ACCUEIL

Gespräch mit Dr. Gabriel Galice – Gegenlicht zum Krieg, zur Ukraine, zur Friedensforschung

Interview de Gabriel Galice par  Anti | thèse: « Ukraine, une guerre totale »

L’édifiante trajectoire de la débâcle afghane » (G. Galice et G.E. Jacquet – Recherches Internationales)

Empires et perspectives méditerranéennes

Entretien de G.E. Jacquet sur le conflit ukrainien, les sanctions et les livraisons d’armes

Seule la diplomatie peut arrêter le conflit russo-ukrainien et son expansion possible à la République de Moldavie.

Ukraine Suffering and Hope – Interview of G.E. Jacquet with Pax Press Agency

Publication d’un article de Gilles-Emmanuel Jacquet : « The rise of foreign volunteers in armed conflicts » (TRENDS Research & Advisory)

Source / lien: https://trendsresearch.org/publication/the-rise-of-foreign-volunteers-in-armed-conflicts/

Since the end of the Cold War, the majority of armed conflicts occurring in the world have consisted of internal conflicts characterized by the increasing involvement of foreign volunteers among non-state actors and, to a lesser extent, among state actors. This phenomenon is not exclusive to the contemporary period as it has occurred throughout history, starting with the American and French revolutions at the end of the 18th century, gaining stronger impetus all through the conflicts of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Lire la suite…

Globalization, the growth of internal armed conflicts with international dimensions, the global spread of information, and the increasing ease of travel gave new significance to this phenomenon, especially after 9/11 in the form of global jihadism. The goal of this paper is to present the development of this phenomenon throughout contemporary history, clarify its conceptual definition, analyze its implications with regard to international law, identify the motivations of foreign volunteers involved in armed conflicts and discuss the contemporary, as well as future perspectives of this phenomenon.

Guerres hybrides – entretien de Gabriel Galice avec Michel Collon / Investig’Action

Vérités et mensonges sur les promesses faites à la Russie

Vérités et mensonges sur les promesses faites à la Russie

Guy Mettan, journaliste indépendant*

La guerre de l’information qui accompagne les tensions entre l’OTAN et la Russie à propos de l’Ukraine conduit souvent à déformer la réalité historique. Il convient notamment de corriger de nombreux articles qui affirmaient que la promesse faite par les Etats-Unis à Gorbatchev en 1991, promesse selon laquelle l’OTAN « n’avancerait pas d’un pouce à l’est » en échange de la réunification de l’Allemagne et du départ des troupes de l’Armée rouge en Europe de l’Est, serait un « mythe » forgé par le Kremlin pour neutraliser, voire envahir l’Ukraine.

Lire la suite…

Cette thèse repose sur un article publié dans la revue Foreign Affairs en 2014, au moment de la crise ukrainienne, et repris dans un livre publié en novembre dernier. Leur auteur, Mary E. Sarote, est membre du think tank le plus influent de la politique impériale des Etats-Unis, le Council on Foreign Relations, dont les avis relèvent davantage de la propagande que de l’étude impartiale.
Car ce prétendu « mythe » est on ne peut plus vrai. Il est essentiel d’en prendre conscience si l’on veut à la fois comprendre ce qui se passe et trouver une issue négociée au conflit.
Le 9 février 1990, James Baker, alors Secrétaire d’Etat américain, a dit exactement ceci : « Nous considérons que les consultations et les discussions dans le cadre du mécanisme 2+4 devraient donner la garantie que la réunification de l’Allemagne ne conduira pas à un élargissement de l’organisation militaire de l’OTAN à l’Est. » Le lendemain, le Chancelier Helmut Kohl a renchéri : « Nous considérons que l’OTAN ne devrait pas élargir sa sphère d’activité. »
En décembre 2017, le National Security Archive de l’Université George Washington a publié les mémos, comptes rendus et télégrammes de cette époque, d’où il ressort que les assurances données par les Occidentaux apparaissent dans de nombreux documents enregistrés ou écrits lors des échanges entre chancelleries en 1990 et 1991. On en trouve tous les détails sur le site dédié de l’université, sous la rubrique « NATO Expansion : What Gorbatchev Heard. Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner. Slavic Studies Panel Addresses “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?”
L’ancien ambassadeur américain à Moscou, Jack Matlock, a par ailleurs confirmé ces faits dans ses diverses publications. Des garanties ont donc bel et bien été données, même si elles ne figurent pas dans un traité signé en bonne et due forme.
Mais encore faut-il vouloir en prendre note et reconnaitre qu’une parole est une parole.
Ce n’est que plus tard, avec la montée en puissance des néoconservateurs, que le président Bill Clinton décida de les ignorer et réussit, en 1997, à étendre l’OTAN à l’est en admettant de nouveaux membres en échange d’un « pot-de-vin » de 4 milliards de dollars à son ami Boris Yeltsine, comme ce dernier devait appeler ce cadeau plus tard.
A l’époque, le russophobe le plus déterminé de l’administration américaine, Zbigniew Brezinski, auteur du fameux livre « Le grand échiquier » dans lequel il explique pourquoi les Etats-Unis devaient absolument s’emparer de l’Ukraine, avait pressenti ce qui allait arriver aujourd’hui : « Si la Russie est rejetée ou exclue, elle sera pleine de ressentiment et sa vision d’elle-même deviendra plus anti-européenne et anti-occidentale. » Et de presser Clinton de faire vite : « Plus nous attendrons, plus les objections de Moscou seront bruyantes », pronostiquait-il au milieu des années 1990, tout en mettant en garde contre une expansion trop brutale.
Ce danger n’avait d’ailleurs pas échappé au père de l’endiguement de l’Union soviétique, Georges Kennan. Dans un article du New York Times paru en 1997, il prophétisait la situation actuelle en écrivant que, suite à la rupture de la parole donnée à Gorbatchev, l’admission de la Pologne, de la Hongrie et de la République tchèque dans l’OTAN serait « la plus grosse erreur de la politique américaines d’après la guerre froide et ne servirait qu’à enflammer les tendances nationalistes, anti-occidentales et militaristes dans l’opinion russe ».
Depuis lors, l’OTAN n’a fait qu’empirer les choses, en admettant sept nouveaux Etats en 2004 et en promettant l’adhésion à l’Ukraine et à la Géorgie en avril 2008, avant d’encourager cette dernière à attaquer l’Ossétie du Sud en août de la même année. Cela à peine dix mois après le discours de Poutine à la conférence de Munich, dans lequel il avait exprimé le souhait que l’OTAN cesse son extension ! En 25 ans, l’OTAN a doublé le nombre de ses membres, tous à l’est.
Dans le même temps, elle accumulait les agressions en mentant effrontément et en tordant le droit international : guerre du Golfe en 1991 (avec l’affaire inventée de toutes pièces des bébés jetés des couveuses koweitiennes) ; démembrement de la Yougoslavie en 1992, bombardement illégal de la Serbie en 1999 et sécession du Kosovo (justifiés par le pseudo-massacre de Raçak et le soi-disant plan fer-à-Cheval prêtés à la Serbie) ; invasion de l’Afghanistan en 2001 ; guerre d’Irak en 2003 (déclenchée grâce aux mensonges de Colin Powell à l’ONU) ; destruction de la Libye et assassinat de Kadhafi (faussement accusé de massacrer sa population) en 2011 ; tentative de destruction de la Syrie et de renversement de son président entre 2011 et 2019 ; guerre du Yémen dès 2015, menée sous drapeau saoudien et considérée par l’ONU comme la plus grande catastrophe humanitaire de notre temps.
Difficile après cela de considérer l’OTAN sous conduite américaine comme un innocent et pacifique club de bridge.
Il ne faut donc pas s’étonner si, après le coup d’Etat organisé par les Etats-Unis en février 2014 pour renverser le président ukrainien démocratiquement élu Viktor Ianoukovitch, qui avait eu le tort de souhaiter une Ukraine en équilibre entre la Russie et l’Europe, la Russie a repris le contrôle de la Crimée tandis que les provinces du Donbass se rebellaient contre cette forfaiture.
Les Etats-Unis et l’OTAN sont naturellement libres de renier leur parole et de poursuivre dans leur voie agressive au risque de déclencher une guerre. Mais au moins le public a le droit de savoir pourquoi et comment on en est arrivé là sans être trompé sur la nature des vrais responsables de ce qui serait un vrai gâchis pour l’Europe.
*Auteur du livre Russie-Occident : une guerre de mille ans, Syrtes, 2015.

LES RISQUES DE GUERRE ET LE JEU DANGEREUX DES MEDIAS

Lire l’article en entier: Veuillez cliquer sur l’image ou sur ce lien.

Alfred de Zayas: US-NATO Narrative of ‘Russian Invasion’ of Ukraine Has Turned Into ‘Religious Dogma’ (Sputnik News)

Lien vers l’article: https://sputniknews.com/20220124/ex-un-expert-us-nato-narrative-of-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-has-turned-into-religious-dogma-1092470865.html

Alfred de Zayas: NATO as religion (CounterPunch)

Lien vers l’article: https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/01/24/nato-as-religion/

« Has the West gambled away trust? »

Interview with Alfred de Zayas: « Has the West gambled away trust? »
Through détente and disarmament, the relationship between the great powers can be be improved Interview with Prof. Dr. iur. et phil. Alfred de Zayas, international law expert and former UN mandate holder
Zeitgeschehen im Fokus What can be expected from the meeting in Geneva between high-ranking representatives of Russia and the United States
Lire la suite…

Prof. Dr. Alfred de Zayas It is important that the political leaders speak directly with each other and not just make official pronouncements. That’s why the UN Security Council and the UN Human Rights Council are important, because they address truths that have to be put on the table. It is then our task to ensure that the right priorities are set in the UN Security Council and at the meeting between Biden and Putin. The UN Security Council resolution of January 3, 2022, on the non-permissibility of the use of nuclear weapons is particularly timely. Indeed, the five permanent members recognized that « a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought »; they also want to strengthen the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
What should be the top priority at this meeting?
The main concern must be peace, to promote détente, to remove obstacles, to ban war propaganda, precisely in order to implement a disarmament policy. Here – as everywhere – it is a matter of correct information and a rational discussion about it, which also requires the good will or « bona fide » of both sides. But we are swimming in an ocean of disinformation and Machiavellianism.
How should we evaluate Putin’s demands to the USA and NATO?
I assess them as positive and necessary. It is especially important that Putin’s proposals are now public, because in this way the « narrative managers » of the US State Department and the Western media will not be able to falsify Putin’s proposals or to reproduce them only selectively. And even if the cat is out of the bag, the media will try to paint it in different colors. Putin’s demands are quite legitimate. But big politics is rarely balanced. People don’t always speak the same language. « Democracy » does not mean the same thing in Washington, Jerusalem, Cairo, Moscow, Tehran or Beijing.
Is Putin right to insist on an end to NATO enlargement?
Absolutely – and the Russian government should have demanded this back in the 1990s. But in Moscow sat a corrupt man, Boris Yeltsin, who behaved like a drunken puppet of the United States. The damage Yeltsin brought to Russia was colossal, but the Western media continues to paint a positive portrait of this traitor to his own people.
Putin wants a withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Europe. Surely that would be a meaningful step toward peace?
Yes, certainly, but neither the Americans, nor the British, nor the French are mentally there. Our arms industry needs an enemy – and that is the role Russia has to play. We in the West live in our own propaganda, and we are paralyzed to the extent that we cannot free ourselves too easily from our own prejudices. NATO chief Stoltenberg is as much a warmonger, manipulator and propagandist as the politicians in Washington and London.
What do you expect from the US president?
If Biden was an independent thinker, an enlightened mind and not an apparatchik, he would pursue real realpolitik. He would realize that a Third World War would mean the end of our world, that nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction are the greatest danger to humanity – more than pandemics or climate change. He would understand that the Russians and Chinese also want to live on and will not disappear from the map. So you have to learn how to live in peace with them. Why does Washington have to preemptively declare the Russians and Chinese enemies rather than potential partners? I hardly think Biden can free himself from his own prejudices about Russia. He thinks Putin is something like a new Stalin – or a new czar. But Putin is not. Biden is following a political line that is prescribed to him by the « Brookings Institute, » the « Heritage Foundation, » etc.
What advice would you give him?
If Biden wants to make a smart American policy for once, he would have to engage in a modus vivendi with the Russians. He could, for example, ask Putin about his ideas on disarmament or talk about possibilities for cooperation in space, about expanding cooperation on the International Space Station (ISS), about a return to the Open Skies Treaty.
So there are definitely approaches to improving the relationship between the great powers in 2022?
Yes, of course, through détente and disarmament. That is why the UN Conference on Disarmament in Geneva should become active. This must be done on the basis of mutual respect and in the context of all relevant UN mechanisms. The attitude of the USA to see itself as the sole hegemon is, of course, a major obstacle. It is about the mental attitude of the American « elites » and media, which is not so easy to banish, because we Americans have had this habit for centuries. It’s what we call « exceptionalism. » Most Americans are virtually convinced that they have a « mission. » Just as the British imperialists (Queen Victoria, Cecil Rhodes) believed in « The White Man’s Burden » (Rudyard Kipling), the majority of Americans believe that they possess the truth and must export their idea of « democracy » and « human rights » to other countries. This is not a good condition for talks between sovereign states.
What role can NATO have then?
Preferably none, because its raison d’être no longer exists – it was established as a counterpole to the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Since 1991 at the latest, NATO has been obsolete, but it is looking for a new task. Like any organization, any apparatus, Nato wants to continue to exist. Thus, it has become an aggressive alliance, committing major violations of international law or human rights, e.g. in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. It acts against the Nuremberg Principles and against the Rome Statute.
Shouldn’t these violations of human and international rights be punished?
Yes, of course! Actually, NATO war crimes and NATO crimes against humanity should also be investigated by the International Criminal Court (ICC) – because there are violations of Articles 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Rome Statute. But let’s not dream. The new chief prosecutor of the ICC is an Englishman who has already said he will not investigate NATO crimes in Afghanistan, although he has ordered an investigation into the crimes of the Taliban. In principle, NATO should be abolished without a sound bite. In the future, security issues should be dealt with solely by the UN Security Council.
Putin spoke of a European security architecture as early as 2007. Would that be a basis for more peaceful politics in the world?
That was true then and is all the more urgent today. This European security architecture would, of course, have to work together with the UN and not against it. Actually, we want a security architecture for the whole world – and that means nuclear disarmament and an end to the arms race.
What role could the OSCE play for peaceful coexistence in Europe?
A very positive role. Russia and Belarus also play a role in the OSCE – they are not excluded in advance.
From the West, the OSCE is always treated somewhat stepmotherly, although all of Europe sits at the table here. Why is that?
Not only the old Republican neo-cons like Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, etc. underestimated the OSCE – today in the US House of Representatives, Republican Mike Turner, wants to send U.S. troops to Ukraine to defend « democracy » against Russia. Not only the radical neo-cons think this way – also Democrats like Victoria Nuland (Assistant Secretary of State) and even Hillary Clinton think nothing of the OSCE or of the EU. Democrats also just want to give orders.
How must one understand that a meeting is scheduled with the OSCE but not with the EU?
The EU has maneuvered itself into a dead end. By actively participating in the Maidan coup against democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych, by not defending the « rule of law » in Ukraine but immediately siding with the anti-democratic coup plotters, the EU has lost its credibility and authority. The way the EU is dealing with Ukraine and Poland proves that it is interested in power and violence – but not in dialogue or compromise.
Is the fact that Russia is giving priority to the OSCE an affront to the EU, as some newspapers comment, or an expression of the fact that European states are ultimately dependent on the United States?
It is not an affront at all, but realpolitik. For decades, the European states have been lackeys of the USA. Moreover, the EU does not pursue a policy that conforms to the UN Charter and supports activities that are incompatible with it. It carries out war propaganda, agitates against Russia and China, but tolerates the crimes of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Emirates, etc. – violating Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which prohibits war propaganda.
What do you see as the reasons why the situation has visibly deteriorated in recent years?
In a sense, we in the West are in a constant state of flight. Things are not going well with our economy and finances. The US, in particular, have broken so many important treaties that its credibility has taken a serious hit. « Pacta sunt servanda » (Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties) – treaty compliance applies not only to ratified treaties, but also to oral agreements. Breaking a « gentleman’s agreement » may not come before the International Court of Justice, but it still has all kinds of consequences for the present and the future.
Is that what you mean with regard to NATO’s eastward expansion?
Yes, the West wanted the Soviet Union to withdraw its troops from Central and Eastern Europe. Gorbachev promised that and carried it out. But as the statements of various responsible officials prove, NATO did indeed promise not to expand eastward. One thinks that Gorbachev could have demanded that Nato should dissolve just as the Warsaw Pact dissolved, that Nato should be abolished just as it was. Gorbachev did not demand that – but he did get a promise and a pledge that Nato would not go an inch to the east. The West did not honor this essential agreement.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently denied that his predecessor Baker had made promises about NATO’s possible eastward expansion.
This is easily refuted, as declassified documents prove that oral promises were indeed made and that they were part of the general agreement.¹ Legally, oral assurances are binding, even if not set in stone. As early as April 2009, Gorbachev wrote: « Chancellor Helmut Kohl, US Secretary of State James Baker and others assured me that NATO would not move an inch eastward. The Americans did not abide by this, and the Germans were indifferent. They may even have rubbed their hands together at how great a job the Russians had been done. What did it bring? Only that the Russians now no longer trust Western promises. »² Baker had given assurances in a conversation with Gorbachev that « NATO’s legal jurisdiction over NATO forces would not be extended one inch eastward. »³
Similarly, in 1990, then-US Ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock told a U.S. congressional hearing that Gorbachev had received a « clear commitment » from the United States that « if Germany were to unify and remain in NATO, NATO’s borders would not move eastward. »⁴ Former German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher said on Feb. 2, 1990, after a meeting with then-US Secretary of State James Baker, « We agreed that there was no intention to extend the NATO defense area eastward. That applies not only to the GDR, but in general. »⁵
Now, of course, the trust is disturbed…
Disturbed is too mild a word. After all, one of the greatest achievements of civilization and the rule of law is fidelity to contract. The obligation to keep one’s word. When a promise is made, it must be implemented in good faith and not undermined, reinterpreted, softened. It is a matter of honor. But it seems that we in the West have no honor left – and that we have deliberately short-changed the Russians. We have created a « fait accompli » and expect the Russians to accept it that way.
But that happened in the course of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Yes, but in 1991 the Soviet Union was not a defeated state. Gorbachev wanted glasnost and perestroika in Russia, cooperation and peace with the West. He did not sign an unconditional surrender. Basically, the West lied to Gorbachev and the Russians, deceived them, hoodwinked them. But this fact most politicians in Washington do not want to admit. There is not a bit of remorse – we just deny everything. We play the innocent. This has consequences. Namely, it is about lack of « bona fide » – lack of good faith. Unfortunately, we have earned a bad reputation in the West. In order to regain credibility and become worthy of a contract, we must show political will, we must prove that we are a reliable contracting party. A true statesman understands this.
Haven’t there always been word breaches in international relations?
Too many – and since biblical times. In the Renaissance, we read various amazing stories in the book « The Prince » by Niccolò Machiavelli. But take, for example, World War I – the German Empire did not surrender at all in November 1918, and did not need to. The Reich believed in the good will of President Woodrow Wilson and relied on the implementation of the 14 points. Germany was not occupied, on the contrary. Germany still occupied parts of France and Belgium. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Russia was still in force. The German Reich was not defeated. There was no unconditional surrender as in May 1945. The German people were war-weary in 1918, wanted peace, believed with a certain naiveté in Wilson’s 14-point plan. The armistice of November 11, 1918, was based expressis verbis or legally on the 14 points that were to form the foundation of the peace treaty. But as soon as Kaiser Wilhelm II had abdicated and the Reich had collapsed, France and England forgot all their obligations. The Treaty of Versailles no longer had anything to do with the 14 points. In fact, it was a grotesque breach of promise. One might almost say an example of « vae victis » – but the point is that Germany was not defeated. Similar to Gorbachev in 1991, Germany was bamboozled in Versailles in 1919.
What are the consequences of a breach of trust?
Any breach of trust means poisoning the interstate atmosphere, which prevents cooperation and can lead to further misunderstandings. And so it was in 1919. France and England acted brazenly toward Germany. It was precisely because of the monstrous injustice of the Treaty of Versailles that a demagogue like Adolf Hitler was able to come to power in Germany. Indeed, French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau was a chauvinist, not a statesman. More than British Prime Minister Lloyd George, Clemenceau bears a heavy responsibility for World War II. The betrayal of Versailles led all of Europe to ruin. The ongoing breach of trust by NATO since 1991 may catch up with us sooner or later and lead to Armageddon.
What can the USA demand from Russia?
For example, that Putin commits not to attack Ukraine. Putin can easily give such an assurance. However, should Selensky attack the Russian-speaking regions of Donetsk and Lugansk, as Saakashvili attacked South Ossetia in his time, Putin cannot be expected to stand idly by. For centuries, Ukraine was part of Russia. Putin has no interest in reincorporating Ukraine into Mother Russia, so he will not invade Ukraine without provocation. He is more or less resigned to the 2014 coup. But he will not allow Ukraine to massacre the Russian-born population in Donetsk, Lugansk, Sloviansk, etc. In the West, the massacres of Russians in Odessa on May 2, 2014 are forgotten – but not in Russia.
What can Russia ask from the USA?
A bona fide attempt to ease the situation. An end to the constant anti-Russian propaganda. An end to NATO « maneuvers » in the Black Sea and near the Russian border. A willingness to resolve global issues multilaterally in accordance with the UN Charter.
What role can Switzerland play?
After all, the meeting is taking place in Geneva. Just as President Parmelin facilitated a successful meeting between Putin and Biden in June 2021, Ignazio Cassis should now offer his good offices as the new president of the Confederation, thus continuing the Swiss tradition of mediation. As a neutral state, Switzerland could seriously make use of its experience in the role of mediator and make a constructive contribution to more peace in the world. President Cassis is challenged.
Professor de Zayas, thank you very much for the interview.  Interview Thomas Kaiser (zeitgeschehen-im-fokus.ch).

¹ https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
² http://www.bild.de/politik/2009/bild-medienpreis/die-deutschen-waren-nicht-aufzuhalten-7864098.bild.html
³ Philip Zelikow und Condoleezza Rice: Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft (Cambridge, Mass. 1995), S. 182
⁴ House Committee on International Relations, U.S. Policy Toward NATO Enlargement: Hearing, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., June 20, 1996, S. 31.
⁵ https://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/516654/NATO-Osterweiterung-Ein-gebrochenes-muendliches-Versprechen-mit-Folgen-fuer-Europa
Source: https://zeitgeschehen-im-fokus.ch/en/newspaper-ausgabe-en/article-translated-in-english.html#article_1289

Interview of G.E. Jacquet (Geneva Institute of International Relations) with Fox News on the US-Russia talks in Geneva :

US-Russia security talks begin in Switzerland:

Russia seeks to block Ukraine’s potential NATO membership as talks between US, Russian diplomats yield little progress

Alfred de Zayas: « Hat der Westen das Vertrauen verspielt? »

Durch Entspannung und Abrüstung kann das Verhältnis der Grossmächte verbessert werden. Interview mit Prof. Dr. iur. et phil. Alfred de Zayas, Völkerrechtler und ehemaliger Uno-Mandatsträger.

Lire la suite (en allemand): zeitgeschehen-im-fokus.ch/de/newspaper-ausgabe/nr-1-vom-10-januar-2022.html#article_1282

Source: Zeitgeschehen im Fokus, n°1, 10/01/2022

Alastair Crooke: « Sur l’Ukraine et la Chine, l’Union européenne est un laquais atlantiste et irresponsable »

Comment diable l’UE s’est-elle mise dans un tel pétrin stratégique ? La réponse franche est que nous sommes des laquais atlantistes et irréfléchis, écrit Alastair Crooke.

Lire la suite: Alastair Crooke, « Sur l’Ukraine et la Chine, l’Union européenne est un laquais atlantiste et irresponsable » (traduit par les lecteurs du site Les Crises), Les Crises, 10/01/2022 : www.les-crises.fr/ukraine-chine-union-europeenne-laquais-atlantiste-et-irresponsable/

Lire la suite (version anglaise) / read more: Alastair Crooke, « The EU’s Strategic Balance Sheet – Well, Good Luck With That… », Strategic Culture, 06/12/2021 : https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/12/06/eu-strategic-balance-sheet-well-good-luck-with-that/

Ein Gespräch über Afghanistan und die Taliban

21 December, 2021 / 10:45 AM

Der 11. September ein Datum welches in zweierlei Hinsicht schmerzhaft ist.  Zum einen der 11. September 2001: Nachdem sich die Taliban-Regierung nach den Anschlägen der Al-Qaida geweigert hatte, den Terroristenführer Osama bin Laden auszuliefern, marschierten die Vereinigten Staaten in Afghanistan ein. Die Taliban-Führung verlor schnell die Kontrolle über das Land und zog sich in den Süden Afghanistans und über die Grenze nach Pakistan zurück.  Zum anderen: bis zum 11. September dieses Jahrs wurden alle US-Streitkräfte aus Afghanistan abgezogen. Die beteiligten NATO-Länder schlossen sich dem an.   Über viele Jahre hinweg hatten die amerikanische Regierung und ihre Verbündeten versucht, durch eine Übergangsregierung Afghanistan in eine demokratische, islamische Republik umzugestalten.  Der Versuch scheiterte nach 20 Jahren.
Lire la suite…

Monsignor John David Putzer, Geschäftsträger (Chargé d’Affaires), Ständige Vertretung des Heiligen Stuhls bei der UNO in Genf sagte in seiner Videobotschaft an die UNO, das der Heilige Stuhl mit großer Aufmerksamkeit und tiefer Sorge die Entwicklung der Lage in Afghanistan verfolge. Er fuhr fort: “ Papst Franziskus hat alle Völker aufgerufen, mit ihm zum Gott des Friedens zu beten, damit das “Geschrei der Waffen” aufhört und am Tisch des Dialogs Lösungen gefunden werden können. Nur so kann die geschundene Bevölkerung dieses Landes, Männer, Frauen, ältere Menschen und Kinder, in ihre Häuser zurückkehren und in Frieden und Sicherheit in gegenseitigem Respekt leben.”

Was die Lage vor allem für Christen und andere Religionen in Afghanistan bedeutet, das wollten wir von einem Experten in Genf erfahren.  ;  Ein regelmäßiger Gast unseres Programms ist Gilles Emmanuel Jacquet, Assistenzprofessor für Weltgeschichte an der Genfer Schule für Diplomatie und internationale Beziehungen und leitender Analyst am Internationalen Friedensforschungsinstitut Genf.

Bevor wir mit Dir über die Taliban in Afghanistan sprechen werden, erkläre uns kurz, warum ich Dich mit Fug und Recht als Experten auf diesem Gebiet bezeichnen kann?

Gilles Emmanuel Jacquet: “Nun, ich interessiere mich für die Situation in Afghanistan, weil ich dort 2012 und 2013 in Kabul gearbeitet habe. Ich war Dozent an einer privaten Universität. Ich habe afghanischen Studenten Forschungsmethoden beigebracht. Ich habe also ziemlich viel Zeit in Kabul verbracht. Ich hatte zwar nicht die Möglichkeit, das Land zu bereisen, ich war nur einmal in Kandahar, dennoch war es eine sehr gute Erfahrung, um zu verstehen, was im Land und in der Region vor sich geht.”

Du hast viele Artikel und auch ein Buch geschrieben zum Thema Afghanistan, richtig?

Gilles Emmanuel Jacquet:  “Ich habe seit 2013 mehrere Artikel über die Lage in Afghanistan geschrieben. Und ich schreibe auch Artikel über Konflikte in der Welt, und mein Buch befasste sich mit dem Konflikt in Moldawien und Transnistrien.”

Welche Faktoren, Deiner Meinung nach, ermöglichten die Machtübernahme Afghanistans durch die Taliban?

Gilles: “Nun, die Taliban ergriffen die Macht aufgrund innenpolitischer Faktoren und auch aufgrund externer oder regionaler Faktoren. Wenn Du Dich erinnerst, waren die Taliban bereits von 1996 bis 2001 an der Macht, und seit 2001 waren sie nicht völlig besiegt, weil sich einige von ihnen in den Bergen im Süden oder Osten Afghanistans versteckten, während sich andere in Pakistan aufhielten. Und in den letzten 20 Jahren haben sie nach und nach immer mehr afghanische Provinzen übernommen. Die Machtübernahme gelang ihnen aufgrund des jüngsten US-afghanischen Abkommens, des Abkommens über den Rückzug der USA. Er sah einen schnellen Abzug der Amerikaner vor, aber er hat die politische Situation nicht geregelt. Er sorgte nicht für einen politischen Übergang. Mit dem Abzug der USA entstand also ein Vakuum. Die afghanische Regierung wurde ohne jegliche militärische und politische Unterstützung zurückgelassen, so dass sie nach etwa drei Monaten zusammenbrach.”

Welche Auswirkungen hat dies nun auf die Christen, auf alle religiösen Gemeinschaften in der Region?

Gilles: « Afghanistan ist ein Land, in dem, sagen wir mal, mehr als 99 Prozent der Bevölkerung Muslime sind. Die Mehrheit der Afghanen sind sunnitische Muslime. Aber es gibt auch eine bedeutende schiitische Minderheit. Offiziell gibt es keine Christen. Ich meine, keine afghanischen Christen in Afghanistan. Es gibt jedoch vielleicht einige, die sich verstecken oder ihren wahren Glauben nicht preisgeben können. Ich habe zum Beispiel einen evangelischen Pastor getroffen, der mit einer katholischen Frau verheiratet war. Der letzte Jude von Kabul soll vor einigen Wochen abgereist, und er lebte schon während des Taliban-Regimes in Kabul. Auch einige Nonnen und Priester halfen den Afghanen dort. Katholische Organisationen waren in Kabul und während der Machtübernahme durch die Taliban vor Ort. Nicht alle von ihnen haben das Land verlassen. Es ist also nicht sicher, ob sie weiterhin im Lande bleiben werden. Was andere religiöse Minderheiten betrifft, so kann die Situation prekär sein.  In Kabul gibt es auch viele Inder, die Sikh sind. Viele von ihnen verließen Ende August und Anfang September das Land, nach dem Abzug der USA. Viele von ihnen wurden nach Indien evakuiert. Aber es gibt immer noch eine Sikh-Minderheit, und wir haben einen Tempel in Kabul, der vor drei Jahren vom IS angegriffen wurde, also fürchten sie um ihre Zukunft. Was die schiitische Minderheit betrifft, so haben auch sie Angst vor der Zukunft. Während des Taliban-Regimes, wurden die Schiiten, also die Mitglieder der Hazara-Minderheit, diskriminiert und haben Angst, erneut verfolgt zu werden. Und viele von ihnen verließen das Land nach der Machtübernahme der Taliban.”

Du hast den IS erwähnt. Welche Verbindungen haben die Taliban zu Al-Qaida, wenn es welche gibt?

Gilles: “Wie wir wissen, gibt es eine Verbindung zwischen Al-Qaida und den Taliban. Wenn wir uns erinnern, wurde die US-Invasion in Afghanistan durch die Unterstützung der Taliban für Al-Qaida verursacht…. Es ist also nicht sicher, ob Al-Qaida im Land bleiben wird oder ob sie gezwungen sein wird, das Land zu verlassen. Im Augenblick sieht es so aus das Al-Qaida und ihr Anführer Ayman al-Zawahiri in Afghanistan bleiben. Das ist eine problematische Sache, denn Al-Qaida wird von den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika und vielen anderen westlichen Ländern sowie von Russland und sogar von China immer noch als ausländische Terrororganisation betrachtet. Wir wissen also nicht, wie die afghanische Führung, die Taliban-Führung, in der Lage sein wird, diplomatische Beziehungen zu Ländern aufrechtzuerhalten, die mit Al-Qaida verfeindet sind. Was nun den Islamischen Staat betrifft, so ist dieser seit etwa 2016 in Afghanistan präsent und begann seine Operationen mit Angriffen auf Zivilisten, Angehörige der schiitischen Hazara-Minderheit und auch auf ihre Taliban-Rivalen. Im Gegensatz zu den Taliban zielt der Islamische Staat häufig auf die Zivilbevölkerung ab. Der Islamische Staat ist der Ansicht, dass Al-Qaida in gewisser Weise die Ziele des Dschihad verraten hat. Insbesondere die Taliban und auch die Verbündeten von al-Qaida bauen Beziehungen zu Russland und China auf. Wir wissen also nicht, was in Zukunft in Bezug auf den Präsenz vom IS und ihre Beziehung zu den Taliban geschehen wird. Aber wir glauben, dass der Konflikt zwischen diesen beiden Fraktionen weitergehen wird.”

Einem Bericht der Vereinten Nationen nach waren die Taliban in den Jahren 2009 und 2010 für über 75 % der zivilen Todesopfer in Afghanistan verantwortlich. Menschenrechtsorganisationen haben den Internationalen Strafgerichtshof in Den Haag dazu veranlasst, eine vorläufige Untersuchung gegen die Taliban wegen systematischer Kriegsverbrechen durchzuführen.

Babar Baloch, Sprecher des Flüchtlingshilfswerk der Vereinten Nationen UNHCR beschrieb in seiner Pressekonferenz bei der UNO Genf die dramatische Situation: “ Es wird erwartet, dass die Temperaturen bis auf minus 25 Grad Celsius sinken, und vielen vertriebenen Familien fehlt es an geeigneten Unterkünften, die eine Grundvoraussetzung für das Überleben in der bitteren Kälte in Afghanistan sind. Die humanitäre Krise in Afghanistan verschärft sich täglich. Der Hunger im Land hat ein noch nie dagewesenes Ausmaß erreicht. Fast 23 Millionen Menschen, das sind 55 Prozent der Bevölkerung, sind von extremem Hunger betroffen, und fast neun Millionen von ihnen sind von einer Hungersnot bedroht. »

Gilles, Du bist praktizierender Katholik. Vom Standpunkt der Katholiken aus betrachtet, mit all den Flüchtlingen, die jetzt kommen, Menschen, die aus Afghanistan fliehen und als Flüchtlinge nach Europa kommen, nach Deutschland kommen, in all die verschiedenen Länder in Europa gehen und die meisten von ihnen natürlich Muslime sind. Wie sollen wir als Christen darauf reagieren?

Gilles: “Seit vor einigen Jahren die Flüchtlingssituation begann nimmt Europa immer mehr Menschen aus Afrika, Nordafrika, Zentralasien und dem Nahen Osten auf. Und das stimmt, aber es kann eine Herausforderung für Europa und insbesondere für Christen sein…. Viele dieser Menschen kommen aus ländlichen Gegenden. Sie haben einen anderen Glauben, das ist wahr, und ihre Integration kann eine Herausforderung sein. Und in diesem Fall sollten die Staaten und NGOs darüber nachdenken, wie sie sie am besten integrieren können.  Aber wir sollten, weltweit, die Dauerhaftigkeit von Migrationen beleuchten und insbesondere, was Migration auslöst. … Christen werden sicherlich ihrem Glauben treu bleiben, wir werden die Bedürftigen willkommen heißen, aber gleichzeitig sollten wir über die Konsequenzen von Migration nachdenken und vor allem darüber, wie wir Menschen willkommen heißen, aber auch integrieren können.”  Der Name „Taliban“ ist die Pluralform des aus dem Arabischen stammenden Wortes „Talib“, was so viel heißt wie Koran-Schüler.

Monsignore John David Putzer, Geschäftsträger (Charge d’affaires), Ständige Vertretung des Heiligen Stuhls bei der UNO in Genf : “In der Hoffnung auf eine friedliche und rasche Lösung der anhaltenden Spannungen ist der Heilige Stuhl nach wie vor davon überzeugt, dass ein umfassender Dialog das wirksamste Mittel ist, um einen solchen Frieden zu erreichen, und ruft die gesamte internationale Gemeinschaft dazu auf, von der Erklärung zur Tat überzugehen und die Flüchtlinge im Geiste der menschlichen Brüderlichkeit aufzunehmen.”

Nächste Woche spreche ich mit Gilles dann über die Lage der afghanischen Frauen, insbesondere der ethnischen und religiösen Minderheiten, in Afghanistan.

Zum Abschluss eine sehr erfreuliche Nachricht: Papst Franziskus hat einen neuen Beobachter an der UN in Genf ernannt. Wir hier bei EWTN freuen uns auf eine zukünftige, fruchtbare Zusammenarbeit ganz in der Tradition unserer hervorragenden Zusammenarbeit mit Nuntius Erzbischof Ivan Jurkovic und davor Kardinal Silvano Maria Tomasi. Der neue Nuntius ist Erzbischof Fortunatus Nwachukwu, der aus Nigeria stammt. Der Erzbischof war bis jetzt Nuntius in Trinidad und Tobago und der ganzen Karibischen Region. Sein Vor und Nachname Fortunatus Nwachukwu bedeutet so treffend “Gesegnetes Kind Gottes”.

Original Interview aufgenommen in Genf von Kameramann Andriy Ryndych.    

Redaktion, deutsche Übersetzung, Moderation und Schnitt: Christian Peschken für EWTN .TV

Source: https://de.catholicnewsagency.com/article/videoblog-ein-gespraech-ueber-afghanistan-und-die-taliban-1589

Christian Peschken im Gespräch mit Gilles-Emmanuel Jacquet : Macht durch Vakuum : Die Taliban in Afghanistan (EWTN TV)

Ex-UN Expert: Biden’s ‘Summit for Democracy’ is Sheer Hypocrisy Amid US Effort to Persecute Assange (Sputnik News):

Ekaterina Blinova

On Human Rights Day, a British court ruled to that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange can be extradited to the US where he might face a decades-long prison term. The ruling indicates that the US and UK are just paying lip service to human rights and democratic principles, says retired UN Independent Expert Alfred-Maurice de Zayas.

US President Joe Biden on 9-10 December held the first virtual « Summit for Democracy » which brought together over 100 nations. While Biden was weighing down on the necessity of protecting basic human rights and freedoms, on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean the UK green-lighted WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange extradition to the US. If extradited, Assange will face espionage charges that could put him in jail for decades for exposing bombshell documents detailing the US military misconduct and apparent war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Lire la suite…

‘Persecution of Journalists is Incompatible With Democratic Governance’

« The so-called summit for democracy is a painful exercise in hypocrisy, » says retired UN Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. « The persecution of journalists is totally incompatible with democratic governance. Many do recognise Assange as an emblematic human rights defender who deserves international solidarity, indeed he deserves the Nobel Prize for Peace because by revealing war crimes and crimes against humanity, Assange has revealed the barbarism of war and aggression. »

De Zayas has criticised the countries involved in the summit for attending and not speaking out in Assange’s defence. According to the retired UN expert, Western democracies’ silence about the persecution of the WikiLeaks founder « completely delegitimises » them.

« Assange did what every journalist does – inform people, publish information that we have a right to know, » de Zayas highlights. « As an American, I am embarrassed that it is my country that is putting up this extravaganza. As a practising Christian, I wish that the United States I wish that the United States would start by repairing US democracy rather than dictating to others what to do. We should first sweep at our own doorstep. »

Assange’s Extradition to US Spells Danger to Journalistic Profession

De Zayas argues that the UK court’s decision to allow Assange’s extradition to the US contradicts « fundamental principles of non-refoulment and contravenes the Geneva Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention Against Torture and the European Convention on Human Rights. »

« The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has held on repeated occasions that Assange’s detention is arbitrary and contrary to article 9 ICCPR, » the former UN expert emphasises. « The UN rapporteur on torture, Professor Nils Melzer, determined that Assange’s treatment amounted to physical and psychological torture under article 7 ICCPR, that he has been held under conditions that violate article 10 ICCPR, and that he must be released and granted compensation for the indignities he has endured. »

In his book Der Fall Julian Assange (Piper, Munich), Melzer details the corruption of the rule of law in the US, UK, Sweden and Ecuador exposing multiple violations of the ICCPR by the aforementioned states. « Moreover, the collusion among countries that are all States parties to the ICCPR is hard to swallow, because all of these countries pay lip service to human rights, » the ex-UN expert notes.

However, it’s not only Julian Assange whose rights have been violated, according to de Zayas: « It is the right of all of us to know what crimes have been committed, our right to demand accountability from our democratically elected leaders. » De Zayas warns that « the journalistic profession is under frontal attack. » No journalist can now feel safe after the US was given the green light to extradite an Australian citizen by the British court, therefore creating a dangerous legal precedent. Australian MPs have recently demanded Prime Minister Scott Morrison intervene in the case of Assange, according to The Guardian.

« An Australian citizen is being prosecuted for publishing details of war crimes, yet our government sits on its hands and does nothing, » Adam Bandt, the Australian Greens leader, told Guardian Australia.

For his part, independent MP Andrew Wilkie called upon the Australian premier to “end this lunacy” and demand Washington and London release Assange. De Zayas notes that many non-governmental organisations have also joined their voices to demand Assange’s release.

US Will Silence Assange One Way or the Other

Meanwhile, Assange’s fiancée Stella Moris said that the WikiLeaks founder intended to appeal the latest court’s ruling. De Zayas explains that the lower British court’s ruling had copped out by deciding that Assange should not be extradited only on grounds of his ill health and mental condition. However, the 10 December « disgraceful ruling » pretends that, after all, Assange’s health « is not all that bad, » the ex-UN expert notes, adding that « what still remains to be decided on appeal is whether it is at all possible to extradite a person who faces continued persecution and mental torture from the US. »

He does not believe, however, that Assange will be extradited: « The European Court of Human Rights will not permit it – and the outcry of Amnesty International, HRW and other powerful NGOs would be troublesome, » de Zayas underscores. « Many UN Rapporteurs would make loud noises. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the High Commissioner for Human Rights would speak out. »

At the same time, de Zayas expects yet another travesty on the part of Western authorities: they may try to keep Assange “bottled up” in Belmarsh as long as possible. And this is fraught with serious risks for the WikiLeaks founder given his poor health, according to the former UN expert.

« The team of medical doctors and psychiatrists who accompanied Professor Nils Melzer during his visits to Assange stated clearly that his life is in acute danger, » he says. « This entails multiple violations of the Convention against Torture – but the corporate media does not tell us that. »

It appears that the US establishment wants to punish Julian Assange so severely that no future whistleblower will ever dare do what Assange did, de Zayas notes, stressing that this directly contradicts all democratic values.

According to de Zayas, notwithstanding all the propaganda about the US as a “democratic” country, history demonstrates a consistent pattern of cruelty toward the Native Americans, toward the Afro-Americans, toward Latin American immigrants, and those who dare to speak the truth. At the same time, rich and powerful are enjoying total impunity for committing what could be qualified by the International Criminal Court (ICC) as crimes of aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, the former UN official concludes.

Sputnik News: https://sputniknews.com/20211211/ex-un-expert-bidens-summit-for-democracy-is-sheer-hypocrisy-amid-us-effort-to-persecute-assange-1091443360.html

Biden’s Democracy Summit lacks one very crucial thing:

By Professor Dr. Alfred de Zayas, Geneva School of Diplomacy. Former UN Independent Expert on International Order (2012-18) This week’s virtual Summit for Democracy, which will be hosted by US President Joe Biden, is likely to become yet another public relations stunt, with the accompanying fanfare of self-righteous zealotry and imperial narcissism.  One may ask whether this ‘summit,’ scheduled for December 9 and 10, is necessary and timely, and whether it will have added value. Observers have expressed cautious skepticism, precisely because this gathering takes a binary approach and starts by dividing the world into “us” and “them,” excluding billions of human beings and assuming that the ‘good guys’ can now show the ‘bad guys’ what democracy is all about.  As UN Independent Expert on International Order (2012-18), I frequently explored facets of domestic and international democracy, as well as the various models of direct, semi-direct, participatory and representative democracy. I noted that representative or deliberative democracy is experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, because there is a growing disconnect between representatives and the electorate. There is a risk that democracy itself may become collateral damage of the credibility crisis resulting from the phenomenon of fake news, fake history, fake law and fake diplomacy. I insisted on the need to return to the true meaning of democracy as rule of, by, and for the people, i.e. people-power in practice.
Lire la suite…

It is opportune to recall the Outcome Document of the truly inclusive World Summit of 2005, held to commemorate 60 years since the entry into force of the UN Charter on 24 October 1945. In the spirit of the Charter, which is akin to a world constitution, the General Assembly unanimously adopted Resolution 60/1 reaffirming “that democracy is a universal value based on the freely expressed will of people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of their lives.”  In other words, democracy is another term for the right of self-determination of all peoples, as stipulated in article 1 common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The General Assembly went on to reaffirm that “while democracies share common features, there is no single model of democracy, that it does not belong to any country or region.” There is no patent on democracy, no “one size fits all.” In light of the above, one may ask whether the premise of the “Summit for Democracy” is in tune with the “necessity of due respect for sovereignty.”  With regard to international democracy, in my 14 reports to the Human Rights Council and General Assembly and in my book Building a Just World Order (Clarity Press, 2021), I urged concrete reforms to the functioning of the UN, including reforms of the Security Council and the exercise of the veto power. More importantly, I insisted on the necessity of ensuring equitable participation of all states in the noble tasks of the UN and its associated agencies, including the World Health Organization, ILO, UNESCO, WTO, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Furthermore I endorsed the idea of establishing a World Parliamentary Assembly with consultative status, a proposal enthusiastically supported by the late Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who stated: “The establishment of a Parliamentary Assembly at the United Nations has become an indispensable step.

Let us be optimistic and hope that President Biden’s 2021 summit will give room to the spirit of international solidarity and provide an opportunity to revisit the functioning of democracy in many participating countries including the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Australia, Japan, with a view to making concrete improvements. Indeed, a measure of self-criticism would be very welcome for all concerned.  For instance, Biden’s summit could address the following pressing concerns: How to bridge the disconnect between nominally “democratic” governments and their electorates How to give the electorate genuine policy choices and not just the opportunity of voting for candidate A or candidate B, when both essentially agree on issues that urgently require change How to ensure that the public has access to all information and pluralistic views, so as to enable them to make their own choices How to phase-out media conglomerates that censor and disseminate fake news in order to “manufacture consent,” as Noam Chomsky called it? Anti-monopoly and anti-trust legislation may prove useful in this context. How to make transparency and accountability by governments more than just a slogan How to render periodic elections more than just pro forma rituals How to protect the rights of journalists and whistleblowers like Julian Assange How to give more visibility to “unsung victims,” including the largely disenfranchised indigenous peoples of North and South America, the Crees, Sioux, Navajo, and Mapuche.

Two issues are of particular relevance to the proper functioning of American democracy, one being the undemocratic nature of the “electoral college” and another the endemic practice of gerrymandering. Surely these two problems should be tackled – better sooner than later.  If the Biden Summit conscientiously explores these issues, maybe there will be “added value” to the exercise. And perhaps the gathering will embrace and act upon the conclusion of the 2005 World Summit that “democracy, development and respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing.”  Biden should strive for detente as the best environment for domestic  and international democracy.  He should stop provoking the world by imposing sanctions right and left and boycotting the Beijing Olympics.  Let us wish the Biden summit success, that it may rise above platitudes and accept the simple fact that democracy is much more than periodic elections, that it means informing the people on all issues and proactively consulting them, so that they can genuinely participate in the conduct of public affairs. The peoples of all countries – invitees and non-invitees – share the same aspiration to enjoy peace and prosperity in freedom.  In this spirit, states should renew their commitment to support democracy by strengthening countries’ capacities to implement the principles and practices of democracy and resolve to strengthen the capacity of the UN to assist Member States upon their request.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Source: https://www.rt.com/op-ed/542368-biden-virtual-democracy-summit/

Entretien avec Alfred de Zayas sur le Sommet pour la Démocratie

Alfred de Zayas est un historien, juriste et écrivain de nationalité américaine et suisse, membre du Conseil de Fondation du GIPRI. Ancien expert auprès de l’ONU, il réagit à la tenue du Sommet pour la Démocratie organisé par Joe Biden les 9 et 10 décembre 2021. Entretien par Alain Jourdan.

GIPRI im Gespräch mit Wolfgang Effenberger :

GIPRI im Gespräch mit Wolfgang Effenberger
Wolfgang Effenberger, ehemaliger Offizier in der Bundeswehr, pensionierter Lehrer, Politologe und Sachbuchautor, spricht über sein « Schwarzbuch EU & NATO – Warum die Welt keinen Frieden findet », das 2020 im Zeitgeist-Verlag erschien. Im Gespräch mit GIPRI gibt Effenberger einen Einblick in die Bedrohung des Weltfriedens durch die NATO und ihr siamesischer Zwilling, die Europäische Union. Interview von Natalie Benelli (27/10/2021).

Le GIPRI en conversation avec Wolfgang Effenberger
Wolfgang Effenberger, ancien officier des forces armées allemandes, enseignant retraité, politologue et auteur, parle de son livre « Schwarzbuch EU & NATO – Warum die Welt keinen Frieden findet » (Livre noir UE & OTAN – Pourquoi le monde ne peut pas trouver la paix), publié par Zeitgeist-Verlag en 2020. Dans une conversation avec le GIPRI, M. Effenberger donne un aperçu de la menace pour la paix mondiale que représentent l’OTAN et son jumeau siamois, l’Union européenne. Entretien par Natalie Benelli (27/10/2021).

GIPRI in conversation with Wolfgang Effenberger
Wolfgang Effenberger, former officer in the German Armed Forces, retired teacher, political scientist and author of many books, talks about his book « Schwarzbuch EU & NATO – Warum die Welt keinen Frieden findet » (Black Book EU & NATO – Why the World Cannot Find Peace), published by Zeitgeist-Verlag in 2020. Effenberger provides insight into the threat to world peace posed by NATO and its Siamese twin, the European Union. Interview by Natalie Benelli (27/10/2021).

Interview with Dr. Alfred de Zayas: « World Desperately Needs Whistleblowers as Big Media, Big Tech Curbing Free Speech, Ex-UN Expert Says » [Sputnik News]:

Alfred de Zayas and Adriel Kasonta : « U.S. return to UN Human Rights Council a mockery of its raison d’être » (CGTN):