Young Diplomats

German defence minister Ursula Von der Leyen is already being seen as the black sheep in the EU family. The Greens and GUE/NGL have stated that they will not support her for the Commission presidency. S&D members are likely to vote against her, taking the exclusion of their favourite Timmermans as a snub. Renew Europe has requested that one of their members be a vice-president. Nationalist fringes also seem split over the matter, just like the German public reproaches the EU for empowering a “weak” minister. All these divisions make us question why Von der Leyen was considered a valid successor in the first place. Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel are the answer.

The French President has first met the minister at an air show a few weeks earlier, during which they both signed a deal with Spain for the construction of advanced combat aircraft. It is a symbolic coincidence in many ways, for it draws on the military interoperability so dear to Macron: three EU partners are collaborating to share technology and expertise on an independent basis. It follows the model of the European Intervention Initiative promoted in his 2017 Sorbonne keynote, focusing the debate on enhanced defence and security interaction. By pushing for Von der Leyen, Macron is creating a debt of gratitude and fertile ground for a “French-style” reform of EU defence, with the agreement of his German counterpart.

Most importantly, lifting some burden off the French military has been a longstanding priority for Macron, in terms of both resources and bureaucratic arrangements. The number of French interventions has been disproportionately high in comparison with other Member States, which is having a toll on troops and armaments. Its military expenditure is second to the United Kingdom, totalling around 39 million euros per year – the equivalent of Spain’s and Germany’s budgets combined. An increasingly unstable neighbourhood will only translate into more pressure on France, forcing the country to organise responses with little financial and logistical support from other EU stakeholders.

That is why a federalist like Van der Leyen, favourable to more investment in armaments – one of the main accusations against her confused tenure back home -, is the ideal test subject for a different Franco-German collaboration in the security domain. Two years after the establishment of the Permanent Structured Cooperation, which was a compromise between the French rapid response mindset and the German civilian management, it makes sense to have a skilled communicator with some experience of Brussels take the lead. But for Macron, that stance must finally recognise French needs, which his support in the nomination process will be likely to grant. And if the spitzenkandidat is sacrificed once and for all, it will also be for Berlin to reassert other aspects of its authority.

Von der Leyen has indeed been a close ally for Angela Merkel through each term. Her loyalty has been rewarded when several scandals hit the papers, concerning the disarray and far-right tendencies in the German military: Merkel has never invited her minister to resign. Even though the Chancellor could not cast a vote, due to her mediation role in the current government coalition with SPD, there have been talks about her positivity to Von der Leyen’s nomination. Funnily enough, party voices saw this shadow behaviour more as a sign of limited influence, preventing Von der Leyen from squaring up to Merkel in a potential contest.

One could argue that Von der Leyen will even be an extension of Merkel’s legacy. In fact, it is difficult to believe that a woman who stood by her party leader for so long will suddenly take an opposite economic and political direction. Merkel’s strategy at the CDU level as much as at the European level was one of compromise, in this case between German interests and French collaborators. A defence minister might be an unusual embodiment of those values in a normative system like the EU. And yet, she has a blueprint on which to base her future role and promote an integration-friendly approach, as her latest statement on a stronger Union seems to confirm.

If the Parliament somehow overcomes its suspicions and confirm her appointment, Von der Leyen will be the proof that Macron and Merkel can play a common game and grant that their legacy affect Europe far longer than their political career does. Whether the European public opinion can triumph over the calculations of two strategic champions, that is up to the latest democratic exercise.

Tehran- More than hundreds of Journalist and Public figures in Iran received a threatening message, which started a wave of fear in the media and general public. The text was a warning to alert the journalists to avoid the contact with the “hostile” organizations working outside the country.

Iranian Students news agency reported that the message said “All contacts and collaboration with hostile elements based abroad, by mail or other methods of communication, is a crime and will be brought to justice. This SMS is the last warning”.

Other journalists and media asked the Security and cyber agencies to track down the origin of this message before something catastrophic happen. According to the media reports more than 700 people received this message. And contacting such large audience wouldn’t be an easy task, so judiciary must act against those who are responsible.

Iran banned its people from any contact with foreign based media and giving any information which can cause damage until the investigation is complete. In April, Tehran, sentenced number of journalists accused of having a “contact with western governments”. The increasing hostility between Iran and America also change the scenario of this event.

In a group work, we have to work together to achieve a goal. It will be more difficult to become a successful group, if we do not work together. Sometimes, we depend on a particular group member which is not good at all. What will happen if he fails to attend?

In the same way, we have to think about our country and the government. Government works for the people and people should think about their rights and necessities too. We should raise our voice and work together to achieve our goals and fulfill our needs. Depending on the government is not the solution always. So the young generation have a great duty to do something in this sector.

But it is a great sorrow that today’s young people are not interested in political affairs. They are busy with social media. We can see at USA, UK, India and many countries that young boys and girls do not know that election is happening in their countries. Election is the basic part of a democratic country and voting is the first duty that a person should perform consciously. Now, our youths are unconcerned about vote too. They think that politicians should do politics. But they do not think that it is our country and we have some duties to our homeland. What is waiting for the future world?

Politicians are the policy maker of a country. They works for the betterment of a nation. Due to unconsciousness of young generation about political affairs, businessmen and wicked people are getting into this noble works and they always think about their benefits. Our world is going into a darkness for our behaviour. We should think about our country boldly as well as our daily life. At last a question for you what are you doing for your country, for the world?

To go further : http://www.young-diplomats.com/young-leaders-and-the-transformation-of-a-global-government/

“A nation that is boycotted is a nation that is in sight of surrender. Apply this economic, peaceful, silent, deadly remedy and there will be no need for force. It is a terrible remedy. It does not cost a life outside the nation boycotted, but it brings pressure upon the nation which, in my judgment, no modern nation could resist.” – Woodrow Wilson

Economic sanctions are an often used terminology in International Politics. In the present era especially, when warfare and military interventions don’t guarantee the success it once did, state leaders are largely resorting to so-called economic sanctions to prove their weight
against the contesting sate. The rise in economic sanctions also goes on to show that in our highly globalized and interconnected world order with no one superpower guiding the rules and trends of the market, economics, trade and commerce has gained a whole new dimension of its own.

However, one should note that economic sanctions are not the offspring of our new globalized world order. The first ever documented use of economic pressure by a state to gain political ends goes back to ancient Greece in 432 B.C. The U.S, which is notorious in its liberal use of economic sanctions whenever it deems fit, first made use of economic sanctions before the 1812 War against Britain. Thus, we can attribute Mr Woodrow Wilson as the first political leader to have realized the importance of economic and financial pressure as a better an alternative to warfare in modern times. Some of the significant economic sanctions levied by states in the present context are the sanctions against:

• South Africa over its apartheid policy which turned out to be a global boycott
• Iraq over the tenure of its political dictator, Saddam Hussein
• Russia for its seizure of Crimea and consequent military intervention in Ukraine
• Iran over its nuclear program
• Qatar by its Middle Eastern neighbours such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Bahrain over the state’s relations with Iran and the possible financial support provided by the state to Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood
• North Korea over its possible nuclear aspirations

What do these sanctions imply? While the economic pressure levied against the South African Apartheid Government can be said to be a success, mostly because it was a global boycott, the same cannot be said of the others. Sanctions against Iraq saw the further the disintegration of the state while the sanctions against Russia haven’t stopped the country
from taking further actions in Ukraine. The world witnessed Qatar coming out strongly against its boycott by its once immediate allies, giving it a new edge in Middle Eastern politics and the universal freeze-out of North Korea didn’t stop the country from going ahead with its nuclear ambitions anyway.

The very recent crackdown on Iran by the Trump regime can very well be observed as a fight that the U.S is destined to lose out on. By reinstating all the sanctions removed under the 2015 nuclear deal, not only impacting Iran but all the states that wish to trade with the oil rich nation, the Trump administration’s decision has impacted world oil exports, shipping and banking, not to mention people’s livelihood; which are all crucial aspects of the world economy. It can very well be said that these sanctions have the potential to backfire on the US because for one, the UK, Germany and France, who are still committed to the nuclear deal, have all objected to these sanctions. Adding to this is the fact that the US administration has provided exemptions to eight countries, including India, to continue importing Iranian oil thus proving yet again that the US needs allies even when the allies are conducting business with theenemy state.

The US clearly understands the fact that sanctions cannot work in this modern world of ours without some hard power backing from other states.

With the apparent backing out of the European Union and the further wavering of sanctions under CAATSA1 towards India and other states, America has showcased that it needs allies and if economic sanctions are to ever work, it requires collective action; which can be termed
as a farfetched dream considering the fact that Sovereign countries have their own personal ambitions and that even though the world is increasingly becoming interlinked and interconnected, individual aspirations are always carried out discretely.

Another important question to be asked is the time period of these so-called sanctions. India had faced sanctions from the US, Canada, Japan and several other nations right after the country’s Pokhran Nuclear Tests in 1998. But subsequent agreements such as the 123 Agreement between India and the US in 2005 as well as the Indo-Japanese Civil Nuclear Deal of 2016 clearly goes on to show that sanctions can only go as much as the wants and the needs of the respective leaders of the states and the changing security perceptions of global society.

Are sanctions a better option than warfare? Yes, it is when used with caution and through a proper channel such as by the general consensus of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) or the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Sanctions can prove to be a dismal affair when it is played out by one state or a group of the state against the so-called “aggressor state”. It can be more destructive in the sense that no longer is a conflict between two states going to remain between the respective states. The international polity is so tightly intertwined in terms of trade and commerce that an embargo or a sanction against one country is clearly going to have an effect on the other states, thus affecting the unsuspecting civilians and their livelihood which can, in turn, lead internal security issues.

At the end of the day, it is necessary to understand the fact that collective consciousness is the key to cooperative and well-adjusted world order. While economic sanctions may be termed as the better evil, States should see to it that in the process, you don’t become your own worst enemy!

Here’s another article on consequences of sanctions : http://www.young-diplomats.com/how-sanctions-lead-to-human-rights-crisis/

If the tensions between China and the United States of America (USA) seem to concern products and market influence (Huawei smartphones), it also concerns an intelligence and territorial war.

Powers in Asia are very unbalanced. Vietnam, Philippines and Malaysia don’t succeed to face the Chinese territorial expansion. Even (especially) international rulings have not enough authority to change the situation.

Therefore, the South China Sea anarchical position is a great opportunity for the USA to affirm its power. The launch of security operations into making the area free of flow may benefit an international legitimacy, with the support of international law. Moreover, it is an occasion for the USA to become closer to infringed parties. For example, if Vietnam and China are direct rivals, the USA can use the South China Sea to become closer to Vietnam. The same reasoning works with The Philippines.

The United States as the remote leaders of an Asian coalition to counter Chinese influence

The USA had already adopted a protective position with other countries as in 2012 when Vietnamese fishermen had been protected by American Coast Guards when the Chinese were testing the boundaries of their Pacific neighborhood. Going further, the Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung said in June 2013 that the USA would be welcomed in tempering regional tensions.

Then, a real call for help is being made to the USA in these regional tensions, and it seems that they are willing to answer it.

More recently, as cited above, the USA and Taiwan met in May to deal with security in the South China Sea. Although Americans know that China was absolutely opposed to direct relations between Taiwan and them, they use the South China Sea context as a means of provocation against China in May 2019.

The attempt to establish a juridical authority over the area

In the same period, a group of the American Congress, led by Marco Rubio, demanded new sanctions on Chinese firms involved in the construction of artificial islands and other installations in the region. If the bill, introduced in 2017 in the Foreign Relations committee is passed, the US may seize financial assets owned by the Chinese companies involved in the construction. It may also deny American visas to key figures within these companies.

Obviously opposed to this possibility, Lu Kang, a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, claimed the proposed legislation “violates the basic norms of international law and international relations and the Chinese side, of course, firmly objects”.

He added: “We urge the US side not to proceed the deliberation of the legislation, in order not to bring new disruption to the China-US relations.

If the conflict in the China Sea seemed unbalanced a few years ago, the American intervention could thwart the prognosis, even if the Chinese presence remains undeniable.

Suffering Which United the Pashtuns

Pakistan is now-a-days facing the Pashtun uprising in the shape of Pashtun Tahfuz (protection) Movement. The movement has become the driving force of politics among Pashtuns, which is the second largest ethnic group after Punjabis in Pakistan. Pashtun protection movement started in February, 2018, when a sit-in was staged in Islamabad (capital city of Pakistan) after the extra-judicial killing of a young lad, Naqeebiullah Mehsood in Karachi at the hands of state authorities, SP Rao Anwar. Naqeebullah was presented as terrorist but after the investigation it came out that he was a young Pashtun aspiring to become a fashion model. The extra-judicial killing of Masood was the reflection of thousands of untold stories of Pashtun who migrated from the tribal areas in search of life and livelihood.
Pashtun protection movement emerged from war-torn tribal areas. The movement is led by a young leader Manzoor Ahmed Pashteen. The movement demanded the investigation of extra-judicial killing of Naqeebullah, truth and reconciliation commission for the missing persons, elimination of land mines in tribal areas and the removal of military check-posts which have become dehumanization sights for the innocent people. Pashtun Protection Movement got pace with the passage of time. Large number of Pashtuns joined the movement and demanded the accountability of the permanent state. Pashtuns are demanding an end to the security-oriented policies of the state because Pashtuns have suffered the most as a result of these policies.
What unite the Pashtun despite the political schism, was the suffering and pain, they have tolerated at the hands of security state. The people who are supporting the movement have a unifying identity in the shape of suffering, oppression and discrimination at the behest of a security state. The people want an end to their decades-long pain and pangs. They want life, liberty and peace at their homes. These areas remained battle ground for two wars consecutively. First the region was used for the manufacturing of Jihadi outfits for the war against soviets in Afghanistan. Then, came war on terror drama in which military launched multiple operations in the same area to eliminate the erstwhile created militants. Both wars resulted in suffering of the people.

The suffering of the Pashtuns were two fold, first at the hand of Taliban, and second, at the hand of security agencies of the Pakistan. Taliban targeted the people of Waziristan, killed them, tortured them, destroyed their homes and properties and forced them to leave their centuries old adobe and converted them into internally displaced people. After the Pakistan army launched multiple operations in the region to purge the menace of terrorism and eliminate the terrorists’ networks, they securitized the whole region. According to Mohsin dawar (one of the leaders of the movement) , “The PTM has emerged as a reaction to the death and destruction unleashed upon the roughly 50 million Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan for years, and it has remained non-violent despite facing violence from the state”.

The people of FATA became target of that very securitization. Large number of military check-posts were installed in the tribal regions. People were subjected to humiliating and dehumanizing treatment. They were checked at each and every check post in their way to home and often insulted by the army personnel. People were forced to stand in large queues for hours. Under the FCR (frontier crimes regulation) collective punishment was imposed on the whole tribe in the aftermath of any incident. The area was cordoned off and no one was allowed to cross it, if anyone unknowingly crossed the line, he was shot-dead. Land mines were cultivated in the whole region, which have claimed countless lives of children, young and old. Tribal leaders which have respect in the hearts of the people, were insulted in front of their people.

The residents of Waziristan were required to carry a special card of identification known as Watan Card. If anyone dared to argue with security personnel, he had been beaten and put behind the bars. Those educated youth who were critical of the atrocities and accesses of the security agencies were disappeared and most of them extra-judicially murdered. These are the stories narrated by the affected people of the region.
First it were Taliban and then it was the Pakistan army who subjugated the tribal people to worst kind of dehumanizing treatment. Why the proud and valiant Pashtuns who are stereotyped as independence loving people didn’t rise against their own slave-kind of treatment? The answer is those who raised their voice were made silent forever. According to Pashteen, “local resistance to the Taliban and the excesses of the military failed in the past because their proponents were swiftly killed, which terrified others into submission”. Those tribal leaders who dared to resist were assassinated in the garb of terrorism. Fear ruled the region. Such were the circumstances of the tribal areas generally and Waziristan particularly.

People were frustrated and brimming with indignation because of the continuous insult and dishonor they were made to digest each and every day. They needed someone to get them rid out of this Hobbesian state of nature. They were in search of a Messiah (Liberator). They found their salvation in the form of Manzoor Pashteen, who himself had experienced all those demeaning demeanors for two decades. He had seen the falling down breathless bodies of his Pashtun brethren on the ground because of the bullets showered from the sky, and dusting of mud-made homes to the ground as result of the dropping of bombs by hovering thunder jets of Pakistan. He had seen the imputed bodies of playing children blown up by the land mines. He stood and raised voice against the cruelty and brutality of the state security agencies.

The rise of PTM is the result of the state’s policies towards the Pashtun. This revolt of Pashtuns is stimulated by the draconian and authoritarian polices of the state towards the Pashtuns. Pashtuns were at the fore-front of whole jihadi project of 1979 and now of war against terrorism. Pashtuns have suffered more than any other ethnic group in the state in this war on terror. More than 50,000 Pashtuns have been made victims of the war. According to Pashteen, “the main problem of Pashtun is the war imposed upon them in the name of war against terrorism. Pakistan’s security agencies are clandestinely promoting war on the soil of Pashtuns. We are tired of war”. The general feeling among the Pashtun youth is that Pashtun ethnic group is the target of state’s systemic oppression.
PTM is joined by the people who have recognized themselves as a group of suffering people both at the hand of security project of the state and the war on terror. State is required to reduce their sense of suffering by accepting their demands and easing their difficulties by removing their reservations. If the state continue to suppress the PTM through the use of oppressive means, it will further strengthened the sense of suffering of the people. Which in turn will give more power to the movement and it will attract more and more people. Dealing political problems through military means will further aggravate the crisis. The creation of Bengladesh was by the virtue of use of force on the behalf of west-Pakistani rulers rather than through table talks.

The Nagorno-Karabakh War is remembered for its surprise victory of the underdog, Armenia, over the perceived winner, Azerbaijan. There are many reasons as to why: Azerbaijan has large oil reserves to feed its war machine, Armenia does not. Armenia has to contend with the possibility of Turkey entering the war and fighting on a Second front, Azerbaijan has no such worry of a Second Front.

But yet, not only was Azerbaijan defeated in the war of 1992 – 1994, they were defeated decisively, losing not just Karabakh but the whole of Kelbajar. In order to understand this defeat, one must look at the internal politics of Azerbaijan, the Azerbaijani “Game of Thrones”, if you will.

While Armenia only had one ruler during the entirety of the war, Azerbaijan had five. Furthermore, Azerbaijan had ousted their leaders every time the suffered a setback, first following the Khojaly massacre, then the fall of Shusha, and finally, the Kelbajar offensive. Eventually, the military stepped in and launched a coup, diverting attention away from the war and in favor of domestic suppression. All this paved a clear way for the Armenians to win with relative ease. By the time the Azerbaijanis regrouped, the Armenians had taken control over the entire southwest quarter of Azerbaijan, forcing Azerbaijan to respond by launched a series of failed human-wave attacks, further depleting their manpower and making it easier for the Armenians to march on Baku.

So, what has happened to both Baku and Yerevan since the end of the war?

Well, the tables have turned, where Azerbaijani leaders were engaged in constant infighting, now Armenians are, with the April 2018 revolution ousting Serzh Sargysan proving it. Baku, on the other hand, has used its oil reserves to revitalize its economy, now they have become a regional economic powerhouse, and have called for building a Trans-Caspian pipeline bypassing Russia all together. The Four Day War in April 2016 proved the changing circumstances, that Azerbaijan was able to recapture territory in the South from Armenian troops.

Ultimately, though, Armenia must rethink its strategy to deal with a resurgent Azerbaijan.

Here are other articles on this topics by YoungDiplomats :

http://www.young-diplomats.com/russias-secret-strategy-nagorno-karabakh-part/

http://www.young-diplomats.com/russias-secret-strategy-nagorno-karabakh-part-ii/

The US President, Donald J. Trump, termed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as worst ever nuclear deal of the history. The hard sought deal was inked between Iran and P5 countries of the world after marathon meetings. The world celebrated the deal with much ecstasy because it restrained a country from imperiling the peace of the world. It was a moment of relief for Iran because the punitive sanctions were withdrawn after Iran convinced them about abandoning of its uranium enrichment program. The hopes were high for the rejuvenation of its oil based economy and elevation of its people from abyss of poverty.

Unluckily, the beleaguered deal could not live for long period of time. Since from the first day of his presidency, the hawkish leader took reins of power in USA with coterie of neo conservatives had had a bee in his bonnet about the nuclear deal. Trump political rhetoric revolved around the declaration of deals inked by his predecessor null and void. In October 2017, he said, “The Iranian regime supports terrorism and export violence, bloodshed and chaos across the Middle East. That is why we must put an end to Iran’s continued aggression and nuclear ambitions. They have not lived to the spirit of the agreement.”  His unilateral withdrawal from the deal terming as the biased, worst and less thought. His European partners preferred to remain in the deal as it was considered insanity throwing the bucket along with the baby. His National Security Advisor, John Bolton, calculated the outcomes as helplessness of Iran and more severe economic sanctions will compel the country to yield to USA.

The nuclear ambitions of Iran predate to 1970s to the Reza Shah Pehlavi regime. He acquired the nuclear reactors from the American and European allies in 1960s. In 1970 it entered in the much galvanized nonproliferation treaty, Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). However, the research continued in the nuclear energy for the energy needs and nukes in future. After the usher of theocratic regime in 1979, domestic turbulence and internecine war with Iraq in 1980s, the nuclear program was halted. The decade long war with Iraq decapitated the Iranian leaders to carry on the nuclear program. Fortunately, in 1983 the green signal was given by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to Iran about the civilian use of its nuclear program. In the 2002 the Bush administration became skeptical about the civilian nuclear program of Iran and demanded the international inspection. Amid the concerns of the world leaders, Iranian President publically proclaimed the sovereign right of the Iran to enrich uranium. In retaliation to the Iranian evil designs the sanctions were imposed on Iran by United Nations for violating its obligations under the clauses. A breakthrough was the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) which was agreed between Iran on one side and P5 countries on the other side in 2015. The inspection of IAEA was allowed of all nuclear sites in return of relieving Iran from swinging sanctions. Many nuclear experts termed the deal as water shedding event of the history as it blocked the pursuit of Iranian nuclear ambitions.

The de facto Iranian nuclear program was remained major concern of international community. In the cauldron of power politics of Middle East, the nuclear program of Iran can generate the feverish nuclear arms race in the whole region. The sectarian rival of Iran, Saudi Arabia, expressed deep apprehensions of nefarious designs of Iran and unease about its security. The proxy wars of Iran in the backyard of Saudi Arabia in Yemen have some security implications. Hezbollah and Hamas have emerged potential threats to Israel. In the Syrian conflict, Iran with Russia turned the tables of war. The consolidation of rule of Bashar-ul-Assad was indirectly win of Iran as both Shiite countries are allies and share common antagonism toward Israel.

In addition, the lifting of the sanctions invigorated the economy of Iran. In 2017 the gross domestic product (GDP) of Iran was $1.63 trillion dollar and it was expanding. As the third largest oil supplier of the world it total exports of the oil were increased by three fold. The booming economy was followed by the aggrandizement of its influence in the Middle East. The economic revitalization of Iran increased its political maneuvering in the region. It manifested bellicosity in the strait of hormuz by threatening to block the choke point which can disturb the 40% supply of world’s oil. The clandestine relations with Qatar was tantamount to poking nose in the area of influence of Saudi Axis. It continued testing its ballistic missiles under the veneer of its national security.

The Saudi and Israel lobby expressed its apprehensions about the future threats and possible national security issues. It exerted the pressure on Trump administration to withdraw from the deal and nip the evil of Iranian nuclear deal in the bud. Trump met with the leaders of American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and promised maximum pressure on Iran. Saudi Israel lobby and   hawkish administration of Donald trump were the major reasons behind his withdrawal.

Although, the solo flight of USA from the deal was considered a miscalculated and hastened decision by its allies. The anticipated outcomes of the withdrawal among the Washington circles were more provocative actions of Iran in Middle East and disruption of oil supply to the world, which is occurring.  But the sabre rattling of USA in gulf region which is considered ample to deter Iran from any unwanted move can jeopardized the whole region. The leaving of no stone unturned in the regime change through withdrawing from the deal and foisting sanctions has boomeranged. The uncertainty over outcome of the USA rationality behind the withdrawal from the deal prevails. In the same vein, the world powers have to come forward to explore a new way which should be in benefits of both countries.

Much more influential than Samuel Huntington, Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzeziński (ZKB) has taken up some of his theses, reformulating them from reference bases acceptable to the various trends of the US elites. More than Huntington, brilliant but isolated, ZKB, cynical and powerful, embodies the alternative line to neo-conservatism within American imperialism. Today, as an advisor outside President Obama’s organizational chart, he is driving a new strategic direction for US foreign policy: more calculating, more cautious than the neocons, he shares their imperialism, but not their unilateralism. His thinking is not an alternative to the ideology of the “clash of civilizations”, but an alternative formulation of this ideology.

Its strength: networks. ZKB has an ideal profile to build a bridge between neoconservative and realistic conservative circles: originally from the Democratic Party, of Judeo-Polish origin[uncertain Jewish origin], driven by a notorious aversion to Russia, it can afford to criticise Jewish circles and the American left more easily than a right-wing WASP, such as Huntington – which is not without importance in the current US context. Friend of David Rockefeller, with whom he co-founded the Trilateral Commission in 1973, he has the almost unconditional support of the “big business”, whose interests he has always defended (he is the inventor, among other things, of the theory of “tittytainment”, according to which the future society will ensure the domination of the very rich by locking 80% of the population in the generalized abêtissement). A theorist of positive inequality, he is one of those extreme right-wing men (in reality) who understood that a pseudo-progressive discourse was now the necessary mask for fascism. His “coup d’éclat” dates back to the late 1970s when, advising President Carter, he destabilized Afghanistan, forcing the Soviets to engage in a bait and switch. There is no doubt that its level of reflection is much higher than the average of the neoconservatives of the “Project for a New American Century”.

In 1997, he wrote “Le Grand Echiquier”. Following the attacks of 11 September 2001, after which it became difficult to advocate too openly for support for Islamists in order to use them as a weapon of destabilisation, he proposed an updated theory with “The Real Choice: World domination or world leadership”. Basically, however, this second book does not modify the theses advanced in “Le Grand Echiquier”.

Unlike Huntington, ZBK agrees, as do the members of the PNAC, that the USA should not tolerate the mere existence of a geostrategic rival. However, for the sake of realism, it places this objective within a multilateral framework. As a supporter of a USA-Europe alliance, he wants the West as a whole to remain predominant, and the USA to be predominant within the West as a whole. The version of the “clash of civilizations” promoted by ZBK therefore implies the incubation of a framework of preconception that is significantly different from that desired by the neoconservatives: the USA is not for him the “policeman of the world”, but the regulator of a predominant Western bloc. This divergence explains why American power’s communication strategies have evolved since Obama’s arrival in business, with “soft power” replacing “hard power” (military conquest) as a method positively presented by the dominant media.

ZBK’s strategic analysis takes up the basic assumption of traditional geopoliticians: Eurasia is the centre of world power, since it represents half of the human population. The key to controlling Eurasia, he explains, is Central Asia. And the key to controlling Central Asia is Uzbekistan (remember that American forces deployed after 11 September 2001, first in this former Soviet republic). In “Le Grand Echiquier”, ZBK confirms that a long-term strategy was deployed as soon as the USSR fell to encourage American settlement in this area, a strategy based on economic settlement and Russia’s weakening.

Unlike the signatories of the PNAC, a group that concealed its objectives behind unilateralist and pseudo-patriotic warfare, ZBK had the courage, in “Le Grand Echiquier”, to recognize that the “camp” for which it was fighting was not the America of the Americans. It is globalized capitalism – that, and that alone. The objective of the conquest of Central Asia must be, according to ZBK, to ensure the victory not of America itself, but rather of a New World Order entirely dominated by large multinational companies (mainly Western).

” The Grand Chessboard ” is a true hymn to the governing bodies of economic globalization (World Bank, IMF). ZBK is the first patriot in Richistan – a country overhanging all the others, where only the very, very rich live.

“The Grand Chessboard ” is generally an interesting book because ZBK, with a rather remarkable cynicism, bluntly admits the manipulations that neoconservatives, in general, have carried out by hiding them behind a curtain of Americanist smoke. A man of “big business”, he does not have to worry about the reactions of the “moral majority” which was one of the foundations of neoconservatism. That is why he admits, as a given fact, that America’s anthropological base is destined to diversify, to the point of becoming a perfect reflection of global diversity. And to unify this totally disparate base in terms of identity, he advocates (in 1997) a “new Pearl Harbor”, which would make it possible to identify a fantastical enemy (Islamism for example), a negative integrator of a totally unstructured American population.

The reading of the “Grand chessboard” confirms that there has been competition among American elites for more than a decade between a line driven by the “pro-Israel lobby” and another line, defended by ZBK, which pays very little attention to the future of the Jewish state. For ZBK, the main objective of the great US strategy must be, at the beginning of the 21st century, to fight against the China/Russia alliance, if possible by preventing it from forming, otherwise by limiting its scope and power. In this perspective, ZBK (perhaps motivated here by its notorious Russianophobia) considers that the main threat comes from Russia, insofar as, although less economically powerful than China, it has more means to achieve full sovereignty. It advocates the encirclement of Russia by the gradual establishment of military bases, or in the absence of friendly regimes, in the former Soviet republics (including Ukraine), as well as the weakening of Moscow by the looting of its economy (remember that the book was written in 1997, when the oligarchs shared privatised Russian companies, one year before the crash of 1998).

With a cynical frankness, ZBK admits in the process that America is, in his opinion, “too democratic internally” to be sufficiently autocratic internationally. He draws the conclusion, crucial for anyone who wants to understand his thinking formula, that America must favour strategies of influence in order to be autocratic without this being seen by the American population itself.

It must therefore be understood that ZBK’s subsequent statements, from 2004 onwards, against the “war on terrorism”, do not reflect on its part a refutation of the reality of this war – it knows perfectly well that it has never been anything other than a pretext, and it has itself advocated the use of this pretext. His positions reflect his concern about how the neoconservatives use this “war as a pretext” (i.e. with a manifest lack of subtlety). ZBK fully endorses the belligerent strategy of the neocons; but he reproaches them for leading it so brutally, so directly, that it is perceived. His program: to do the same thing, but subtly, without it being seen. In Central Asia, for example, it proposes to support the Islamists, so that they oppose Russia’s return to the area – to instrumentalise Islamism, for BZK, is therefore not to fight it everywhere, but on the contrary to selectively promote it.

This strategy, which is infinitely more subtle than neoconservative brutality, is based on a priority given to influence, with open warfare coming only as a last resort. ZBK advocates in particular the infiltration of Eurasian elites, the detection of the members of these most influential elites, in order to favour them (by the media tool in particular), so that they become predominant within their specific oligarchy. Where neocons bomb and occupy militarily, ZBK proposes to corrupt, divide, manipulate, to subterraneanly impose governments at the behest of the USA. Thus, it will no longer be necessary to wage war against the enemy: it will have been conquered from within, by offering a fraction of its ruling classes integration into the emerging globalized hyperclass. The Obama administration’s apparent appeasement policy over the past year must be understood as part of this strategy.