes de réserves prouvées Qourna Ouest-2 recèle 12,8 milliards de barils soit un dixième des réserves du pays. Les Russes en partenariat avec les Turcs et les Malaisiens obtiennent aussi Badra (109 millions de barrils) dans l'est du pays. Malaisiens et Japonais obtiennent Garraf (au centre du pays) - 863 millions de barils. L'Angola (l'entreprise publique Sonanol) décroche Najmah au nord (858 millions de barils) alors qu'elle exploitait déjà Qaiyarah (807 millions). Toutefois Shell et le Malaisien Petronas contrôleront Majnoon au Sud de l'Irak (12,6 milliards de bails) et China National Petroleum Company exploitera Halfiya dans le sud (4,1 milliards) en partenariat avec Petronas et Total. Les Chinois sont aussi présents dans Roumalia (17,8 milliards de barils) où British Petroleum est majoritaire. Certains champs n'ont pas trouvé preneur à cause des actions de la guérilla. Le groupe Hands off Iraqi oil continue de dénoncer ces ventes aux enchères du pétrole irakien.


A noter aussi dans ces grandes recompositions du partage du gâteau des hydrocarbures en Eurasie que la Russie vient de signer un accord d'approvisionnement de la Chine en gaz. Elle vient en outre d'inaugurer un nouveau terminal pétrolier pour approvisionner l'Extrême Orient. Tandis que sur le front Ouest, comme tous les ans en hiver, les tensions avec l'Ukraine menacent à nouveau l'approvisionnement de l'Europe de l'Est.

FD
http://atlasalternatif.over-blog.com/
Communauté : Actualités Internationales - Publié dans : Géopolitique/Geopolitics
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 0 commentaires

Présentation/About this Site

  • internationalnews
  • : Géostratégie Ecologie/Environnement Nouvel Ordre Mondial/New World Order Santé/Health Documentaires/Documentaries Actualité
  • : Un site d'information et de réflexion sur l'actualité internationale, le nouvel ordre mondial, la géostratégie, la propagande, l'impérialisme, l'économie, l'environnement et la culture, illustré de documentaires. News and Analysis on International Issues, the New World Order, Geostrategy, Propaganda, Imperialism, Economics, Environment and Culture - Documentaries
  • Contact
  • Retour à la page d'accueil

RSS

  • Flux RSS des articles

RECHERCHER/SEARCH

LIENS/LINKS

 
Contact - C.G.U. - Signaler un abus - Articles les plus commentés