Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Geopolitica Mondiale

Deutsche Welle. G20. Merkel ha fallito.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-07-10.

2017-07-04__Merkel__001 MERKEL_BIMBA_Molino_foto-per-illustrare-concorso-vignette

Ricordiamo come il Deutsche Welle sia ufficioso organo di stampa del Governo tedesco, edito in trenta lingue differenti, di strettissima osservanza liberal socialista.

*

G20. Quattro passi falsi di Frau Merkel. 2017-07-08

G20. Incontro Trump – Putin. Primo report. Putin e Trump abbottonati. 2017-07-07

G20. Il silenzio della stampa liberal. 2017-07-07

*

Il G20 deve essere andato veramente male a giudicare dal titolo del Deutsche Welle

G20: success for Africa, failure for climate

*

«Traditionally, G20 leaders focus on issues relating to global economic growth, international trade and financial market regulations. The 2017 Hamburg summit was no different»

*

«However, Germany attempted to use its presidency to rally global leaders behind a number of causes, which the summit had not previously had on its agenda.»

*

«build a common front in the fight against antimicrobial resistance …. Women’s economic empowerment also featured in the discussions …. a general consensus among the G20 leaders in combating international terrorism …. We agreed to give a chance to globalization and fight protectionism and unfair business practices …. increasing vigilance on international market structures, profit shifting, and bad taxation practices»

*

«The issue of international trade however was a hotly contested subject against the backdrop of US President Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda»

*

«The G20 leaders also recognized Trump’s utterance of pulling out of the Paris climate deal. The remaining 19 members agreed that the Paris deal is irreversible. It will now be supported by a Hamburg action plan for climate and energy»

*

«Germany wanted to use its G20 presidency to put what some call the “Merkel plan for Africa” at the core of the discussion»

*

«The Africa focus, however, appears to have been overshadowed by the G20’s internal relations»

*

«We are very happy that Merkel chose to focus on Africa»

*

«But apart from showing appreciation, African leaders have not done much so far to support her plans. Merkel has earned their goodwill, but not their resources»

*

«While Merkel expressed her wish “to find compromises” to these pressing global issues, many were left unresolved»

* * * * * * *

Riassumiamo.

«During a meeting on climate change, Trump left for his bilateral with Vladimir Putin» [Fonte]

*

«Merkel is facing elections at home at a time when Germany seems more divided than it has been in a long time»

*

«The problem is, it’s only her dream»

*

Il Deutsche Welle sintetizza in modo perfetto: è stato solo un sogno di Frau Merkel.

* * * * * * *

Nota.

Si consideri con attenzione questo titolo della Bbc.

G20 Hamburg: Leaders fail to bridge Trump climate chasm

È tutto un programma.

Ammette che i leader mondiali hanno fallito, non che abbia fallito Mr Trump.

Rimettendo in uso carbone e petrolio a fini energetici, l’economia americana otterrà sostanziali risparmi nei costi di produzione. Serviranno ovviamente i tempi tecnici, ma alla fine l’economia americana potrebbe concretamente distruggere quella europea.


Deutsche Welle. 2017-07-09. G20: success for Africa, failure for climate

Germany has prioritized the achievement of “strong, sustainable and balanced global economic growth” and Africa in its G20 presidency. Did it achieve this? Abu-Bakarr Jalloh reports from Hamburg.

*

Traditionally, G20 leaders focus on issues relating to global economic growth, international trade and financial market regulations. The 2017 Hamburg summit was no different. However, Germany attempted to use its presidency to rally global leaders behind a number of causes, which the summit had not previously had on its agenda.

Support for science

Digital technology, for instance, was on the agenda and the threats of global pandemics. The 2014 outbreak of Ebola in West Africa, which had a ripple effect on the global economy, led to the G20 leaders’ decision to devote greater attention to combating dangerous diseases.

The issue of antimicrobial resistance, which is the resistance of bacteria, viruses or parasites to antibiotics and other drugs, first appeared on the agenda in last year’s summit in Hangzou, China. The increased resistance to the conventional drugs has complicated the treatment of diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. According to Merkel, the leaders agreed to “increase the fight against pandemic diseases that could crash the global economy” and “build a common front in the fight against antimicrobial resistance.” A G20 working group is will in future take up the issue of the appropriate use of antibiotics.

More financial equality?

Women’s economic empowerment also featured in the discussions. The German chancellor reported that an agreement had been reached on how to reduce “the pay gap between men and women.” Germany had been pushing for a 25 percent reduction by 2025 of the existing barriers that prevent women’s development, especially in developing nations.

There was also a general consensus among the G20 leaders in combating international terrorism. They agreed to dry up the sources of financing for terrorist organizations. They intend to do this through “closer cooperation and improved exchange of information,” according to Merkel.

“We agreed to give a chance to globalization and fight protectionism and unfair business practices,” Merkel said. According to Merkel, a consensus was also reached in “securing financial stability” for the global economy and “increasing vigilance on international market structures, profit shifting, and bad taxation practices.” The issue of international trade however was a hotly contested subject against the backdrop of US President Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda.

The G20 leaders also recognized Trump’s utterance of pulling out of the Paris climate deal. The remaining 19 members agreed that the Paris deal is irreversible. It will now be supported by a Hamburg action plan for climate and energy. While Merkel expressed her wish “to find compromises” to these pressing global issues, many were left unresolved

What’s in it for Africa?

Germany wanted to use its G20 presidency to put what some call the “Merkel plan for Africa” at the core of the discussion. The Africa focus, however, appears to have been overshadowed by the G20’s internal relations, notably the Trump administration’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate pact.

Berlin, however, seemed determined to roll out its Africa agenda despite the odds and despite Germany’s expected leadership on various other political matters, such as the future of the European Union, the intake of refugees and climate change. Moreover, Merkel is facing elections at home at a time when Germany seems more divided than it has been in a long time. How high Africa will feature on her agenda remains to be seen.

Observations from Africa

“We are very happy that Merkel chose to focus on Africa,” said Ibrahima Kone, a member of the African Union delegation at the summit, which urged the G20 members to help “educate its citizens.” According to Kone, AU President Alpha Conde was thrilled by Germany’s newly found interest in the continent. But apart from showing appreciation, African leaders have not done much so far to support her plans. Merkel has earned their goodwill, but not their resources.

Merkel seems to be facing a long path in her her bid to change Europe’s role in Africa. “We agreed to continue to be in Africa, but want to shift away from development aid to partnership, which includes forming agreements with individual countries,” said Merkel. The chancellor’s “Compact with Africa” initiative aims to “make investment projects viable, bankable and fundable.” She also announced that the United States agreed to pay a substantial sum for relief efforts in famine-affected parts of East Africa.

My personal take: dreams of a prosperous Africa

From a personal standpoint, this year’s G20 summit has left many unresolved issues, especially surrounding the sudden interest in Africa. Because, who dreams of a prosperous Africa? It’s certainly not the political elite, and if you think it is Germany, then think again. The image of ‘poor Africa’,the child with bloated stomach and running nose, sells and aid organizations thrive on it.

Whether Merkel’s will is driven by a notion of trying to correct Germany’s dark past in Africa, is an attempt to curb the flow of African migrants or to rid Germany’s train stations of the images of malnourished African children, her plan seems to be the best Africa has seen from Europe in a while.

It combines classical development aid with private sector investments, a two-way business agenda and programs for the youth. Merkel had hoped to get her African development agenda endorsed at the G20 summit. And she did. The problem is, it’s only her dream.

 

Pubblicato in: Geopolitica Mondiale, Putin, Trump

G20. Incontro Trump – Putin. Primo report. Putin e Trump abbottonati.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-07-07.

Lupi 011

La Bbc è riuscita a battere tutte le agenzie di stampa rilasciando il primo resoconto dell’incontro intercorso tra Mr Trump a Mr Putin.

Come sarebbe stato facilmente intuibile, nessuno dei due statisti ha rivelato i reali argomenti trattati. È finita l’epoca dei queruli ermafroditi.

Quindi, solo enunciati generici sui temi che sembrerebbero di verosimile interesse per ambedue: ma nessuno dei due ha detto una parola.

Dalle riprese televisive sembrerebbe essere stato il classico incontro di due businessman, di due professionisti della gestione di superpotenze nucleari.  E questo con vivo disappunto dei giornalisti che avrebbero voluto vedere effusioni affettuose. Ci si potrebbe permettere di osservare come Mr Putin e Mr Trump abbiano come compito quello di trovare un ragionevole accordo che garantisca la pace al mondo ed alle loro nazioni: mica sono due fidanzatini.

*

Notiamo anche alcune patetiche illazioni dell’articolista, che con questo incontro bilaterale non c’entrano proprio per nulla.

«Climate change and trade are set to dominate the two-day G20 meeting.»

*

«But the two sides seem unable to agree on the exact outcome of talks over the Russian hacking allegations. ….

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Mr Trump accepted Mr Putin’s assertions that they were not true»

*

«They have, however, agreed to declare a ceasefire in south-west Syria from Sunday, Mr Lavrov said.»

*

«Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has urged G20 leaders to impress upon Mr Trump that he should act as a role model in addressing climate change»

*

A lume di naso si direbbe che ‘clima’ e ‘free trading’ non siano nemmeno stati presi in considerazione.

Merkel Says Trade Agreement Proving Difficult

Bbc. 2017-07-07. G20: Trump and Putin hold first face-to-face talks

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have held their first face-to-face talks, on the sidelines of the G20 summit in the German city of Hamburg.

*

“It’s an honour to be with you,” Mr Trump told Mr Putin, who responded: “I’m delighted to meet you personally.”

The US and Russian leaders were looking to repair ties damaged by crises including Russia’s alleged meddling in the US election.

Climate change and trade are set to dominate the two-day G20 meeting.

Violent clashes between protesters and police have taken place in the streets outside the venue, with dozens left injured.

A huge police operation is trying to keep demonstrators – who are protesting against the presence of Mr Trump and Mr Putin, climate change and global wealth inequalities – well away from the summit venue, and water cannon have been deployed.

Earlier, US First Lady Melania Trump was unable to leave her hotel in Hamburg because of the protests.

“Putin and I have been discussing various things, and I think it’s going very well,” Mr Trump told reporters while sitting alongside Mr Putin at the start of the talks, which were open to the media.

“We’ve had some very, very good talks. We’re going to have a talk now and obviously that will continue. We look forward to a lot of very positive things happening for Russia, for the United States and for everybody concerned.”

Mr Putin, via a translator, said that while they had spoken by phone, a phone conversation was never as good as meeting face to face.

Both men ignored shouted questions from reporters as the meeting went into private session.

Speaking afterwards, Mr Putin said: “I’ve had a very long conversation with the US president. We had a lot of issues to discuss, including Ukraine, Syria, and other problems, also some bilateral issues.

“We have again returned to the fight against terror and to cyber security.”

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson largely confirmed these were the topics covered, saying the leaders connected quickly and had positive chemistry.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said they agreed to declare a ceasefire in south-west Syria from Sunday.

But the two sides seem unable to agree on the exact outcome of talks over the Russian hacking allegations.

Mr Lavrov said Mr Trump accepted Mr Putin’s assertions that they were not true.

Mr Tillerson, meanwhile, said the two men had had a “robust” discussion on the issue during the two hour and 15 minute meeting, and that Mr Trump had pressed the Russian leader on several occasions.

However, he said it was not clear whether the two countries would ever come to an agreement on what happened.

Earlier, a brief video clip posted on the German government’s Facebook page showed the two men meeting for the first time and shaking hands, with Mr Trump patting Mr Putin’s arm as they smiled in the company of other leaders.

The two men staked out opposing views on major international issues in the run-up to the summit:

– On Thursday, Mr Trump used a speech in the Polish capital Warsaw to call on Russia to stop “destabilising” Ukraine and other countries, and “join the community of responsible nations”

– Setting out his own G20 agenda in German financial newspaper Handelsblatt, Mr Putin called for US-led sanctions on his country, imposed in response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, to be lifted

– Mr Putin also argued strongly in favour of the Paris climate agreement, saying it was a “secure basis for long-term climate regulation” and Russia wanted to make a “comprehensive contribution to its implementation”

– President Trump has taken the US out of the Paris agreement

The G20 (Group of Twenty) is a summit for 19 countries, both developed and developing, plus the EU.

In her summit opening statement, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said: “We are all aware of the great global challenges.

“We know that time is short and therefore solutions very often can only be found if we are ready to compromise and work together without bending over backwards too much because, of course, we can express different views on some issues.”

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has urged G20 leaders to impress upon Mr Trump that he should act as a role model in addressing climate change.

“We’ll tell him it’s important to take a lead role in tackling climate change and creating good jobs,” he told German tabloid Bild, according to Reuters news agency.

Mrs Merkel has said the G20 will focus on the Paris climate deal but, as the G20 host, she will work to find compromises.

Mrs Merkel and other EU leaders have also expressed their commitment to an open international trading system, while the Trump administration pursues protectionism under the “America First” motto.

On Friday, the US first lady had been due to take part in an excursion with other leaders’ spouses, but her spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said: “The Hamburg police could not give us clearance to leave.”

Mrs Trump herself tweeted concern for those injured in the protests.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has urged G20 leaders to impress upon Mr Trump that he should act as a role model in addressing climate change.

“We’ll tell him it’s important to take a lead role in tackling climate change and creating good jobs,” he told German tabloid Bild, according to Reuters news agency.

Mrs Merkel has said the G20 will focus on the Paris climate deal but, as the G20 host, she will work to find compromises.

Mrs Merkel and other EU leaders have also expressed their commitment to an open international trading system, while the Trump administration pursues protectionism under the “America First” motto.

On Friday, the US first lady had been due to take part in an excursion with other leaders’ spouses, but her spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said: “The Hamburg police could not give us clearance to leave.”

Mrs Trump herself tweeted concern for those injured in the protests.

Plenty to talk about, by the BBC’s Sarah Rainsford

The words were warm enough, but the body language was restrained as this meeting began. Neither man was smiling much as both said they hoped for positive results from their encounter. Their handshake, when it finally came, was brief and businesslike.

But they clearly had plenty to talk about, as their meeting went on well over the time allocated. Russia sees that alone as a success, proof that Vladimir Putin is a global leader to be reckoned with. No-one here is expecting any big deals though, like lifting sanctions for example.

The Kremlin has stressed all along that its main aim is to establish a “working dialogue” with Donald Trump, and perhaps begin the slow process of restoring relations with the US, which are at their lowest point in many years.

Pubblicato in: Cina, Devoluzione socialismo, Economia e Produzione Industriale, Geopolitica Mondiale, Materie Prime, Problemia Energetici, Putin, Russia, Trump, Unione Europea

G20. Parole e fatti. Adesso vedremo quanto valga Frau Merkel.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela

2017-07-06.

2017-07-07__Hamburg__001 trumps_climate_war_74848_c0-250-4832-3067_s885x516

Il mondo ha problemi ben più gravi ed importanti del ‘clima‘ e del ‘free trade‘ nei quali la Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel vorrebbe restringere le discussioni in senso al G20.

Questi problemi sono politici, economici e militari. Argomento questo ultimo di cui nessuno avrebbe piacere di parlare, ma che pesa come un macigno: è il convitato di pietra.

Frau Merkel si gioca in due giorni la sua reputazione, correndo il serio pericolo di ritrovarsi isolata nei fatti: sicuramente rinnovata in una cancelleria che nessuno stia più a sentire. Ha deciso di sfidare Mr Trump: ora faccia vedere le sue carte.

*

«Chancellor Angela Merkel wants to focus the G20 summit on her two pet issues of climate change and world trade. She’ll need to perform miracles to make it a success.»

*

«the G20 is more divided than at any point since meetings in the current format began nine years ago at the height of the financial crisis.»

*

«Mr. Trump sees Germany as an economic rival rather than a strategic partner»

*

«The German economics ministry is already drafting concrete plans to retaliate if the US imposes import tariffs on German products»

*

«Climate policy is even more difficult. There’s no sign yet of any compromise. Ms. Merkel has just reiterated her commitment to the Paris climate agreement as “irriversible and non-negotiable.” She can’t make meaningful concessions without being seen as caving»

*

«G20 governments are providing nearly 4 times more public finance to fossil fuels than to clean energy. With the United States indicating that it intends to pull out of the Paris Agreement, other governments must provide leadership in the clean energy transition: the remaining G20 governments will need to step up. Governments simply cannot be climate leaders while continuing to finance fossil fuels at current rates. …. public energy financing in G20 countries and at the major multilateral development banks (not including national-level subsidies or investments by majority government-owned banks and state-owned enterprises) adds up to $122.9 billion annually averaged from 2013 to 2015 – or roughly 7 percent of the total estimated $1.8 trillion in annual global investment in energy.» [Price of Oils]

*

«From 2013 to 2015, the G-20 nations spent $71.8 billion annually supporting fossil fuels, the study said, compared with $18.7 billion each year on direct support for clean energy such as solar, wind, geothermal or hydro power. Most of the fossil fuels money went to oil and gas exploration, but some also went to coal, which critics say is the dirtiest-burning fuel and the greatest driver of the greenhouse gas pollution that the Paris treaty was supposed to address»

*

«If other G-20 governments are serious about standing up to Trump’s climate denial and meeting their commitments under the Paris agreement, they need to stop propping up the outdated fossil fuel industry with public money»

* * * * * * * * *

I dati di bilancio, ossia il denaro pubblico investito effettivamente, sono chiarissimi: l’Accordo di Parigi è una farsa. Una cosa sono le parole altisonanti ed una totalmente differente il denaro sborsato.

E Frau Merkel si presenta al G20 con un operato ben poco credibile: le sue azioni contraddicono vistosamente le sue parole. Difficile prestarle fede.

Merkel, Trump e G20. Vincere o morire. – Handelsblatt.

Macron. Affarucci in barba a sanzioni, ‘clima’ e diritti umani. Gli affari francesi sono sacri.

Putin e Merkel. Una strana telefonata. Help me, please, Mr Putin!

G20. Il cuoco servirà cosciotti Merkel mit bratkartoffeln.

Merkel. «Tedeschi, volete ‘clima’ od acciaio?»

Macron & Merkel Masonry Ldt sulla graticola di Mr Trump.

Trump. Sanzioni contro la Russia che massacrano Francia e Germania.

Tra Germania e Usa è scontro anche sul gasdotto Nord Stream 2

Industriali tedeschi: Trump ha ragione e Merkel torto. – Handelsblatt.

Francia e Germania piangono non sul clima ma sull’Unep. Un gran bel gruzzolo.

* * * * * * * * *

Come se tutto questo non bastasse, ci sono i problemi della sicurezza e militari. Si potrebbe partire dalle differenti visioni in seno alla Nato, al fatto che gli Usa sono stanchi di essere gli unici a finanziarne i costi specie dell’armamento atomico, ma si dovrebbe proseguire con la guerra in Siria ed i precari equilibri mediorientali, per arrivare alla fine al nodo Nord Korea ed ai delicatissimi equilibri con Russia e Cina.

Questi argomenti fanno sicuramente aggio sui temi tanto a cuore di Frau Merkel, che non disponendo di forze armate in questo settore strategico conta come la polvere nelle strade.

*

L’Unione Europea è divisa: profondamente divisa.Queto è solo un piccolo, ultimo esempio.

«The countries where Mr. Trump has the most widespread support are Poland (73 percent see the US favorably) and Hungary (63 percent) …. Mr. Trump will undoubtedly try to deepen the EU’s internal divisions, by playing its eastern flank against its western members» [Handelsblatt]

Se tutti ci si augura che Frau Merkel riesca a mettere tutti di accordo, con altrettanta franchezza si dovrebbe concludere che questa sia una missione impossibile.


The Washington Times. 2017-07-06. Merkel to take charge of G-20 agenda, press multilateralism message to Trump

BERLIN — When President Trump arrives late Thursday for his inaugural gathering of leaders from the world’s 20 largest economies, he will be contending not only with Russian President Vladimir Putin in their fraught first face-to-face meeting, but also with host Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, an experienced leader who has clashed with Mr. Trump and hopes to keep the summit tightly focused on her favored agenda.

The biggest theatrics at the Friday-Saturday Group of 20 summit in Hamburg center on the highly anticipated meeting between Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin, as well as violent street protests planned by left-wing extremists and anarchists who have descended on the northern German port city in recent days.

But for most Germans, the most significant aspect of the G-20 is that Ms. Merkel, a staunch backer of “green energy” and multilateral free trade policies, is hosting the summit on her own turf — she was born in Hamburg — and could be the heaviest hitter at a gathering that includes the world’s most famous and nationalistic strongmen, including Mr. Trump, Mr. Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Her local allies note that Ms. Merkel is the only world leader to have attended every G-20 summit, which includes the leading industrial and developing nation economies, since the first was held in 2008.

Angela Merkel knows that maybe she’s the most experienced head of government who will be at the G-20,” said Juergen Hardt, a member of the German chancellor’s Christian Democratic Union party and chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the Bundestag, Germany’s parliament.

“This is her chance to show that the multilateral way is the best way,” Mr. Hardt said in an interview Wednesday. “We need to enforce multilateral structures, but we have some leaders in the world who are not convinced yet that the multilateral approach is the better way to solve problems.”

In addition to the crises of the day, Mr. Trump is walking into unfriendly territory where his “America first” foreign and economic policy clash with cherished EU ideals.

Mr. Hardt pointed to seething EU frustration with Mr. Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 Paris climate accord — the vast international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions — on grounds, according to Mr. Trump, that it unfairly stacked the deck against the U.S. and “doesn’t serve America’s interests.”

Ms. Merkel has suggested that she will use the G-20 as a high-profile stage to dramatize to Mr. Trump the fallout from his Paris decision.

“We cannot expect easy discussions on climate change at the G-20 summit,” she told German lawmakers last week.

More generally, Ms. Merkel has expressed distaste with Mr. Trump’s protectionist trade rhetoric, including sharp criticism of Germany’s bilateral trade surplus, and plans to rally world leaders behind the cause of free trade through large multinational agreements.

Anyone who “thinks that the problems of this world can be solved by protectionism and isolation lives under a huge misconception,” Ms. Merkel said without naming any names.

The message seemed tailored to win over Asian leaders who will be in attendance at the G-20, most notably Japan and South Korea, which are still reeling from Mr. Trump’s torpedoing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership — a massive trade agreement that the Obama administration spent years trying to reach between nations from Asia to North and South America.

In a deal whose timing will send a message, Japan and the European Union indicated that they are ready to announce a wide-ranging free trade agreement on Thursday as the G-20 summit opens.

EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom told reporters that she was “quite confident” that a broad agreement can be announced with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to lower tariffs on autos and agricultural goods.

“You can do good, fair, transparent and sustainable trade agreements where you win and I win, and not the American view, which seems to be, ‘You lose and I win,’” Ms. Malmstrom said.

If Mr. Trump is having second thoughts about trade, though, it was not evident from his Twitter account as he departed Washington on Wednesday night for a trip that includes a stop in Poland.

“The United States made some of the worst Trade Deals in world history,” Mr. Trump tweeted. “Why should we continue these deals with countries that do not help us?”

The president’s bilateral meeting with Mr. Putin is likely to dominate news from the summit after months of saturated media coverage about Russian meddling in the presidential election and five ongoing investigations in Washington into suspected collusion between Trump campaign aides and Moscow — charges that Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin both vehemently deny.

But with Islamic State, Ukraine, Afghanistan and now the North Korean missile launch on the list of bilateral issues Russia and the U.S. have to discuss, it’s not clear how much time each crisis will receive. White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders wouldn’t say Wednesday whether Mr. Trump even plans to raise the issue of election interference with Mr. Putin.

“We’re not going to get ahead of their meetings,” she told reporters traveling with the president.

Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, who will attend the G-20 gathering, said in a statement Wednesday night that Syria — and the endgame after the impending defeat of Islamic State — will be one topic that Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin will definitely discuss.

“The United States and Russia certainly have unresolved differences on a number of issues, but we have the potential to appropriately coordinate in Syria in order to produce stability and serve our mutual security interests,” Mr. Tillerson said. “If our two countries work together to establish stability on the ground, it will lay a foundation for progress on the settlement of Syria’s political future.”

“The United States believes Russia, as a guarantor of the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad] and an early entrant into the Syrian conflict, has a responsibility to ensure that the needs of the Syrian people are met and that no faction in Syria illegitimately retakes or occupies areas liberated from [Islamic State] or other terrorist groups’ control,” he added.

During the election campaign, Mr. Trump called for friendlier relations with Mr. Putin to join forces against the Islamic State terrorist group. But amid the probes, the White House is treading cautiously about expectations for the meeting and how Mr. Putin might portray it.

Russia is a major power, and it can play a constructive or a not-constructive role on a whole host of international issues,” said Jeffrey Rathke, a foreign policy analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “So there remains that desire for an improved relationship.”

But he added, “There clearly are risks when you’ve got a foreign policy process as disorganized as it appears to be in this administration.”

For Ms. Merkel, the real push will be to get the G-20 countries to agree that the best way to address the central challenges facing humankind today, whether it’s environmental change, terrorism, immigration or refugee flows, is through tightly woven multinational cooperation and agreements, Mr. Hardt said.

The extent to which she will be successful is up for debate. Germany will “no doubt do its best to refocus G-20 commitment on global cooperation,” said Fyodor Lukyanov, who heads the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, a think tank of high-ranking Russian government officials and business leaders in Moscow.

“But [she] has no magic wand,” Mr. Lukyanov wrote in an analysis circulated this week by the U.S.-based Council on Foreign Relations.

“The global economy faces acute problems of a purely political nature, [and] it was feared in 2008 that protectionism would be the spontaneous reaction of several governments,” he wrote. “It is now the deliberate and official policy of the most powerful member of G-20, the United States. If the United States proclaims ‘America First,’ it is just [a] matter of time until the rest of the world will turn to more mercantilist thinking as well.”

‘Militant resistance’

The likelihood is also high for clashes between demonstrators and some 20,000 German police officers who have set up heavily guarded perimeters around Hamburg. With posters plastered around other German cities calling for protests in Hamburg, as many as 100,000 demonstrators are expected, although reports say the danger stems from about 8,000 left-wing extremists believed to be heading to the city.

While the protesters will speak out against a wide range of issues such as war, nuclear power, climate change, racism and big business, the motto for one of the approximately 30 demonstrations has been announced as “Welcome to hell.”

“It’s a combative message,” organizer Andreas Blechanschmidt told Agence France-Presse. “But it’s also meant to symbolize that G-20 policies worldwide are responsible for hellish conditions like hunger, war and the climate disaster.”

He described plans to try to block access to the venue where G-20 leaders will gather and said activists “reserve for themselves the option of militant resistance” against police.

 


The Washington Times. 2017-07-06. Despite Paris accord, G-20 countries invest four times as much in fossil fuels as green energy

The biggest critics of President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord are also the world’s biggest hypocrites on energy policy, top environmental groups charged Wednesday in a report that found many top nations’ rhetoric on cutting emissions doesn’t line up with how and where they spend their money.

The study examined Group of 20 member countries and was released a day before Mr. Trump arrived in Germany for meetings with other members of the key international group, with energy and climate change expected to be at the top of the agenda.

The key finding: The G-20 nations spend roughly four times as much in public financing for fossil fuels as they do supporting renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. The report examines loans, grants, guarantees, insurance and other types of public finance offered either by the governments, government-owned financial institutions and credit agencies, and multilateral groups made up of G-20 countries.

2017-07-07__Hamburg__002 trumps_climate_war_74848_c0-250-4832-3067_s885x516

From 2013 to 2015, the G-20 nations spent $71.8 billion annually supporting fossil fuels, the study said, compared with $18.7 billion each year on direct support for clean energy such as solar, wind, geothermal or hydro power. Most of the fossil fuels money went to oil and gas exploration, but some also went to coal, which critics say is the dirtiest-burning fuel and the greatest driver of the greenhouse gas pollution that the Paris treaty was supposed to address.

“Our research shows that the G-20 still hasn’t put its money where its mouth is when it comes to the clean energy transition. If other G-20 governments are serious about standing up to Trump’s climate denial and meeting their commitments under the Paris agreement, they need to stop propping up the outdated fossil fuel industry with public money,” said Alex Doukas, a senior campaigner at Oil Change International, one of the groups that authored the study.

The Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and the World Wildlife Fund’s European office also were a part of the project.

On its surface, the report would seem to give credence to the argument that the Paris accord doesn’t ask much from other nations. Mr. Trump made that argument — along with putting America’s economy first — the centerpiece of his rationale for leaving the deal last month.

Indeed, environmentalists now say the same nations that have criticized Mr. Trump’s decision aren’t doing their part either.

In fact, the most outspoken opponents of Mr. Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. from the Paris deal — which included a pledge by President Obama to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by at least 26 percent by 2025 — are some of the worst offenders.

Within hours of Mr. Trump’s announcement on June 1, the leaders of Germany, Italy and France issued a joint statement castigating the U.S. and saying the Paris pact is non-negotiable. They said the Trump administration should not try to revamp the deal in order to secure more favorable terms.

“We firmly believe that the Paris agreement cannot be renegotiated,” the three heads of state said in a joint statement, expressing “regret” with the course Mr. Trump chose.

Words and deeds

But two of those countries are hardly backing up their harsh words with action.

Germany supplied $3.5 billion annually in public finance for fossil fuels from 2013 to 2015, compared with $2.4 billion annually for clean energy, according to the study. Italy funneled $2.1 billion toward fossil fuels, compared with $123 million annually for clean energy.

Canada, another vocal critic, directed $3 billion annually in public finance for oil, gas and coal from 2013 to 2015 while putting $171 million annually toward clean energy.

China, the world’s top polluter, provided $13.5 billion annually for fossil fuel financing compared with less than $85 million annually for clean energy.

France directed more money toward renewable energy than fossil fuels, making it a notable exception to the broader trend.

France aside, green groups say the hypocrisy is striking.

“These countries have been talking out of both sides of their mouths,” said Nicole Ghio, a senior international campaign representative at the Sierra Club. “It’s unconscionable that any nation would continue to waste public funds on fossil fuels when clean energy sources like wind and solar are not only readily available, but are more cost-effective and healthier for families and communities across the globe. It is past time for G-20 nations to stop subsidizing fossil fuels once and for all.”

The Paris deal came into effect at the end of 2015, the final year examined as part of the deal. Since then, world leaders have, at least with words, recommitted their countries to developing and subsidizing clean energy.

The U.S. is in line with most of the world in terms of where it puts its money. It provided $6 billion annually for fossil fuels and $1.3 billion for renewable energy, according to the study.

On its surface, it appears the U.S. would have had to make the most drastic shift in energy financing in order to meet its Paris target. The American commitment of a 26 percent reduction by 2025 would have required massive increases in government financing of clean energy. China, on the other hand, committed only to start cutting its emissions by 2030, meaning it could in theory continue to prop up fossil fuels for the next 13 years.

Mr. Trump said that dynamic is unacceptable but that he is open to rejoining the accord so long as the terms don’t punish the U.S. economy.

“We’re getting out, but we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair,” he said in a Rose Garden address last month. “And if we can, that’s great. And if we can’t, that’s fine.”

 


Handelsblatt. 2017-07-06. Merkel’s Mission Impossible

Chancellor Angela Merkel wants to focus the G20 summit on her two pet issues of climate change and world trade. She’ll need to perform miracles to make it a success.

*

Chancellor Angela Merkel will need all her famed diplomatic skills this week to fulfil what many see as a mission impossible: preventing an open break of the G20, the closest thing the world has to a government, at this week’s summit of the world’s wealthiest nations.

As host, it will fall on her to try to patch up deep rifts in the world order. Wherever you look, there is dissent and conflict. US President Donald Trump is threatening Europe and China with import tariffs and has pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement.

China and America can’t agree on how to deal with North Korea’s mounting aggression and are at odds over China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea. Russia, internationally isolated since the Ukraine conflict, is hacking its way into Western elections and confounding the West with its military support for the Assad regime in the Syrian civil war.

And then there’s the never-ending dispute with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who fired yet another salvo at Berlin this week by declaring in an interview with Die Zeit newspaper that Germany was “committing suicide” by not allowing him to speak to Turks at a rally in Germany. “What kind of spirit is that? That is very ugly,” he said.

«“It’s alarming to me that almost all Trump’s comments on Germany are negative. Just as almost all his comments about the EU are negative.”» [Nicholas Burns, Foreign policy expert]

Ms. Merkel knows she won’t be able to cure the world of all its ills at the summit in Hamburg. That’s why she plans to focus the talks on two issues that are particularly important to her: safeguarding free trade and combating global warming. Progress on either issue would also bolster her campaign for a fourth term in the September election, although her party is so far ahead in opinion polls that she doesn’t need to worry too much on that score.

But there’s a real chance that the summit will end in failure. Mr. Trump, her main opponent in the talks, has so far steadfastly refused to budge on trade or climate change. And if he can’t be swayed, the mega-event costing hundreds of millions of euros with its 6,000 delegates, 100,000 protesters and 15,000 police could yield nothing more than a pointless, watered-down consensus. That’s why Ms. Merkel’s strategists are working flat out to save what can be saved.

On Friday evening, when Ms. Merkel hosts the leaders in the grand, newly opened dockside Elbphilhamonie concert hall-turned-fortress, their negotiators will start what could well turn into an all-night session of last-ditch talks.

While the leaders and their spouses savor the sublime acoustics of the futuristic hall as an orchestra plays Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy,” the functionaries will attempt to finalize the summit communique. It won’t be a joyful task because the G20 is more divided than at any point since meetings in the current format began nine years ago at the height of the financial crisis.

Officials have been talking since Tuesday in a Hamburg hotel. Mr. Trump and Ms. Merkel spoke on the phone on Monday when he assured her the summit would be a “success.” But she can’t bank on significant concessions from the “America First” president.

Mr. Trump sees Germany as an economic rival rather than a strategic partner, said foreign policy expert Nicholas Burns. “It’s alarming to me that almost all Trump’s comments on Germany are negative. Just as almost all his comments about the EU are negative. The entire way Trump deals with relations with Germany is destructive.”

But amid all the differences, there are some chinks of light. Contrary to recent speculation, there’s no sign of major disagreement on classic G20 issues such as financial market regulation or tax policy. The US continues to support the G20 stance, as the meeting of G20 finance ministers in Baden Baden in March showed.

At the G7 summit in Sicily in May, Mr. Trump agreed to include a pledge to fight trade protectionism in the final communique. But then, at a meeting of OECD ministers shortly afterwards, the US distanced itself from that promise again.

In Hamburg, Ms. Merkel wants to avoid falling back behind the G7 declaration, so even a repeat of the pledge given in Sicily would be seen as a success. But she won’t have been encouraged by a speech given by US Trade Secretary Wilbur Ross to a business conference of her conservative party in Berlin last week. Speaking via video link, he reiterated US criticism of Germany’s trade surplus and said the US wanted a bigger share of the European market.

The German economics ministry is already drafting concrete plans to retaliate if the US imposes import tariffs on German products. Possible measures could include tariffs on imports of American agricultural produce.

Climate policy is even more difficult. There’s no sign yet of any compromise. Ms. Merkel has just reiterated her commitment to the Paris climate agreement as “irriversible and non-negotiable.” She can’t make meaningful concessions without being seen as caving. On the other hand, she needs Mr. Trump’s agreement or the summit will fail. She can’t afford to isolate him, partly because he might respond by trying to sway Saudi Arabia and India whose support for the Paris accord is seen as shaky.

She’s looking for a face-saving compromise, a choice of words that the president can sign up to. So far, the circle hasn’t been squared. He regards jobs as more important than protecting the climate, while Ms. Merkel must defend the Paris accord.

Officials plan to get a draft communique ready by Thursday evening so that Ms. Merkel and Mr. Trump can discuss it. Then on Friday night, it will be returned to the negotiators.

But Mr. Trump isn’t the only risk. If the planned anti-G20 protests end in chaos and violence, images of a teargas-shrouded Hamburg will haunt her right up to the election.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Energie Alternative, Geopolitica Mondiale, Putin, Unione Europea

Putin e Merkel. Una strana telefonata. Help me, please, Mr Putin!

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-07-01.

Putin-Merkel__

I rapporti tra Mr Putin e Frau Merkel sono tutto tranne che cordiali.

Ma potrebbero, usiamo il tempo condizionale ed il verbo ausiliare di potenzialità, anche subire variazioni. Verosimilmente in peggio.

I problemi esistenti sono molti e variegati nelle loro interazioni.

*

Putin incontra Merkel: «Ue non si intrometta in affari Russia»

«Vladimir Putin e Angela Merkel hanno affrontato il tema delle proteste in Russia e il presidente russo ha sottolineato che la reazione delle forze dell’ordine è stata «più moderata e liberale» che in alcuni Paesi europei. Putin poi ha sottolineato che come la Russia «non interviene negli affari interni di altri Paesi»: sarebbe il caso, ha sottolineato, che gli altri «non s’intromettessero» nella vita politica interna russa. ….

La cancelliera tedesca Angela Merkel, esprimendo la sua preoccupazione per le notizie relative a violenze e abusi a danno di omosessuali, in particolare in Cecenia, ha chiesto al presidente russo Vladimir Putin di «usare la sua influenza» per mettere fine a queste violazioni.»

*

Putin a Merkel: ‘Nostra polizia più moderata di alcuni Paesi Ue’

«La cancelliera tedesca Angela Merkel in visita a Sochi ha chiesto al presidente russo Vladimir Putin di “proteggere i diritti dei gay in Cecenia”, dopo la denuncia di Novaya Gazeta. Nel corso della conferenza stampa congiunta si è anche parlato delle proteste in Russia ed il presidente russo ha sottolineato che la reazione delle forze dell’ordine è stata “più moderata e liberale” che in alcuni Paesi europei. Putin poi ha detto che come la Russia “non interviene negli affari interni di altri Paesi”: sarebbe il caso, ha sottolineato, che gli altri “non s’intromettessero” nella vita politica interna russa.»

*

Putin a Merkel: «Reazioni polizia a proteste più moderate che in Ue, altri Paesi non si immischino»

«Faccia a faccia fra i due leader a Sochi, il presidente russo: «Forze dell’ordine in Russia più moderate che in altri Paesi europei». La Cancelliera tedesca: «Per togliere sanzioni a Mosca necessario rispetto di accordi di Minsk sull’Ucraina …. Si è parlato delle recenti proteste in Russia, ma anche delle sanzioni a Mosca, nel faccia a faccia fra il presidente Vladimir Putin e la Cancelliera tedesca Angela Merkel a Sochi. La reazione della polizia alle proteste in Russia è «più moderata e liberale» che in alcuni Paesi Ue ha sottolineato Putin ribadendo come Mosca «non interviene negli affari interni degli altri Paesi» e sarebbe il caso che anche le altre nazioni «non si intromettessero» nella vita politica russa.»

*

La Merkel, inconsapevole fin dall’inizio, sta diventando disperata

«- La Merkel è una pasticciona gravemente sopravvalutata. È da lungo tempo la babbea di Washington ed ha urtato contro l’implacabile muro di pietra della posizione di Putin sull’Ucraina, dove lui ha le carte migliori.

– Presa fra i due, sta iniziando a creparsi, sia politicamente che emozionalmente.

– I suoi oppositori interni odorano il suo sangue.»

* * * * * * *

Se è vero che in Francia Mr Macron ha vinto le elezioni presidenziali ed il suo partito ha conquistato la maggioranza assoluta all’Assemblea Nazionale, se è vero che la Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel ha ottime probabilità di essere riconfermata alla cancelleria alle elezioni di settembre, è anche vero che questi due paesi, specie poi la Germania, sembrerebbero essere sempre più isolati nell’ambito internazionale.

La Germania ha un pil 2016 di 3,466,639 milioni Usd e la Francia di 2,463,222: essendo il pil mondiale 2016 di 75,278,09 milioni Usd, Germania e Francia rendono conto del 4.6% e del 3.27%, rispettivamente.

Ma se si prendessero in considerazioni le spese militari, si dovrebbe constatare come gli Stati Uniti spendano nel 2017 611.2 miliardi Usd, mentre la Germania ne spende 41.1 e la Francia 55.7. La conseguenza è semplice: gli Stati Uniti contano come potenza militare, mentre Francia e Germania contano poco meno di nulla.

Non solo. Francia e Germania, la Macron & Merkel Masonry Ltd, non è riuscita a prendere atto del cambiamento epocale avvenuto negli Stati Uniti con l’ascesa di Mr Trump, e si sono poste in rotta di collisione con quella che fu la potenza mondiale loro patrona. I rapporti con gli Stati Uniti sono, quanto meno, gelidi, e gli Stati Uniti, al di là delle belle parole, non hanno nessuna intenzione di correre il rischio di una guerra globale per difendere l’Europa.

G20. Il cuoco servirà cosciotti Merkel mit bratkartoffeln.

Merkel. «Tedeschi, volete ‘clima’ od acciaio?»

Energie alternative e sussidi di stato. Fallimenti, manutenzione e ricambi.

*

La Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel ha rilasciato icastiche dichiarazioni:

«we Europeans must really take our fate into our own hands» [Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel – NYT]

*

«really take our fate into our own hands.» [Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel – NYT]

*

«I believe that climate change is certainly caused by humans» [Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel – Ccn]

*

«The Paris deal isn’t just any other deal. It is a key agreement that shapes today’s globalization» [Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel]

*

Ma tra il dire ed il fare c’è di mezzo il mare.

Sulle attuali difficoltà dell’Unione Europea forse il più onesto è stato JC Juncker:

«Bisogna smetterla di parlare degli Stati Uniti d’Europa,  la gente non li vuole» [JC Juncker]

*

Cerchiamo di sintetizzare per sommi capi.

– Se è vero che Mr Macron e Frau Merkel sono egemoni nei loro rispettivi paesi, in campo internazionale contano ben poco, per non dire frasi impietose.

– In seno all’Unione Europea sicuramente Francia e Germania hanno un grande peso, ma ogni giorno che passa si ingrossano le file dei paesi scontenti della loro politica estera e di quella economica. I paesi del Visegrad sono in rotta di collisione.

– La situazione economica dell’Unione è molto meno florida di quanto possa sembrare. Ma le apparenze non vicariano certo la sostanza. L’Ecb a breve dovrà cessare i QE ed i tassi mondiali stanno lentamente innalzandosi.

– Olanda, Spagna, Italia e Grecia hanno governi altamente instabili e provvisori. Economicamente parlando, sono bombe ad orologieria.

*

La Germina poi ha una lunga serie di problemi conflittuali.

– I titoli riportati evidenziano quanto Frau Merkel abbia evidenti problemi sessuali irrisolti: sarebbero fatti suoi, ma lei li butta in politica estera come se fossero prioritari, e questo irrita le controparti.

– Frau Merkel, da brava femmina petulante, vorrebbe sempre mettere il naso in affari non suoi: non a caso Mr Putin le ha risposto «come la Russia “non interviene negli affari interni di altri Paesi”: sarebbe il caso, ha sottolineato, che gli altri “non s’intromettessero” nella vita politica interna russa.» Roba da sprofondare venti metri sotto terra.

– Frau Merkel ha la maglietta sporca. A parole invoca sanzioni sempre più rigide nei confronti della Russia, poi, sottobanco, importa quote molto consistenti di gas russo, di cui non può farne a meno. Non solo: ha imposto agli altri paesi EU, tranne la Francia, di star fuori dall’affaruccio del Nord Stream 2, che fa le corna all’amata Ukraina, e le sue ditte commerciano alla grande proprio con quella Russia che a parole Frau Merkel sanziona. Se è vero che le femmine sono doppiogiochiste nate, a Frau Merkel nessuno potrebbe negarle un morbo di Jacobs, una trisomia X. Ma adesso Mr Trump ha fatto fare una legge che sanziona anche tutte le ditte che hanno simili mercimoni con la Russia: un uppercut in volto alla cancelliera, che ha reagito come una gallina spennacchiata.

– E poi, Frau Merkel: ma il gas naturale non era inquinante? E come la si mette con l’Accordo di Parigi?

– Ma il ‘clima‘ è il grande amore di Frau Merkel. Piccolo particolare: è un topic oramai abbandonato dagli Stati Uniti, che si sono ritirati dall’Accordo di Parigi. del ‘clima‘ non gliene interessa nulla. Ma la confindustria tedesca è in rivolta.

Francia e Germania piangono non sul clima ma sull’Unep. Un gran bel gruzzolo.

Questa Unione Europea si sta collassando. – Handelsblatt.

Germania. Trump ha ragione. – Handelsblatt.

Industriali tedeschi: Trump ha ragione e Merkel torto. – Handelsblatt.

Handelsblatt. Ciò che rendeva forte la Germania ora la rende vulnerabile.

Il problema è banale. L’economia tedesca e le sue esportazioni sono strettamente connesse al business del ‘clima‘: senza questo paravento di sordide manovre economiche e commerciali l’economia tedesca corre il rischio di crollare come un castello di carte.

Merkel’s House of Cards

Questo è uno dei recenti titoli di Handelsblatt, il giornale della confindustria tedesca.

*

I tempi mutano rapidamente ma Frau Merkel resta impavida a difendere il giurassico dei suoi sogni.

Eppure i messaggi di chiarimento sono evidenti, il mondo è cambiato. Uno per tutti:

Deutsche Bank rejects Democrats’ call for Trump finance details

* * * * * * *

Conclusione.

Vedremo al prossimo G20 cosa saprà fare Frau Merkel, ma la vediamo male, molto male, cosa che poi non spiace mica a molta gente.

Frau Merkel è isolata, e tutti sanno che è una perdente, anche se poi vincerà una cancelleria svuotata di reale potere.

Dubitiamo molto che Mr Putin si adoperi a suo favore.

Come prognostico si potrebbe suggerire che, come il G7 terminò come G1, anche il G20 terminerà allo stesso modo: G1 e G19.

                        


Kremlin. President of Russia. 2017-06-30. Telephone conversation with Federal Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel

At the initiative of the German side, Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with Federal Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany Angela Merkel.

June 30, 2017 19:30

In anticipation of the G20 Summit to be held in Hamburg on July 7–8, the leaders discussed the main items on the forum’s agenda. They also spoke about the Paris Agreement on climate change and issues of bilateral cooperation.

Pubblicato in: Geopolitica Mondiale, Senza categoria, Trump, Unione Europea

Trump visiterà la Polonia il sei luglio.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-06-14.

Poland- Warsaw. 001. jpg

La Polonia è uno stato più che millenario, riunitosi sotto la dinastia Piast, essendo re Mieszko. L’attuale bandiera è quella scelta nel 966 alla Rocca di Gniezno. Nel 1241 fu occupata dai Mongoli dell’Orda d’Oro: duro periodo di servaggio. Ma risorse, conquistandosi la libertà con tanto, ma tanto sudore e sangue, e sotto la Dinastia Jagellone divenne potenza continentale eruropea.

Nessuno potrà mai dimenticare la battaglia di Kahlenberg (Monte Calvo) del 12-13 settembre 1683: quarantaseimila polacchi combatterono contro 160,00 turki, li sbaragliarono e liberarono Vienna dal secondo assedio, salvando così l’Europa e la Cristianità. Re Jan Sobieski si conquistò il titolo di “Fondatore dell’Europa”.

Nel 1795 la Polonia scomparse dalle carte geografiche, ripartita tra Russia, Prussia ed Austria.

Ma nel 1918 lo stato Polacco fu nuovamente costituito. Venti anni di vita travagliata, e poi settanta anni di dominio comunista.

*

Difficile dire se altri popoli avrebbero avuto la forza e la coerenza di risorgere dopo triboli di codesta portata. Un popolo abbarbicato attorno alla propria religione ed alla propria tradizione religiosa, storica, culturale, militare e politica.

Gente che non si è spaventata di fronte ad un Hitler oppure ad uno Stalin, non si lascia certo intimorire da un Mr Macron oppure da una Frau Merkel.

* * * * * * *

«Trump’s visit offers the promise of raising the standing of the government of Prime Minister Beata Szydlo as it finds itself increasingly marginalized within the European Union over a refusal to resettle refugees and migrants and over judicial changes that the EU says weaken the rule of law»

*

«The White House said Friday that Trump will visit Poland on July 6 before he joins the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg, Germany»

*

«In Warsaw he can expect a much warmer reception than he will find the following day in Germany, with many world leaders dismayed by his decision to pull the United States out of the Paris climate deal»

*

«Poland’s conservative and nationalistic ruling party, Law and Justice, shares many of Trump’s beliefs, including opposition to Muslim immigrants, support for burning coal and skepticism of international bodies, including the EU, which they see eroding the sovereignty of nation states»

*

«Like Trump, Polish leaders speak of restoring national greatness»

* * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * *

«we Europeans must really take our fate into our own hands» [Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel – NYT]

*

«Make our planet great again» [Emmanuel Macron – Cnn]

*

«the Russian leader suggested that the Europeans had “bosses” in Washington whom they couldn’t disobey — not the right note to strike as Europe seeks to bolster its global role.» [Mr Putin – Bloomberg]

*

«Bisogna smetterla di parlare degli Stati Uniti d’Europa,  la gente non li vuole» [JC Juncker]

*

Questo è un consistente progresso diplomatico polacco. Sarà interessante vedere le contromosse dell’Unione Europea. Una è di oggi.

Migranti: dalla Ue via a sanzioni per Ungheria, Polonia e Repubblica Ceca

«La Commissione europea ha deciso di avviare la procedura di infrazione per Polonia, Ungheria e Repubblica Ceca per i mancati ricollocamenti dei profughi sbarcati sulle coste italiane e greche e ospitati nei centri di prima accoglienza dei due Paesi. Ad annunciare i provvedimenti è stato il commissario Ue agli affari interni, Dimitris Avramopoulos, nel presentare la relazione di giugno sullo stato di attuazione dell’Agenda europea sulla migrazione e facendo il punto sulla «relocation», che sostanzialmente significa la ripartizione tra tutti e 28 i Paesi dell’Unione dei migranti entrati nella Ue attraverso le frontiere esterne»


Bloomberg. 2017-06-12. Poland Hails Upcoming Trump Visit as a ‘Huge Success’

Warsaw, Poland (AP) — Polish officials are hailing an upcoming visit by Donald Trump, with Poland’s defense minister calling it a “huge success” for the government and another official celebrating the unexpectedness of a U.S. president stopping in Warsaw before Paris, London or Berlin.

Trump’s visit offers the promise of raising the standing of the government of Prime Minister Beata Szydlo as it finds itself increasingly marginalized within the European Union over a refusal to resettle refugees and migrants and over judicial changes that the EU says weaken the rule of law.

The White House said Friday that Trump will visit Poland on July 6 before he joins the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg, Germany. It said the visit to Poland — where the U.S. recently deployed hundreds of troops — is meant to reaffirm Washington’s “steadfast commitment to one of our closest European allies.”

Defense Minister Antoni Macierewicz said late Sunday that the upcoming visit is a “huge success of Polish diplomacy” and an “enormous event showing how much Poland’s place in geopolitics and world politics has changed” since his party, Law and Justice, took power in 2015.

Krzysztof Szczerski, chief of staff to President Andrzej Duda, said Polish officials had worked “many months” to persuade Trump to visit.

“At first … it seemed impossible that we would be able to convince the U.S. president that he should visit Poland before the biggest European countries,” Szczerski told the wPolityce web portal Sunday.

The visit will be part of Trump’s second international foray as president, after a tour last month of the Middle East and Europe that included stops in Saudi Arabia and Taormina, Sicily, for a Group of Seven meeting.

In Warsaw he can expect a much warmer reception than he will find the following day in Germany, with many world leaders dismayed by his decision to pull the United States out of the Paris climate deal.

Poland’s conservative and nationalistic ruling party, Law and Justice, shares many of Trump’s beliefs, including opposition to Muslim immigrants, support for burning coal and skepticism of international bodies, including the EU, which they see eroding the sovereignty of nation states. Like Trump, Polish leaders speak of restoring national greatness.

Where the two sides differ — and sharply — is on Russia, with Polish leaders deeply fearful and skeptical of Russia’s resurgence. The Polish ruling party leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski, who is widely considered more influential than the president or prime minister, accuses Russia of intentionally bringing down a plane in 2010 that killed his identical twin brother, President Lech Kaczynski. In a speech on Saturday he railed against what he called “Russian barbarity.”

Many Poles have worried about Trump’s past dismissiveness of NATO, though the current leaders have refrained from criticizing him publicly.

The visit to Poland will bring Trump to one of only four NATO members other than the U.S. that spends the required 2 percent of GDP on defense.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Geopolitica Mondiale, Trump, Unione Europea

Trump si opporrebbe ad una Unione Europea troppo forte.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-05-30.

Goya Francisco. Il gigante.

La notizia è riportata da due testate e, verosimilmente, una avrebbe ampliamente ripreso dall’altra.

Non abbiamo avuto moto di corroborare quanto riportato, ma, data la rilevanza di quanto scritto, proponiamo questa notizia senza commento alcuno.

*

«Trump’s reported pick for EU ambassador has warned France and Germany against plans to pursue a “United States of Europe” with a centralised budget, saying the US will fiercely oppose such a move»

*

«In a fiery speech Dr Ted Malloch insisted the creation of a Brussels superstate runs counter to American interests and will lead to a further deterioration in ties with Washington»

*

«Dr Malloch said the EU had “failed” and had to abandon its dreams of ever-closer union or collapse during a combative speech to the Open Europe think-tank in Brussels this afternoon»

*

«The Trump administration is steadily making it clear that the US is not interested in the old form of European integration»

*

«The US should therefore definitively encourage more trade with Europe and make firm its opposition to any kind of federal Europe by saying a definite no to what some signal as a future Euro government, single government all powerful centralised in Brussels»

* * * * * * *

No Comment.


Express. 2017-05-26. No superstate! Trump set to oppose ‘undemocratic’ EU leaders over centralised budget plans.

DONALD Trump’s reported pick for EU ambassador has warned France and Germany against plans to pursue a “United States of Europe” with a centralised budget, saying the US will fiercely oppose such a move.

*

In a fiery speech Dr Ted Malloch insisted the creation of a Brussels superstate runs counter to American interests and will lead to a further deterioration in ties with Washington. 

The Republican academic blasted the rest of Europe as “ungrateful” for the massive US support in rebuilding the continent after the war and said it was riven with “anti-Americanism”. 

But in contrast he heaped praise on Britain, which is leaving the club, saying it shared the strongest ties with America and would be front of the queue for a trade deal.

Dr Malloch said the EU had “failed” and had to abandon its dreams of ever-closer union or collapse during a combative speech to the Open Europe think-tank in Brussels this afternoon. 

New French president Emmanuel Macron is pushing for further integration of the eurozone including a centralised EU finance ministry and budget – a proposal which for the first time Germany is not openly opposing. 

But Dr Malloch, who has no official capacity but is close to the Trump administration, warned the US would fiercely defend its interests against any increased “protectionism” from Europe.

He blasted: “The failure, frankly, of the present European integration project I think is becoming more and more self apparent. 

“It’s something that Roosevelt or Churchill would have questioned and the EU has become some would argue more undemocratic, more bloated certainly by bureaucracy and more rampantly anti-American. 

“The Trump administration is steadily making it clear that the US is not interested in the old form of European integration.

“In fact I think it’s trying to in some ways encourage a reversal of its accelerating path towards a protectionist United States of Europe.” 

He raged: “This movement should be seen for what it is. It’s very harmful to US business interests, to US investment policy, to US security and it is categorised by over regulation, low growth, high unemployment, structural rigidity as its outcome. 

“These are not policies that the US prefers the more I travel around Europe they’re not things that the Europeans want either.” 

And in a warning shot to Mrs Merkel and Mr Macron he said the idea of a “euro government centralised in Brussels” was now detrimental to American’s economic and foreign policy interests. 

He said: “The US should therefore definitively encourage more trade with Europe and make firm its opposition to any kind of federal Europe by saying a definite no to what some signal as a future Euro government, single government all powerful centralised in Brussels.”  

Dr Malloch insisted Mr Trump wanted Europe “to succeed” and insisted the US did not want to see the bloc collapse, but also said Brexit had shown the project was “weak” and other countries could leave. 

In contrast he had extremely warm words for Britain following its decision to leave the club, which the academic said could lead to a new trans-Atlantic balance of power centred on the US and the UK. 

He said: “No one wants Europe to fail. No one wants it to collapse. I certainly don’t want it to disintegrate and I don’t think it will. 

“But we do know that the US and the UK, at least from a historical or political economy perspective, are different from Europe, have different notions of accountability. 

“Some of the European continent have different notions of accountability and democracy, so should the US continue to promote a European model that is under question, which is alien to our own traditions?” 

In a thumping attack on eurocrats, he blasted: “The cure to Europe’s calamities, I believe, is genuine democracy.

“Government by the people, not by unelected bureaucrats parading as experts. Members of the EU Commission are not elected – they are unaccountable to any parliament. 

“Such a globalist elite and its attendant superstructure is detached from the people and therefore entirely anti-European.” 

In his controversial speech Dr Malloch also accused mainland Europe of being “so ungrateful” for the US’ contribution to its redevelopment after the war and said that “anti-Americanism still abounds in Europe today”. 

He claimed that the EU Commission deliberately targets American companies with its trade policies to lock them out of the market and attacked the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for distorting world trade.

Asking why so many European leader dislike America, he said: “The answer is I think in part European resentment of American power. Anti-Americanism is not an abstract idea in Europe.

“I’ve seen it up close and personal, I’ve also seen it in its universities. It’s not confined to the leftist usual suspects, it influences much of European culture and policy making I hope it does not affect the future of the EU because that would be detrimental.” 

Dr Malloch concluded by insisting good relations between the US and Europe were still “essential” but said Mr Trump would look to deal on a bi-lateral basis with individual countries in future. 

The academic said a return to a community of nation states was the only way to save the bloc from extinction, but such a strategy is sure to be resisted first and foremost by Mrs Merkel. 

Referring to the idea of an “ethic for the nation state”, he advised: “This is where Europe should look for answers, not through a project of further integration but back to those nation states.

“The US interaction with Europe is changing and I think it will continue to be reevaluated and to evolve. It is very much a different world and one that Trump will help to forge.”


Your News Wire. 2017-05-26. President Trump Tells Merkel: There Will Be No EU Superstate

President Trump has warned German Chancellor Angela Merkel that he will not allow her to create an EU superstate – vowing to do everything in his power to prevent a “United States of Europe” from rising to power. 

*

Trump’s pick for EU ambassador, Dr Ted Malloch, was chosen to deliver the warning to France and Germany, telling them that the creation of a Brussels superstate runs counter to American interests.

Express.co.uk reports: The Republican academic blasted the rest of Europe as “ungrateful” for the massive US support in rebuilding the continent after the war and said it was riven with “anti-Americanism”.

But in contrast he heaped praise on Britain, which is leaving the club, saying it shared the strongest ties with America and would be front of the queue for a trade deal.

Dr Malloch said the EU had “failed” and had to abandon its dreams of ever-closer union or collapse during a combative speech to the Open Europe think-tank in Brussels this afternoon.

New French president Emmanuel Macron is pushing for further integration of the eurozone including a centralised EU finance ministry and budget – a proposal which for the first time Germany is not openly opposing.

But Dr Malloch, who has no official capacity but is close to the Trump administration, warned the US would fiercely defend its interests against any increased “protectionism” from Europe.

He blasted: “The failure, frankly, of the present European integration project I think is becoming more and more self apparent.

“It’s something that Roosevelt or Churchill would have questioned and the EU has become some would argue more undemocratic, more bloated certainly by bureaucracy and more rampantly anti-American.

“The Trump administration is steadily making it clear that the US is not interested in the old form of European integration.

“In fact I think it’s trying to in some ways encourage a reversal of its accelerating path towards a protectionist United States of Europe.”

He raged: “This movement should be seen for what it is. It’s very harmful to US business interests, to US investment policy, to US security and it is categorised by over regulation, low growth, high unemployment, structural rigidity as its outcome.

“These are not policies that the US prefers the more I travel around Europe they’re not things that the Europeans want either.”

And in a warning shot to Mrs Merkel and Mr Macron he said the idea of a “euro government centralised in Brussels” was now detrimental to American’s economic and foreign policy interests.

He said: “The US should therefore definitively encourage more trade with Europe and make firm its opposition to any kind of federal Europe by saying a definite no to what some signal as a future Euro government, single government all powerful centralised in Brussels.”

Dr Malloch insisted Mr Trump wanted Europe “to succeed” and insisted the US did not want to see the bloc collapse, but also said Brexit had shown the project was “weak” and other countries could leave.

In contrast he had extremely warm words for Britain following its decision to leave the club, which the academic said could lead to a new trans-Atlantic balance of power centred on the US and the UK.

He said: “No one wants Europe to fail. No one wants it to collapse. I certainly don’t want it to disintegrate and I don’t think it will.

“But we do know that the US and the UK, at least from a historical or political economy perspective, are different from Europe, have different notions of accountability.

“Some of the European continent have different notions of accountability and democracy, so should the US continue to promote a European model that is under question, which is alien to our own traditions?”

In a thumping attack on eurocrats, he blasted: “The cure to Europe’s calamities, I believe, is genuine democracy.

“Government by the people, not by unelected bureaucrats parading as experts. Members of the EU Commission are not elected – they are unaccountable to any parliament.

“Such a globalist elite and its attendant superstructure is detached from the people and therefore entirely anti-European.”

In his controversial speech Dr Malloch also accused mainland Europe of being “so ungrateful” for the US’ contribution to its redevelopment after the war and said that “anti-Americanism still abounds in Europe today”.

He claimed that the EU Commission deliberately targets American companies with its trade policies to lock them out of the market and attacked the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for distorting world trade.

Asking why so many European leader dislike America, he said: “The answer is I think in part European resentment of American power. Anti-Americanism is not an abstract idea in Europe.

“I’ve seen it up close and personal, I’ve also seen it in its universities. It’s not confined to the leftist usual suspects, it influences much of European culture and policy making I hope it does not affect the future of the EU because that would be detrimental.”

Dr Malloch concluded by insisting good relations between the US and Europe were still “essential” but said Mr Trump would look to deal on a bi-lateral basis with individual countries in future.

The academic said a return to a community of nation states was the only way to save the bloc from extinction, but such a strategy is sure to be resisted first and foremost by Mrs Merkel.

Referring to the idea of an “ethic for the nation state”, he advised: “This is where Europe should look for answers, not through a project of further integration but back to those nation states.

“The US interaction with Europe is changing and I think it will continue to be reevaluated and to evolve. It is very much a different world and one that Trump will help to forge.”

Pubblicato in: Geopolitica Mondiale, Sistemi Politici

Nazioni Unite. Gli Usa riducono il supporto economico.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-05-30.

1475-1541_(1491-1492)__Michelangelo__Centauromachia_001_

Sono in molti a domandarsi seriamente a cosa serva ancora tutta la costosissima organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite. Essa e le sue numerose agenzie.

Le Nazioni Unite furono fondate il 26 giugno 1945 sulle rovine della vecchia Società delle Nazioni, con lo scopo di favorire la soluzione pacifica delle controversie internazionali, mantenere la pace e promuovere il rispetto per i diritti umani. Più specificatamente:

«- mantenere la pace e la sicurezza internazionale;

– promuovere la soluzione delle controversie internazionali e risolvere pacificamente le situazioni che potrebbero portare a una rottura della pace;

– sviluppare le relazioni amichevoli tra le nazioni sulla base del rispetto del principio di uguaglianza tra gli Stati e l’autodeterminazione dei popoli mondiali

– promuovere la cooperazione economica e sociale

– promuovere il rispetto dei diritti umani e delle libertà fondamentali a vantaggio di tutti gli individui;

– promuovere il disarmo e la disciplina degli armamenti

– promuovere il rispetto per il diritto internazionale e incoraggiarne lo sviluppo progressivo e la sua codificazione» [Articolo 1 e 2 dello Statuto delle Nazioni Unite]

*

Al momento vi aderiscono 193 dei 196 stati riconosciuti internazionalmente.

Le Nazioni Unite si sono dotate di un impressionante numero di Enti, Agenzie, Istituiti dell’Assemblea Generale e succedanei vari.

Specificatamente:

    UNCTAD – Conferenza delle Nazioni Unite sul commercio e lo sviluppo (Ginevra, Svizzera)

    UNDP – Programma delle Nazioni Unite per lo sviluppo (New York, Stati Uniti d’America)

    UNIFEM – Fondo di sviluppo delle Nazioni Unite per le donne (New York, Stati Uniti d’America)

    UNV – Volontari delle Nazioni Unite (Bonn, Germania)

    UNEP – Programma delle Nazioni Unite per l’ambiente (Nairobi, Kenya)

    UNFPA – Fondo delle Nazioni Unite per la popolazione (New York, Stati Uniti d’America)

    UNHABITAT – Programma delle Nazioni Unite per gli insediamenti umani (Nairobi, Kenya)

    UNHCR – Alto commissariato delle Nazioni Unite per i rifugiati (Ginevra, Svizzera)

    UNHCHR – Alto commissariato delle Nazioni Unite per i diritti umani (Ginevra, Svizzera)

    UNICEF – Fondo delle Nazioni Unite per l’infanzia (New York, Stati Uniti d’America)

    UNODC – Ufficio delle Nazioni Unite per il controllo della droga e la prevenzione del crimine (Vienna, Austria)

    WFP – Programma alimentare mondiale (Roma, Italia)

    INSTRAW – Istituto internazionale delle Nazioni Unite per la ricerca e la formazione del progresso delle donne (Santo Domingo, Repubblica Dominicana)

    UNICRI – Istituto internazionale delle Nazioni Unite per la ricerca sul crimine e la giustizia (Torino, Italia)

    UNIDIR – Istituto di ricerca delle Nazioni Unite sul disarmo (Ginevra, Svizzera)

    UNITAR – Istituto delle Nazioni Unite per la formazione e la ricerca (Ginevra, Svizzera)

    UNRISSD – Istituto di ricerca delle Nazioni Unite per lo sviluppo sociale (Ginevra, Svizzera)

    UNHCO – Organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite per i problemi sanitari (New York, Stati Uniti d’America)

    UNSSC – Staff college del sistema delle Nazioni Unite (Torino, Italia)

    COPUOS – Commissione delle Nazioni Unite sull’uso pacifico dello spazio extra-atmosferico (New York, Stati Uniti d’America)

    UNAIDS – Programma delle Nazioni Unite per l’AIDS/HIV (Ginevra, Svizzera)

    UNOOSA – Ufficio delle Nazioni Unite per gli affari dello spazio extra-atmosferico (New York, Stati Uniti d’America)

    UNOPS – Ufficio delle Nazioni Unite per i servizi ed i progetti (New York, Stati Uniti d’America)

    UNU – Università delle Nazioni Unite (Tokyo, Giappone)

    UNCITRAL – Commissione delle Nazioni Unite per il diritto commerciale internazionale (New York, Stati Uniti d’America)

    ITCILO – Organizzazione Internazionale del Lavoro (Ginevra, Svizzera)

    UNRWA – Agenzia delle nazioni Unite per il soccorso e l’occupazione.

* * *

Poi sono stati istituiti gli Enti dipendenti dal Consiglio Economico e Sociale. Specificatamente:

    UNCCPCJ – Commissione per la prevenzione del crimine e la giustizia penale

    UNCHR – Commissione per i diritti umani sostituita nel 2006 dal Consiglio per i diritti umani non più sotto l’egida dell’ECOSOC

    UNCND – Commissione per le droghe narcotiche

    UNCPD – Commissione per la popolazione e lo sviluppo

    UNCSD – Commissione per lo sviluppo sociale (New York, Stati Uniti d’America)

    UNCSTD – Commissione per la scienza e la tecnologia per lo sviluppo (Ginevra, Svizzera)

    UNCSW – Commissione per lo stato della donna

    UNSD – Commissione statistica delle Nazioni Unite

    ECA – Commissione economica per l’Africa (Addis Abeba, Etiopia)

    ECE – Commissione economica per l’Europa (Ginevra, Svizzera)

    ECLAC – Commissione economica per l’America Latina e i Caraibi (Santiago, Cile)

    ESCAP – Commissione economica e sociale per l’Asia e il Pacifico (Bangkok, Thailandia)

    ESCWA – Commissione economica e sociale per l’Asia Occidentale (Beirut, Libano)

    FAO – Organizzazione per l’alimentazione e l’agricoltura (Roma, Italia)

    IBRD – Banca internazionale per la ricostruzione e lo sviluppo (Washington, Stati Uniti d’America)

    ICAO – Organizzazione internazionale dell’aviazione civile (Montreal, Canada)

    IFAD – Fondo internazionale per lo sviluppo agricolo (Roma, Italia)

    ILO – Organizzazione internazionale del lavoro (Ginevra, Svizzera)

    IMF – Fondo monetario internazionale (Washington, Stati Uniti d’America)

    IMO – Organizzazione marittima internazionale (Londra, Regno Unito)

    INCB – Organizzazione internazionale per il controllo degli stupefacenti (Vienna, Austria)

    ITU – Unione internazionale delle telecomunicazioni (Ginevra, Svizzera)

    UNESCO – Organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite per l’Educazione, la Scienza e la Cultura (Parigi, Francia)

    UNIDO – Organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite per lo sviluppo industriale (Vienna, Austria)

    UPU – Unione postale universale (Berna, Svizzera)

    WIPO – Organizzazione mondiale per la proprietà intellettuale (Ginevra, Svizzera)

    WHO – Organizzazione mondiale della sanità (Ginevra, Svizzera)

    WMO – Organizzazione meteorologica mondiale (Ginevra, Svizzera)

* * * * * * *

Il punto dolente delle nazioni Unite è il bilancio.

«In una conferenza stampa a New York, la Signora Kane ha dichiarato che finora solo 13 su 192 Stati Membri hanno saldato in pieno tutti i contributi dovuti. Si tratta cioè del bilancio ordinario delle Nazioni Unite, di quello per le operazioni di pace, per i Tribunali Criminali Internazionali per Ruanda e ex – Yugoslavia, e per il progetto di ristrutturazione del quartier generale.

I paesi che hanno saldato interamente sono: Australia, Azerbaijan, Canada, Repubblica Democratica del Congo, Danimarca, Germania, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Paesi Bassi, Singapore, Sudafrica, Svizzera e Tanzania. ….

Inoltre, il debito dell’Organizzazione verso i Paesi Membri che hanno contribuito militarmente e logisticamente alle operazioni di pace ammonterà a circa 430 miliardi di dollari» [Fonte]

* * * * * * *

È un’organizzazione elefantiasica, iper burocratizzata, cimitero degli elefanti per i politici trombati nei loro paesi ma graditi su scala internazionale. Inoltre, 430 miliardi di debiti non sono cosa da poco.

Nel converso, ben poco è riuscita a fare per mantenere la pace: qualche editto che ha ricordato le grida di manzoniana memoria, e qualche raro intervento dispiegando forze internazionali a mo’ di cuscinetto tra diversi contendenti.

Negli ultimi decenni ha subito il fascino dei liberals democratici americani, assumendone le posizioni, e subordinando quindi gli aiuti alla loro accettazione.

«The budget for the US fiscal year, which starts on October 1, was released earlier this week. It proposed cutting about 33 percent from US diplomacy and aid budgets or nearly $19 billion (17 billion euros).»

*

«Trump budget would make UN peacekeeping ‘simply impossible’. The proposed cuts would reduce the UN peacekeeping budget by more than $1 billion USD. The US currently pays for more than one-fourth of the UN peacekeeping budget»

*

«From where we stand, looking at the budget as it is proposed now would make it simply impossible for the UN to continue its work advancing peace, development, human rights and humanitarian assistance around the world»

Frase questa che titilla i padiglioni auricolari degli sprovvidi, perché la realtà è decisamente differente.

«Some of the peacekeeping missions have been severely criticized. The mission in Haiti was accused of not doing enough to stop the spread of cholera following the devastating earthquake in 2010, and some of the peacekeepers allegedly ran a sex ring.»

In parole povere, le operazioni di peacekeeping sono trasferte per ludi sessuali, quasi invariabilmente perversi. Non si troverebbe un buon motivo perché mai dovrebbero essere finanziate con fondi internazionali.

*

Solo per esempio, riportiamo alcuni titoli sulla Fao.

Spiegel. 2016-06-28. Fudging the Numbers: Is UN Hunger and Poverty Data Reliable?

Fao. 2016-06-28. Food security methodology

World Humanitarian Summit. Disertato da tutti.

Su di un budget che supera i 12 miliardi tra dotazione e sussidi, ne spende 10 tra stipendi ed organizzazione e circa 500 milioni in cibo da distribuire esclusivamente a quanti abbiano adottato i principi liberals: dall’aborto e controllo delle nascite, all’accettazione e legalizzazione dei differentemente senzienti. Il fatto che ci sia gente che ha fame è semplicemente non preso in considerazione. Il cibo è visto esclusivamente come arma di dominio.



Deutsche Welle. 2017-05-25. UN’s Guterres: Trump budget would make UN peacekeeping ‘simply impossible’

The proposed cuts would reduce the UN peacekeeping budget by more than $1 billion USD. The US currently pays for more than one-fourth of the UN peacekeeping budget.

*

A spokesman for United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the proposed US budget cuts to the UN would make it “simply impossible” for the international organization to continue humanitarian work.

“From where we stand, looking at the budget as it is proposed now would make it simply impossible for the UN to continue its work advancing peace, development, human rights and humanitarian assistance around the world,” said spokesman Stephane Dujarric.

The US is the largest contributor to the UN’s budget, supplying 25 percent of the UN’s $5.4 billion regular operating budget and 28.5 percent of its separate $7.8 billion peacekeeping budget. US President Donald Trump wants to cap the US peacekeeping contribution at 25 percent.

The budget for the US fiscal year, which starts on October 1, was released earlier this week. It proposed cutting about 33 percent from US diplomacy and aid budgets or nearly $19 billion (17 billion euros). It stated the US would cut funding for UN peacekeeping by about $1 billion or 50 percent. The US would also decrease its contributions to other international organizations, including the UN’s children’s agency UNICEF and the UN population agency UNFPA.

Reforming the UN

US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said in a statement Tuesday that the US budget “reflected the reality that resources are not unlimited.” Haley, as well as Trump, have pushed for reforming the UN, particularly its 16 peacekeeping operations.

The spokesman for Secretary-General Guterres said that he “has been very vocal on the need to reform and is engaged – and is committed and will continue to work on reform ensuring the UN…delivers what it is meant to deliver.”

The $7.8 billion peacekeeping budget covers the 16 missions, a regional center, logistics base and deployment of over 113,000 personnel. Three of those missions (Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, and Darfur, Sudan) cost more than $1 billion each. The UN will soon suspend three of those missions, which take place in Haiti, Ivory Coast and Liberia.

Atul Khare, the UN undersecretary-general for peacekeeping support, said that when adjusting for inflation, “the cost of UN peacekeeping to member states today is 17 percent lower in 2016-17 than it was in 2008-9 when measured as cost per capita of deployed uniformed personnel.”

Some of the peacekeeping missions have been severely criticized. The mission in Haiti was accused of not doing enough to stop the spread of cholera following the devastating earthquake in 2010, and some of the peacekeepers allegedly ran a sex ring.

Pubblicato in: Geopolitica Mondiale, Giustizia

Occidente. Una contraddizione che sta arrivando al pettine.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-05-29.

Abelardo - Sic et Non

L’Occidente è inquieto.

Da una parte avverte, sia pure in modo oramai indistinto, il proprio retaggio religioso, storico, culturale e sociale, da altra parte invece la sua élite ha abbracciato in toto il relativismo etico e giuridico, con tutte le sue conseguenze.

Il discrimine, da un punto di vista di ragionamento teorico, è l’uso o meno, la validità o meno del principio di non-contraddizione.

Il principio di non-contraddizione afferma la falsità di ogni proposizione implicante che una certa proposizione A e la sua negazione, cioè la proposizione non-A, siano entrambe vere allo stesso tempo e nello stesso modo. Secondo le parole di Aristotele:

«È impossibile che il medesimo attributo, nel medesimo tempo, appartenga e non appartenga al medesimo oggetto e sotto il medesimo riguardo» [Aristotele]

Questo principio è legge logica universale: su di esso si basa tutto il fantastico progresso scientifico, massimamente quello matematico. Senza principio di non-contraddizione sarebbero impossibili le dimostrazioni dei teoremi.

Ma, ci si pensi su. Dal momento in cui il mondo reale è descrivibile in termini matematici, ne consegue che anche il mondo reale soggiace a tale principio: anche la natura è per sua natura non contraddittoria.

Abbandonare il principio di non-contraddizione porta inevitabilmente alla incapacità decisionale: non esiste il metodo di riferimento. Sarebbe impossibile stabilire cosa sia o non sia vero, cosa sia o non sia falso. Nulla sarebbe conoscibile.

Questo è il motivo per cui Hegel, e quindi i suoi succedanei, rinnegarono il principio di non-contraddizione, almeno nei ragionamenti filosofici. Questo è il motivo per cui i liberals americani ed i socialisti ideologici europei negano il principio di non-contraddizione. Le conseguenze sono infatti quelle che stiamo vivendo.

*

Le conseguenze sono totalizzanti.

Se si fosse impossibilitati si stabilire cosa sia vero e cosa sia falso, alla fine prevarrebbe esclusivamente la forza del potere: è vero ciò che il potere afferma essere vero.

Posizione questa di estremo vantaggio, sotto la condizione di essere al potere, ovviamente: e l’élite che ora continua a dominare l’Occidente ben si sente radicata nel potere, quello che i sassoni denominano “the power that be“.

Cambiata l’élite dominante, cambiate le verità. Le corti di giustizia non applicheranno certo la legge, ma la interpreteranno secondo il volere del potente di turno. I governi legifereranno in materia etica e morale, imponendo per legge e norma positiva ciò che avrebbe dovuto essere materia di logica sequenziale.

Un governo può ben legiferare che due più due renda sette. Ma in un domani un altro governo potrebbe rendere illegale ciò che oggi è considerato santo ed ottimo.

* * * * * * *

Ma il giocattolo si è rotto.

Provatevi a progettare e costruire un ponte usando una matematica in cui due più due possa indifferentemente rendere tre oppure cinque: poi non passateci sopra. Il crollo è assicurato.

Se negli anni sessanta l’Occidente rendeva conto di oltre il 90% del pil mondiale, ora come ora supera a stento il 45%, ed è in fase di declino. E tutti lo sanno tranne che gli occidentali.

Chi governa l’Occidente governa sul 45% del sistema economico mondiale, ed in tempi brevi la sua capacità sarà ulteriormente ridotta. Inoltre la popolazione occidentale autoctona rende conto di solo un sesto di quella mondiale, ed è in continua contrazione demografica.

L’Occidente si deve confrontare sia con i rigurgiti logici al propri interno, non tutti gli occidentali si sono rassegnati a scomparire dalla faccia della terra, ma anche con tutti gli altri paesi del mondo. È un confronto non più a lungo procrastinabile.

E gli altri paesi del mondo o rifiutano il relativismo etico occidentale ovvero gli oppongono il proprio: sistemi antitetici.

E se le élite occidentali sembrerebbero essere stupite che qualcuno la possa pensare in modo differente da loro, nel contempo non hanno nessun mezzo coercitivo per imporre la loro visione di vita, la loro Weltanschauung.

La contraddizione diventa allora evidente.

L’etica e la morale propugnata dall’élite occidentale trova albergo presso meno di un sesto della popolazione mondiale.

L’esempio specifico riportato negli allegati è un esempio paramount, di quanto i non-occidentali differiscano dagli Occidentali. Ciò che in Occidente dischiude tutte le porte politiche ed economiche altrove conduce al carcere, se non anche alla pena di morte.

E qui emerge una nuova e ben più severa contraddizione.

Un aspetto dapprima tedioso e quindi patetico è la certezza ideologica che tutti debbano convertirsi al credo oggi vigente in Occidente, alla sua Weltanschauung. Gli immigrati islamici dovrebbero integrarsi con l’Occidente, ossia trasformarsi a pensare e credere come se fossero occidentali.

Ma la verità che sta emergendo è del tutto opposta: alla fine saranno i residui delle popolazioni occidentali ad doversi integrare in altri sistemi culturali.

Diamo dieci anni di tempo.

Ciò che ora è osannato e santificato in Occidente, entro tale termine sarà ritornato ad essere ciò che era ed è: un fatto penalmente rilevante. Si faccia attenzione: qui non si tratta di un problema religioso, peraltro esistente, bensì di un mero aspetto giuridico.

Se in Occidente, almeno al momento, essere gay è un passaporto verso denaro e potere, in quasi tutti i paesi non – occidentali esso è reato penalmente rilevante. Prevalendo essi, prevarrà anche il loro modo di concepire il corpo giuridico.

Così come sono messe le cose, il destino degli lgbt è condizionato solo dal potere in essere che li difende, tutela ed incoraggia, e non è affatto detto che questo potere attuale in Occidente sia eterno.

Poi, ma chi si credono di essere gli Lgbt?

«Tra i fermati molti stranieri. Dieci di loro accusati di aver violato le leggi anti-pornografia per cui sono previsti fino a 10 anni di reclusione».

Questo è il tratto irritante di quella genia: la ferrea volontà di prevaricazione. Se ne stiano a casa loro, fino a tanto che lì siano tollerati.


Deutsche Welle. 2017-05-17. Court in Indonesia sentences gay men to 85 cane strokes

An Islamic court in the conservative Indonesian province of Aceh has sentenced two gay men to a public caning. The ruling, a first for the province, was delivered on International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.

*

Two Indonesian men were sentenced by an Islamic Shariah court on Wednesday to receive 85 strokes each in a public caning for having sex with each other.

The lead judge, Khairil Jamal, said the 20 and 23-year old men were “legally and convincingly proven to have committed gay sex.”

Wednesday’s verdict was the first time the punishment had been handed down since Aceh province since a local law banning gay sex came into force in 2015. Anyone caught engaging in consensual gay sex could receive up to 100 lashes, 100 months in jail or a fine of 1,000 grams of gold.

The three-judge panel said it decided against imposing the maximum sentence of 100 lashes because the men had cooperated with authorities and had no prior convictions.

Still, the court’s ruling was still more severe than the 80 lashes requested by the prosecutor. The men, who represented themselves in court and said they would not appeal the ruling, are expected to be caned next week.

Gay sex is only banned in Aceh province and is not illegal anywhere else in Indonesia, which has the world’s largest Muslim population.

Rights groups decry sentence

International rights groups decried the sentence, which was also handed down on International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.

“This is barbaric – this is another low point for Aceh, and also for Indonesia,” said Andreas Harsono, Indonesia researcher for Human Rights Watch.

Human Rights Watch had previously called on Indonesia to release the men and described their treatment as abusive and humiliating. The group also said that a public caning would constitute torture under international law.

The two men were arrested in late March after vigilantes burst into the boarding house where the couple were staying in the provincial capital Banda Aceh.

Cell phone footage of the arrest that circulated online showed the vigilantes slapping, kicking and insulting the men, with one of them slumped naked on the ground.

Aceh is the only province in Muslim-majority Indonesia that is allowed to practice Shariah law as part of a concession made by the government in 2006 to end a war with separatists.

Indonesia’s moderate reputation has been damaged in the past year due a surge in persecution of members in the LGBT community and attacks on religious minorities.

Earlier this month, the outgoing governor of Jakarta, a minority Christian, was sentenced to two years in prison for making comments during his re-election campaign that were deemed as blaspheming the Quran.


Deutsche Welle. 2017-04-08. Two men may get 100 lashes after gay sex in Indonesia

Two men may be in line for up to 100 lashes of the cane after being caught having sex in Indonesia’s Shariah-ruled province of Aceh. The province is the only one allowed to impose Shariah after a change in the law.

*

If found guilty, two men from the Indonesian province of Aceh who were discovered having sex together will be the first to be caned for gay sex under a new code implemented two years ago, Marzuki, the Shariah police’s chief investigator, said on Saturday.

“Based on our investigation, testimony of witnesses and evidence, we can prove that they violated Islamic Shariah law and we can take them to court,” said Marzuki, who goes by a single name.

The new code allows up to 100 lashes for morality offenses including gay sex, adultery, gambling, drinking alcohol, the wearing of tight clothes by women and skipping Friday prayers in the case of men.

Homosexuality is not illegal in Indonesia, but a judicial review being considered by the Constitutional Court is seeking to criminalize sex outside marriage and sex between people of the same gender.

Civilian vigilantism

Residents caught the men having sex on March 28 in a rented room in the provincial capital Banda Aceh, an official at the provincial public order department told the German press agency DPA. 

The men – aged 23 and 20 – were reported to the police on March 29, Marzuki said. He added that the men had “confessed” to “being a gay couple.” This was supported, he said, by video footage taken by a resident showing one of the men naked and distressed as he calls for help on his cellphone. The second man is repeatedly pushed by another man who is preventing the couple from leaving the room.

Under the code, sex out of wedlock is punishable by up to 100 strokes of the cane. An earlier version of the code did not regulate punishment for gay sex. 

Jakarta signed a peace agreement with Aceh separatist rebels in 2005, ending decades of conflict that killed more than 15,000 people.


Deutsche Welle. 2016-08-11. A call to ban gay sex in Indonesia echoes official hostility to LGBT rights: HRW

The petition by Islamic activists comes after months of government-dealt setbacks for members of Indonesia’s LGBT community. “They are scared, but they are not retreating,” HRW researcher Kyle Knight tells DW.

*

Indonesia’s Constitutional Court is considering a petition brought forward by a group of Islamic activists seeking to amend the country’s criminal code to make gay sex a crime punishable with a prison sentence.

To get a closer look at the case, DW spoke with Kyle Knight, an LGBT researcher with Human Rights Watch (HRW) and author of an 88-page report released today, “These Political Games Ruin Our Lives: Indonesia’s LGBT Community Under Threat.”

Knight told DW that, while the effort is being spearheaded by just a few “bigoted” experts with a “twisted worldview,” they aren’t alone in their anti-LGBT declarations. Indonesia’s Child Protection Commission has recently denounced LGBT awareness efforts as “propaganda,” while the Indonesian Psychiatric Association has labeled homosexuality a “social deviation.” President Joko Widodo has meanwhile remained silent.

It’s a desperate situation for LGBT activists, whose “decades-long fight for fundamental rights” has “unraveled in a matter of months,” Knight said.

DW: Why is Indonesia’s Constitutional Court considering making gay sex a crime?

Kyle Knight: A dozen professors claiming expertise in sexuality issues have petitioned the court to amend Indonesia’s criminal code, which currently allows for a five-year prison sentence for sex between an adult and a minor of the same sex. The petitioners are asking for the words “adults” and “minors” to be replaced with “people,” while keeping the punishment the same.

One plaintiff told the court that she was not interested in putting LGBT people in prison, just in enforcing social norms to counter “propaganda” put out by LGBT human rights activists. These are subjective, bigoted moral views that reflect more the twisted worldview of a few self-proclaimed “experts” than what Indonesian law should be saying about its citizens’ sexual lives.

How does the Indonesian government view this effort?

Historically, LGBT people in Indonesia have lived amid a tense calm. General social pluralism meant that many individuals could live their lives without experiencing outright violence or discrimination. For many, discretion purchased this safety – keeping your sexual orientation or gender identity private meant you were generally left alone. But at the same time, activist gatherings of LGBT people would come under attack by militant Islamist groups.

Disturbingly, the government has time and again demonstrated that it was unwilling to stand up for LGBT people when they were attacked. Security forces and local officials operated in a way that suggested their tacit approval for the harassment, intimidation, and attack of LGBT activists. National officials remained silent. In early 2016, all that has changed. As we document in our report released today, government officials took an active role in slurring LGBT people and proposing legislative changes that would criminalize not only same-sex sexual behavior but also LGBT human rights activism.

Is it likely that the attempt to criminalize gay sex will succeed?

I have no idea, as it’s a court process. The court should uphold Indonesia’s international human rights obligations.

How do you assess the current situation of the LGBT community in Indonesia?

From January to April, Indonesian officials launched an unprecedented cacophony of anti-LGBT vitriol. Over time, the government campaign grew beyond hateful rhetoric to discriminatory edicts, and the use of force to repress peaceful assembly. Officials’ biased and untrue statements about LGBT people provided social sanction for harassment and violence against sexual and gender minority Indonesians, and even death threats by militant Islamists. State institutions, including the National Broadcasting Commission and the National Child Protection Commission, betrayed their mandates to uphold equal rights when they issued censorship directives about LGBT topics.

When the moral panic subsided over the summer, activists picked up the pieces of their decades-long fight for fundamental rights that had unraveled in a matter of months. One thing remained consistent from the crisis period to the calm: President Jokowi’s troubling silence.

The resurgence of the issue in the Constitutional Court case shows that still waters run deep. The court has already heard from psychiatrists who said homosexuality is a form of “social deviation” that can be “cured” by psychiatric treatment, echoing the Indonesian Psychiatric Association’s vitriolic stance taken in February, which was widely condemned by international psychiatric bodies. Asrorun Ni’am Sholeh, whose Child Protection Commission office dangerously construed information about LGBT lives as “propaganda” in February, is slated to testify at a hearing later this month.

Between January and April, I interviewed dozens of LGBT Indonesians about how the onslaught of anti-LGBT rhetoric was deteriorating their security and ruining their lives. They are scared, but they are not retreating. The government shouldn’t either. The time for leadership for an inclusive Indonesia is now.

How would the criminalization of gay sex affect Indonesians?

Criminalizing same-sex sexual behavior, as some 76 countries still do, has widespread negative impacts on LGBT people as well as everyone else. When governments want to pry into the private lives of their citizens – all the way into the bedroom – it’s bad news for everyone. Indonesia has never criminalized homosexuality at a national level, and this is something the government should be proud of and see as the starting point for protecting all of its citizens equally before the law.

Introducing criminal sanctions on same-sex behavior will also have dramatic effects on Indonesia’s international reputation, in both the eyes of other governments around the world and investors who want to be able to do business in the country, moving employees there while promoting their companies’ values openly.

What measures should be taken to win back LGBT rights in the country?

The first steps the government should take would be to pick up the pieces from the meltdown that occurred earlier this year. Government officials and politicians drove the campaign of anti-LGBT hate, so the government needs to take a leadership role in restoring it. First, all of the official anti-LGBT decrees should be immediately revoked. Then the government should make it clear that its ongoing drive to revoke so-called problematic local by-laws include the dozens that discriminate against LGBT people. These two steps will signal to LGBT people that the government sees them as equal citizens of Indonesia. Our report offers detailed recommendations for further improvements.


Rai News. 2017-05-22. Indonesia, raid della polizia a festa gay: arrestate 141 persone.

Tra i fermati molti stranieri. Dieci di loro accusati di aver violato le leggi anti-pornografia per cui sono previsti fino a 10 anni di reclusione. Preoccupa l’avanzata di un Islam più conservatore.

*

Nonostante in Indonesia le relazioni omosessuali non costituiscano reato, 141 uomini, tra cui molti stranieri, sono stati arrestati ieri in una sauna a Giacarta. Stando a quanto riferito dal portavoce della polizia locale, Argo Yuwono, gli arrestati stavano prendendo parte ad una festa a sfondo sessuale chiamata The wild one (Il selvaggio). Per gli inquirenti, l’evento rientrava in un giro di prostituzione organizzato dalla sauna con palestra. Per dieci dei 141 fermati (il titolare del centro, spogliarellisti, membri dello staff e due clienti sorpresi durante un rapporto orale), l’accusa sarà di aver violato le leggi anti-pornografia, per cui è prevista la reclusione fino a 10 anni. I precedenti La crescente intolleranza delle autorità indonesiane nei confronti degli omosessuali è confermata non solo da questo episodio, ma anche da alcuni precedenti. Ad aprile, a Surabaya, seconda città del Paese, erano state arrestate 14 persone a seguito di un raid in un altro presunto festino sessuale. La settimana scorsa, invece, nella provincia di Aceh (l’unica in cui vige la shari’a), due giovani gay sono stati condannati a 85 fustigate dopo che alcuni vigilantes di quartiere li avevano colti in intimità nel loro appartamento. L’omofobia nel mondo Questo ennesimo episodio ci restituisce una fotografia sconcertante della situazione dei diritti LGBT in Indonesia e invita a riflettere anche sulla situazione dell’omofobia nel mondo. Da alcune mappe realizzate dall’ILGA (International Lesbian Gay Bisexual Trans and Intersex Association), oggi si rischia la pena di morte in 8 Stati e il carcere in 72 Paesi (in 14 di questi addirittura l’ergastolo). L’omosessualità maschile è meno tollerata: in 45 Paesi sono vietate le relazioni tra donne, rispetto ai 72 per i rapporti tra uomini. La strada è ancora lunga ed è un errore pensare che non ci sia più bisogno di combattere l’omofobia.

Pubblicato in: Cina, Economia e Produzione Industriale, Geopolitica Militare, Geopolitica Mondiale

Cina. C919 ed An-225. Si sviluppa l’industria aeronautica cinese.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-05-21.

c919-rollout-web

Dalla Cina sono arrivate due importanti novità circa la loro aeronautica: sono due notizie strategiche.

La prima novità consiste nel fatto che il 5 maggio ha fatto il suo volo inaugurale il C919, il primo aereo di linea di intera progettazione e costruzione cinese. Il C919 è un bireattore con autonomia di 5,500 kilometri, velocità di crociera 828 km/h, 168 passeggeri nella sua versione base. È stato progettato principalmente per soddisfare le necessità interne, ma nulla vieta il pensare anche al mercato globale.

Questo aereo segna l’ingresso della Cina nel ristretto novero dei produttori di aerei di linea. Se tutto dovesse andare come da programma, il C919 potrebbe conquistarsi dapprima il mercato cinese interno, quindi essere un temibile competitore sul mercato internazionale. Uno dei suoi punti di forza sarebbe il costo più che dimezzato rispetto agli aviogetti concorrenti, consumi nettamente inferiori alla norma attuale, riferita scarsa necessità di manutenzione.

È il primo grande aereo di linea, come detto, costruito in Cina: ma i programmi cinesi si articolano ampiamente nel tempo, fino a coprire l’intera gamma. È prevista anche una versione di tipo militare.

La seconda novità lascia sconcertati. La Cina ha rilevato i progetti relativi all’An-124 ed all’An-225. Sono aerei da trasporti di progettazione e costruzione russa. Il primo è un quadrimotore turboventola per il trasporto strategico che volando alla velocità di crociera di 850 km/h può trasportare 150 tonnellate per circa 5,000 kilometri. Il secondo è un esamotore turbofan che ad una velocità di crociera i 860 km/h può trasportare 250 tonnellate di materiali per 15,000 kilometri.

«In 2016, the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AICC), a Chinese state-owned aerospace and defense company, signed a cooperation agreement with Antonov for the An-225 program. If it goes through as planned, the skies could soon be flooded by a fleet of Chinese built An-225s.»

*

«This aircraft, when modernised, could give China a heavy lift capability that surpasses any other nation in the world – perhaps even greater than that of the US military.

According to Zhang, the An-225 would be the centrepiece of a hyper ambitious plan to add 1,000 heavy lift aircraft over the next 10 years.

Heavy lift is not the only capability they’re after though.»

* * * * * * *

I piani dei cinesi hanno sempre quel che di grandioso che solo la visione strategica di lungo termine conferisce all’operato umano.

Punto primo.

Forse è questo il cuore della notizia riportata, che propone un aspetto di fondo della concezione di governo dei popoli.

In Occidente, è stato lungamente dibattuto il bilanciamento tra la necessità di rinnovare la dirigenza governativa e la durata dell’incarico conferito dal suffragio elettorale. Se un incarico di breve durata consente un più rapido turnover al governo, un incarico più lungo corre il serio rischio di conferire troppo potere ai governanti. Il caso francese è da manuale: inizialmente la presidenza aveva durata settennale, rinnovabile. Quindi abbassarono la durata dell’incarico governativo a cinque anni.

Sta di fatto che anche un incarico settennale non consente di impostare piani strategici, l’arco temporale dei quali è ben oltre il decennio. Questo è un severo handicap dei sistemi elettorali occidentali.

Punto secondo.

Nessun governo di nuova nomina può esercitare agevolmente il proprio mandato senza un concomitante sistema di spoils system. Gli stati moderni sono altamente complessi e sarebbe ingenuo pensar che un nuovo eletto possa conoscerne l’intimo funzionamento se non dopo un certo quale lasso di tempo. Non solo: da molti punti di vista la vera struttura portante dello stato è il suo corpo burocratico. Ma sarebbe altrettanto ingenuo ritenere che il solo rinnovo a livello governativo senza un concomitante rinnovo dei burocrati possa consentire un corretto funzionamento.  Da queto punto di vista meramente funzionale, sarebbe utile che gli stati occidentali si dotassero di un efficiente sistema di spoils system,sulla falsariga di quello americano. Un apparato burocratico ostile e, sopratutto, nominato a vita, è il miglior antidoto possibile ad ogni iniziativa strategica: la burocrazia è per definizione un forza statica, non dinamica.

Punto terzo.

Il sistema politico e burocratico cinese ha sicuramente lati negativi e positivi: sicuramente è alieno all’attuale mentalità europea. Gode però della caratteristica di essere efficiente. Questo è un aspetto che un giorno o l’altro anche gli occidentali dovranno ben affrontare. Se sono importanti i principi fondamentali, altrettanto importante è costruire un sistema funzionante: un sistema inefficiente rinnega nei fatti i principi ai quali è improntato. In Cina virtualmente sono assenti le elezioni politiche: il vero agone politico è all’interno del partito comunista cinese, una sorta di scuola mandarnica adattata alla necessità dei tempi. Scuola durissima e severamente meritocratica, che nulla cede alla emotività mediatica.

Punto quarto.

L’aspetto militare non dovrebbe essere sottovalutato. La Cina non dispone al momento di aerei militari da trasporto progettati e costruiti in Cina. È evidente che i militari cinesi stiano cercando di risolvere questa grave mancanza, e la versione militare del C919 potrebbe già dare una ragionevole risposta per i problemi locoregionali. Tuttavia, sembrerebbe essere di maggiore interesse l’attenzione posta al progetto An-124 ed a quello An-225. Questi sono aerei da trasporto strategico, di progettazione e costruzione particolarmente complessa e costosa. Un solo esemplare arriva a costare oltre i cento milioni. Sembrerebbe essere irragionevole imbarcarsi in un simile progetto se non in vista di un allargamento dei propri interessi strategici militare a tutto il mondo. E questa sarebbe una mutazione di estremo interesse mondiale. Forse, all’interno di tutte le notizie sull’argomento, questa sembrerebbe essere la principale.

Punto Quinto.

L’intero Occidente è drammaticamente privo di progetti strategici: sembrerebbe essere diventato incapace di guardare il futuro per dominarlo. Nutre una filosofia di vita immanente, che sembrerebbe vivere solo l’attimo fuggente. Celebra i fasti di un welfare state insostenibile, attanagliato tra l’obbligo a mantenere gli impegni assunti e l’impossibilità di garantirne di equivalenti alle nuove generazioni. A ciò si aggiunga l’oneroso peso di debiti sovrani eccessivi e bilanci squilibrati vero il mantenimento del welfare state: gli stati occidentali hanno severe difficoltà a sostenere economicamente progetti strategici di largo respiro.

Ma senza progetti strategici proiettati nel futuro si inaridiscono anche quelli attuali arrivati a maturità. Questo citato è esempio da manuale. La Comac sottrarrà sicuramente mercato sia ad Airbus sia a Boeing, e molto verosimilmente potrebbe anche soppiantarle in un futuro nemmeno poi troppo lontano.

Significativo il titolo di Cinaforum:

Primo volo per il C919, decolla la sfida cinese a Boeing e Airbus.


Cnn. 2017-05-05. China’s 1st big passenger jet completes maiden flight

China’s first large jetliner has successfully completed its maiden flight, a key moment in the country’s push to challenge the U.S. and Europe as a global manufacturer.

*

The C919, China’s first domestically designed and built large airliner, took off Friday afternoon from Shanghai Pudong International Airport into hazy skies with a five-person crew aboard. The jet landed one hour and 19 minutes later after a seemingly uneventful first trial.

With the flight, China joins the ranks of the few nations that have developed homegrown large airliners: the U.S., Russia, Brazil, Canada, the U.K., France and Germany.

Made by the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (Comac), the 168-seat C919 is roughly the same size as Airbus’s A320 and Boeing’s 737-800, which are the most popular airliners in the world.

The C919’s maiden flight was watched by people around the globe, including at least 2 million on Chinese microblogging platform Weibo.

Comac also offered an unprecedented look inside the maiden flight of a new airliner. The company streamed live images from the jet’s cockpit looking over the shoulder of its test pilots as they performed gentle maneuvers off the coast. Neither Boeing nor Airbus has ever provided a live view of the cockpit on a first flight.

The Chinese jet’s first flight is the biggest and most visible milestone in its development. But it still has a long way to go before it’s carrying passengers and competing with its U.S. and European competitors.

The start of aerial testing kicks off months or years of grueling certification tests, and meeting safety standards might require design changes. Comac will also need to win the trust of airlines in China and elsewhere by proving the jet can operate efficiently and reliably on scheduled flights.

However, the milestone marks another key achievement for China on its ascent to challenging the west and cultivating its aerospace ambitions. The country is already an adept designer of military aircraft, but has sought to catch up to Boeing in the U.S. and Airbus in Europe in manufacturing civilian airliners.

So far it’s been slow-going. The country’s state-owned airlines first signed up to buy the jet in 2010, and it was originally supposed to enter service in 2016. The prototype wasn’t unveiled until November 2015, and the project has been beset by technical delays as China learns the ropes of airliner development.

Comac, a state-run enterprise, has partnered with western suppliers for nearly all the jet’s major systems to share technology and learn how to mass produce an airliner.

The C919’s main customers will be China’s domestic airlines. China Eastern Airlines will be the first carrier to operate the C919 when it completes testing and secures approval from China’s aviation regulator.

China is on track to surpass the U.S. by 2030 as the world’s largest commercial aviation market. Chinese airlines are buying hundreds of Boeing and Airbus jets to grow their fleets.

Boeing estimates that the country will need a trillion dollars worth of new airplanes over the next two decades, including more than 5,100 of the same size as the C919.


Bbc. 2017-05-05. The world’s biggest plane may have a new mission.

Tucked away in a small section of a Soviet era air base on the outskirts of Kiev is the flagship aircraft of the legendary Antonov design bureau. A one-off masterpiece of engineering designed and built during the 1980s in the waning days of the USSR.

The aircraft, designated the An-225, is the biggest to ever grace the Earth. It’s so large that the length of its cargo hold is longer than the Wright brothers’ first flight, from take-off to landing.

Now 30 years old, and recently upgraded to give it another 20 years’ service, the plane rarely takes to the skies anymore. Instead, it sits stagnant under an enormous steel arch. However, a crew of dedicated Antonov employees still periodically tend to the An-225. Its sporadic use has nothing to do with its age. It’s grounded because there is simply little demand for its highly specialised and relatively costly service. Although the plane, nicknamed ‘Mriya’ (‘Dream’) in Ukrainian, is in fine condition, there are very few jobs that call for something so large . And the jobs need to be urgent; if you want to use the An-225 it will cost around $30,000 (£23,220) an hour.

In 2016, it spent just three months traversing the globe on two lengthy deployments. The remainder of the time, it sat here at the Gostomel airport, once a top-secret flight testing airfield for Antonov.

Originally built as a transport for the Soviet Union’s Buran space shuttle, the An-225 was forced to find new purpose as a cargo carrier after the USSR collapsed, says Alexander Galunenko, the first man to fly the plane.

“When the USSR collapsed, the programme was shut down and the financing was closed as the need for this plane vanished,” says Galunenko. He first flew the An-225 on 21 December 1988, after over a decade’s service as a Soviet test pilot.

Galunenko fondly remembers the bewilderment of first taking the behemoth across the world to visit the United States.

“We were invited to an aviation show in Oklahoma and the media reported that the largest aircraft in the world was coming so that attracted a mass of people,” he says.All of these people just assumed that the largest aircraft in the world was made by the Boeing company. We had to tell them it was made by Antonov, and they asked, ‘Where is Antonov from?’ We said, ‘It’s a company in Kiev’, so they asked us, ‘And what is Kiev?’ Well we told them ‘Kiev is in Ukraine’, and of course they asked, ‘But what is Ukraine?’”

The navigator of the flight eventually pulled out his maps and began to point out Ukraine to the many curious visitors. “He took a marker and circled Kiev to show them where it is,” laughs Galunenko. “We got to show our plane and give the Americans a geography lesson too.”

The plane is effectively an extension of its little brother, the An-124 ‘Ruslan’ – an aircraft rarely regarded as “little”, seeing as it’s the largest military transport in the world.

From a room adorned with scale models of every aircraft the company has built in its 71-year history, the lead engineer of the An-225 project, Nikolay Kalashnikov, tells BBC Future that he spent his entire professional life working for Antonov. But it was building the Mriya that was the pinnacle of his career.

“Today it’s hard to tell, but back then it was so impressive. It was just so difficult to imagine that such a big machine can fly,” says Kalashnikov.

Although the An-124 Ruslan was already an impressively sized cargo carrier at that time, Kalashnikov and his team set about modifying the structure to increase its maximum takeoff weight. They added two engines, rows of landing gear, extended the fuselage and redesigned the tail in order to meet the most important requirement, which was to ensure that the Buran space-shuttle and the Energia booster rocket could slide off the plane midflight and take off into space.

“It was possible to carry everything, the shuttle and all the elements of the rocket on the back of the aircraft,” says energetic CEO of Antonov Airlines, Mikhail Kharchenko, from his office at the Gostomel airport. “The idea hasn’t gone away. The United States is now working on an air-start programme.

At that time, the USSR’s space missions were run from what is now southern Kazakhstan, at the Baikonur Cosmodrome. So the AN-225’s mission was to bring the booster rockets from Moscow and ferry the Buran itself to Baikonaur. They calculated that the AN-225 programme would be cheaper than building a freeway across two rivers and through the Urals just to move these parts, says Kalashnikov.

Kharchenko believes that the Mriya still has huge potential, despite its age, and it’s not just for its enormous cargo capacity. He thinks there’s still the chance to develop the An-225 into a proper in-air launch platform.

“Approximately 90% of the energy of the launch vehicle is spent getting up to an altitude of 10km (6.5 miles) ,” says the CEO. “If we take some spacecraft and put it on the Mriya’s back and fly it up to a height of 10km, then we can launch it into space from there. From the point of view of cost, the economic benefit is huge if you launch from a height of 10km.”

He admits it’s still going to take a little bit of refinement, but Kharchenko believes this is the best direction for his company’s flagship aircraft. And he’s not the only one.

In 2016, the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AICC), a Chinese state-owned aerospace and defense company, signed a cooperation agreement with Antonov for the An-225 program. If it goes through as planned, the skies could soon be flooded by a fleet of Chinese built An-225s.

“The initial idea and early stage research of the An-225 started in 2009,” the president of AICC, Zhang Youshengtells BBC Future. “The official contact with Antonov began in 2011, and then from 2013 to 2016 was the acceleration phase of this project.”

The Chinese company isn’t interested in purchasing the existing airworthy An-225. They have spent the past several years studying the feasibility of modernising the only other An-225, an unfinished airframe that has sat inside a hangar at Antonov’s giant corporate campus in downtown Kyiv for the past 30 years. This aircraft, when modernised, could give China a heavy lift capability that surpasses any other nation in the world – perhaps even greater than that of the US military.

According to Zhang, the An-225 would be the centrepiece of a hyper ambitious plan to add 1,000 heavy lift aircraft over the next 10 years.

Heavy lift is not the only capability they’re after though.

“The An-225 can be equipped with spacecraft to high altitude, and can launch commercial satellites at any height below 12,000m,” Zhang tells the BBC. “Its launch time is flexible, accurate, and can quickly send the satellite into intended orbit, which greatly reduces launch costs.”

The Chinese are aiming to make their way into the lucrative satellite launch industry, which doubled revenue from 2006 to 2015, according to figures provided by AICC.

The purchase agreement for the existing An-225 airframe is similar to China’s acquisition of an aircraft carrier hull from Ukraine nearly 20 years ago. That hull, originally commissioned by the Soviet Union, was rebuilt and modernised over two decades until it was declared ‘combat ready’ by China’s military in November 2016.

If the plan goes forward, the Mriya will have found new life flying the skies for China’s AICC, but Ukraine will have lost of a small but symbolic part of its aerospace industry. The men who built the plane have mixed feelings about the prospect of losing the programme to the Chinese.

“The Chinese want to buy from us this plane and there’s no harm in it, but of course no one wants to sell the aircraft,” says Kalashnikov. “The Mriya is not separable from Ukraine, it’s like our child, and it’s something our children, and our grandchildren can always be proud of.”

Pubblicato in: Geopolitica Mondiale, Medio Oriente, Unione Europea

Macron. L’opinione di Al Arabiya.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-05-19.

Presidential Candidate Emmanuel Macron Hosts A Meeting At Parc Des Expositions In Paris

Se è importante sapere cosa voglia una persona pubblica, sembrerebbe essere altrettanto importante conoscere come essa sia percepita in punti strategici del mondo.

Questo articolo del dr. Ismaeel Naar dovrebbe essere letto con molta attenzione, ed anche sovra le righe. Soprattutto sovra le righe.

Tutto è possibile, ma sembrerebbe difficile che Mr Macron possa soddisfare in questa maniera le ambizioni politiche arabe.


Al Arabiya. 2017-05-17. Five things Arabs need to know about French President-Elect Emmanuel Macron

With more than 40 million of France’s 47 million registered voters accounted for, official Interior Ministry figures on Sunday confirmed independent centrist Emmanuel Macron had been elected president with 64.16 percent of valid votes cast so far.

At 39 years old, Macron is being considered the youngest president of France and the only one with no experience in running a political campaign or holding elected office.

He served under President François Hollande as Minister of Economy, Industry, and Digital Affairs.

1) Worked for four years with an investment bank

Macron was an investment banker at Rothschild from 2008 to 2012. Before that banking job, he worked in France’s economy ministry. After Rothschild, he returned to civil service, including serving in his predecessor’s cabinet before resigning to start his independent political party and movement “En Marche”.

2) He is the youngest president of France

Born in December 1977 in Amiens, a city in northern France, Macron is 39-years-old and is now youngest-ever president since the French Republic was established in 1848.

He is the eldest child of Jean-Michel Macron and Francoise Macron-Nogues and the only one in his family not to have pursued a medical career.

3) Has never held elected office

Macron’s first roles came under his predecessor, Francois Hollande, as a member of his personal staff and later as a minister of economy, industry, and digital affairs under the government of Manuel Valls.

He identifies as centrist although his he was a member of the Socialist Party for three years before becoming an independent politician in 2009.

4) He called France’s colonial past in Algeria a ‘crime against humanity’

Unlike his political rivals from the left and right, Macron was one of the first political figures to call out France’s colonial past.

He labelled it a “crime against humanity” and said “it’s really barbaric and is part of that past that we must face up to also by apologizing to those who were hurt”.

Algerians lived under French rule for 132 years until it won a bloody war of independence in 1962. The conflict killed an estimated 1.5 million Algerians.

5) Macron rules out unilateral recognition of Palestine

Just days before election day, Macron said he would not unilaterally recognize the state of Palestine if he becomes elected. He told French media that he backs a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that “unilaterally recognizing Palestine would cause instability and would harm France’s relations with Israel”.

“I defended the principle of a two-state solution, and France’s commitment to that,” he said in 2015 when he was minister of economy.

Macron is also likely to be consistent with France’s stance against the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. “We are against any practice such as that of the BDS,” he was quoted as saying when he was a minister in 2015.