"Um reino de terror que a História escolheu esquecer" in The Independent, 12 de Outubro de 2007

por Robert Fisk

The story of the last century's first Holocaust – Winston Churchill used this very word about the Armenian genocide years before the Nazi murder of six million Jews – is well known, despite the refusal of modern-day Turkey to acknowledge the facts. Nor are the parallels with Nazi Germany's persecution of the Jews idle ones.

Turkey's reign of terror against the Armenian people was an attempt to destroy the Armenian race. While the Turks spoke publicly of the need to "resettle" their Armenian population – as the Germans were to speak later of the Jews of Europe – the true intentions of Enver Pasha's Committee of Union and Progress in Constantinople were quite clear.

On 15 September 1915, for example (and a carbon of this document exists), Talaat Pasha, the Turkish Interior minister, cabled an instruction to his prefect in Aleppo about what he should do with the tens of thousands of Armenians in his city. "You have already been informed that the government... has decided to destroy completely all the indicated persons living in Turkey... Their existence must be terminated, however tragic the measures taken may be, and no regard must be paid to either age or sex, or to any scruples of conscience."

These words are almost identical to those used by Himmler to his SS killers in 1941.

Taner Akcam, a prominent – and extremely brave – Turkish scholar who has visited the Yerevan museum, has used original Ottoman Turkish documents to authenticate the act of genocide. Now under fierce attack for doing so from his own government, he discovered in Turkish archives that individual Turkish officers often wrote "doubles" of their mass death-sentence orders, telegrams sent at precisely the same time that asked their subordinates to ensure there was sufficient protection and food for the Armenians during their "resettlement". This weirdly parallels the bureaucracy of Nazi Germany, where officials were dispatching hundreds of thousands of Jews to the gas chambers while assuring International Red Cross officials in Geneva that they were being well cared for and well fed.

Ottoman Turkey's attempt to exterminate an entire Christian race in the Middle East – the Armenians, descended from the residents of ancient Urartu, became the first Christian nation when their king Drtad converted from paganism in AD301 – is a history of almost unrelieved horror at the hands of Turkish policemen and soldiers, and Kurdish tribesmen.

In 1915, Turkey claimed that its Armenian population was supporting Turkey's Christian enemies in Britain, France and Russia. Several historians – including Churchill, who was responsible for the doomed venture at Gallipoli – have asked whether the Turkish victory there did not give them the excuse to turn against the Christian Armenians of Asia Minor, a people of mixed Persian, Roman and Byzantine blood, with what Churchill called "merciless fury".

Armenian scholars have compiled a map of their people's persecution and deportation, a document that is as detailed as the maps of Europe that show the railway lines to Auschwitz and Treblinka; the Armenians of Erzerum, for example, were sent on their death march to Terjan and then to Erzinjan and on to Sivas province.

The men would be executed by firing squad or hacked to death with axes outside villages, the women and children then driven on into the desert to die of thirst or disease or exhaustion or gang-rape. In one mass grave I myself discovered on a hillside at Hurgada in present-day Syria, there were thousands of skeletons, mostly of young people – their teeth were perfect. I even found a 100-year-old Armenian woman who had escaped the slaughter there and identified the hillside for me.

There is debate in Yerevan today as to why the diaspora Armenians appear to care more about the genocide than the citizens of modern-day Armenia. Indeed, the Foreign minister of Armenia, Vardan Oskanian, actually told me that "days, weeks, even months go by" when he does not think of the genocide. One powerful argument put to me by an Armenian friend is that 70 years of Stalinism and official Soviet silence on the genocide deleted the historical memory in eastern Armenia – the present-day state of Armenia.

Another argument suggests that the survivors of western Armenia – in what is now Turkey – lost their families and lands and still seek acknowledgement and maybe even restitution, while eastern Armenians did not lose their lands.
http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article3052373.ece
JPTF 2007/10/12

Resolução 398 do Comité dos Negócios Estrangeiros da Câmara dos Representantes, apelando ao reconhecimento do genocídio arménio de 1915

106th CONGRESS 1st Session
H. RES. 398

Calling upon the President to provide for appropriate training and materials to all Foreign Service officers, United States Department of State officials, and any other executive branch employee involved in responding to issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 18, 1999

Mr. RADANOVICH (for himself and Mr. BONIOR) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

RESOLUTION

Calling upon the President to provide for appropriate training and materials to all Foreign Service officers, United States Department of State officials, and any other executive branch employee involved in responding to issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide, and for other purposes.

Resolved,

SECTION. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This resolution may be cited as the `United States Training on and Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide Resolution'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The House of Representatives finds the following:

(1) The Armenian Genocide was conceived and carried out by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923, resulting in the deportation of nearly 2,000,000 Armenians, of whom 1,500,000 men, women, and children were killed, 500,000 survivors were expelled from their homes, and which succeeded in the elimination of the over 2,500-year presence of Armenians in their historic homeland.

(2) On May 24, 1915, the Allied Powers, England, France, and Russia, jointly issued a statement explicitly charging for the first time ever another government of committing `a crime against humanity'.

(3) This joint statement stated `[i]n view of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization, the Allied Governments announce publicly to the Sublime Porte that they will hold personally responsible for these crimes all members of the Ottoman Government, as well as those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres'.

(4) The post-World War I Turkish Government indicted the top leaders involved in the `organization and execution' of the Armenian Genocide and in the `massacre and destruction of the Armenians'.

(5) In a series of courts-martial, officials of the Young Turk Regime were tried and convicted, as charged, for organizing and executing massacres against the Armenian people.

(6) The chief organizers of the Armenian Genocide, Minister of War Enver, Minister of the Interior Talaat, and Minister of the Navy Jemal were all condemned to death for their crimes, however, the verdicts of the courts were not enforced.

(7) The Armenian Genocide and these domestic judicial failures are documented with overwhelming evidence in the national archives of Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Russia, the United States, the Vatican and many other countries, and this vast body of evidence attests to the same facts, the same events, and the same consequences.

(8) The United States National Archives and Record Administration holds extensive and thorough documentation on the Armenian Genocide, especially in its holdings under Record Group 59 of the United States Department of State, files 867.00 and 867.40, which are open and widely available to the public and interested institutions.

(9) The national archives of Turkey should also include all of the records pertaining to the indictment, trial, and conviction of the Ottoman authorities responsible for the Armenian Genocide.

(10) The Honorable Henry Morgenthau, United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1913 to 1916, organized and led protests by officials of many countries, among them the allies of the Ottoman Empire, against the Armenian Genocide.

(11) Ambassador Morgenthau explicitly described to the United States Department of State the policy of the Young Turk government as `a campaign of race extermination', and was instructed on July 16, 1915, by United States Secretary of State Robert Lansing that the `Department approves your procedure . . . to stop Armenian persecution'.

(12) Senate Concurrent Resolution 12 of February 9, 1916, resolved that `the President of the United States be respectfully asked to designate a day on which the citizens of this country may give expression to their sympathy by contributing funds now being raised for the relief of the Armenians', who at the time were enduring `starvation, disease, and untold suffering'.

(13) President Wilson concurred and also encouraged the formation of the organization known as Near East Relief, chartered by an Act of Congress, which contributed some $116,000,000 from 1915 to 1930 to aid the Armenian Genocide survivors, including 132,000 orphans who became foster children of the American people.

(14) Senate Resolution 359, dated May 11, 1920, stated in part, `the testimony adduced at the hearings conducted by the sub-committee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations have clearly established the truth of the reported massacres and other atrocities from which the Armenian people have suffered'.

(15) The resolution followed the April 13, 1920, report to the Senate of the American Military Mission to Armenia led by General James Harbord, that stated `[m]utilation, violation, torture, and death have left their haunting memories in a hundred beautiful Armenian valleys, and the traveler in that region is seldom free from the evidence of this most colossal crime of all the ages'.

(16) Setting the stage for the Holocaust, Adolf Hitler, on ordering his military commanders to attack Poland without provocation in 1939, dismissed objections by saying `[w]ho, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?'.

(17) Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term `genocide' in 1944, and who was the earliest proponent of the Genocide Convention, invoked the Armenian case as a definitive example of genocide in the 20th century.

(18) Raphael Lemkin described the crime as `the systematic destruction of whole national, racial or religious groups. The sort of thing Hitler did to the Jews and the Turks did to the Armenians'.

(19) The first resolution on genocide adopted by the United Nations at Lemkin's urging, the December 11, 1946, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 96(1) and the United Nations Genocide Convention itself recognized the Armenian Genocide as the type of crime the United Nations intended to prevent by codifying existing standards.

(20) In 1948 the United Nations War Crimes Commission invoked the Armenian Genocide `precisely . . . one of the types of acts which the modern term `crimes against humanity' is intended to cover' as a precedent for the Nuremberg tribunals.

(21) The Commission stated that `[t]he provisions of Article 230 of the Peace Treaty of Sevres were obviously intended to cover, in conformity with the Allied note of 1915 . . ., offenses which had been committed on Turkish territory against persons of Turkish citizenship, though of Armenian or Greek race. This article constitutes therefore a precedent for Article 6c and 5c of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Charters, and offers an example of one of the categories of `crimes against humanity' as understood by these enactments'.

(22) The United Nations Commission on Human Rights adopted in 1985 a report entitled `Study of the Question of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide', which stated `[t]he Nazi aberration has unfortunately not been the only case of genocide in the twentieth century. Among other examples which can be cited as qualifying are . . . the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916'.

(23) This report also explained that `[a]t least 1 million, and possibly well over half of the Armenian population, are reliably estimated to have been killed or death marched by independent authorities and eye-witnesses. This is corroborated by reports in United States, German and British archives and of contemporary diplomats in the Ottoman Empire, including those of its ally Germany'.

(24) The tragedy of the Armenian Genocide has been acknowledged by countries and international bodies such as Argentina, Belgium, Canada, the Council of Europe, Cyprus, the European Parliament, France, Great Britain, Greece, Lebanon, Russia, the United Nations, the United States, and Uruguay.

(25) The United States Holocaust Memorial Council, an independent Federal agency, unanimously resolved on April 30, 1981, that the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum would include the Armenian Genocide in the Museum and has since done so.

(26) President Reagan in proclamation number 4838, dated April 22, 1981, stated in part `like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide of the Cambodians, which followed it--and like too many other persecutions of too many other people--the lessons of the holocaust must never be forgotten'.

(27) President Bush, in 1988, speaking of the Armenian Genocide, stated `we must consciously and conscientiously recognize the genocides of the past--the enormous tragedies that have darkened this century and that haunt us still. We must not only commemorate the courage of the victims and of their survivors, but we must also remind ourselves that civilization cannot be taken for granted. . . . We must all be vigilant against this most heinous crime against humanity'.

(28) President Bush, in 1988, stated further `[t]he United States must acknowledge the attempted genocide of the Armenian people in the last years of the Ottoman Empire, based on the testimony of survivors, scholars, and indeed our own representatives at the time, if we are to insure that such horrors are not repeated'.

(29) President Clinton, on August 13, 1992, stated `[t]he Genocide of 1915, years of communist dictatorship, and the devastating earthquake of 1988 have caused great suffering in Armenia during this century'.

(30) Reviewing an aberrant 1982 expression (later retracted) by the United States Department of State asserting that the facts of the Armenian Genocide may be ambiguous, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1993, after a review of documents pertaining to the policy record of the United States, noted that the assertion on ambiguity in the United States record about the Armenian Genocide `contradicted longstanding United States policy and was eventually retracted'.

(31) Despite the international recognition and affirmation of the Armenian Genocide, the failure of the domestic and international authorities to punish those responsible for the Armenian Genocide is a reason why similar genocides have recurred and may recur in the future, and that a proper judicial and firm response, holding the guilty accountable and requiring the prompt enforcement of verdicts would have spared humanity needless suffering.

(32) In a commendable letter on April 9, 1999, Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, then Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs, pledged that the administration would raise with the Republic of Turkey the issue of the recovery of Armenian assets from the genocide period held by the Imperial Ottoman Bank.

(33) It is important that all Foreign Service officers, officials of the United States Department of State, and any other executive branch employee involved in responding to issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide are made familiar with the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide and the consequences of the failure to enforce the judgments of the Turkish courts against the responsible officials.

SEC. 3. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

The House of Representatives--

1) calls upon the President to provide for appropriate training and materials to all Foreign Service officers, officials of the United States Department of State, and any other executive branch employee involved in responding to issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide by familiarizing them with the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide and the consequences of the failure to enforce the judgments of the Turkish courts against the responsible officials; and

2) calls upon the President in the President's annual message commemorating the Armenian Genocide issued on or about April 24 to characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide and to recall the proud history of United States intervention in opposition to the Armenian Genocide.
http://www.anca.org/action_alerts/action_docs.php?docsid=15
JPTF 2007/10/11

Prgrama especial da BBC sobre os massacres e deportações dos arménios em 1915-1917, sob o Império Otomano

Mapa dos massacres e deportações dos arménios em 1915-1917, sob o Império Otomano

"Ancara indignada após un voto do Congresso americano sobre o genocídio arménio" in Le Monde, 11 de Outubro de 2007

La commission des affaires étrangères de la Chambre des représentants états-unienne a approuvé, mercredi 10 octobre, par vingt-sept voix contre vingt et une, une résolution qualifiant de "génocide" les massacres d'Arméniens par les Turcs en 1915. La résolution va désormais être présentée devant la Chambre des représentants en séance plénière, où, selon les dirigeants démocrates, un vote aura lieu d'ici à la mi-novembre. Une résolution similaire, et purement symbolique, circule au Sénat. La Maison Blanche avait averti, avant le vote, qu'une telle résolution ferait un "grand tort" aux relations avec la Turquie, important allié de Washington au sein de l'OTAN. Ankara rejette la position arménienne, soutenue par de nombreux historiens occidentaux, selon lesquels 1,5 million d'Arméniens ont été massacrés durant la première guerre mondiale.

Dès que le résultat du scrutin a été connu, le gouvernement américain a exhorté son allié turc à ne pas exercer de représailles. Le sous-secrétaire d'Etat Nicholas Burns a déclaré que l'administration Bush était "très déçue" par ce vote, qui survient à un moment délicat dans les relations turco-américaines.
"INACCEPTABLE"
Ankara a néanmoins confirmé que son gouvernement envisageait de solliciter l'autorisation du Parlement d'effectuer une incursion militaire dans le nord de l'Irak pour y attaquer des bases de la rébellion séparatiste kurde. Washington s'y oppose par crainte de voir la région – à dominante kurde – déstabilisée.

Le président turc, Abdullah Gül, a jugé le texte "inacceptable" et accusé des hommes politiques à Washington d'avoir sacrifié de graves problèmes à "leurs petites manœuvres".

"Nous espérons beaucoup que cette déception se limitera à des déclarations et ne comprendra rien de concret qui altérerait la très bonne manière que nous avons de travailler avec la Turquie depuis des années", a déclaré Nicholas Burns. "Nous devons continuer à pouvoir travailler ensemble de manière efficace", a insisté le sous-secrétaire d'Etat.

Huit anciens secrétaires d'Etat avaient écrit à la présidente de la Chambre des représentants, la démocrate Nancy Pelosi, favorable à la résolution, pour s'opposer au texte en brandissant un risque de mise en danger de la sécurité nationale américaine.

La Turquie, qui fait partie de l'OTAN, est un précieux allié des Américains. Le gros des troupes américaines en Irak transite par la base aérienne d'Incirlik. Nicholas Burns a indiqué que la secrétaire d'Etat Condoleezza Rice prévoyait de téléphoner, jeudi, à son homologue turc. "Nous insisterons manifestement auprès des dirigeants turcs sur notre profonde déception et le fait que nous nous sommes opposés à cette résolution et que l'administration a travaillé très dur pour aboutir à un autre vote", a-t-il dit.

Avant le vote, le président George Bush avait déclaré à des journalistes que cette résolution n'était pas "la bonne réponse à ces tueries massives et historiques". Selon Burns, le gouvernement américain estime qu'il y a de meilleurs moyens de traiter une question aussi délicate et relève que la Turquie a offert d'ouvrir les archives de l'Empire ottoman, ainsi que de former des commissions conjointes d'historiens avec le gouvernement arménien. "Nous sommes convaincus que c'est une manière meilleure et plus productive d'avancer", a-t-il dit.
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3222,36-965530@51-963706,0.html
JPTF 2007/10/11

"Congresso americano reconhece Genocídio Arménio, rejeitando pedido de George Bush" in Guardian, 11 de Outubro de 2007

Congress today rejected a plea by the White House over a resolution officially recognising as genocide the forced deportation and massacre of Armenians in the last days of the Ottoman empire.
President George Bush warned of the negative repercussions should Congress use the word genocide to describe the persecution that killed an estimated 1.5 million Armenians and forced many into exile.

"This resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings, and its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in Nato and in the global war on terror," Mr Bush said.

But the House foreign affairs committee, only hours later, voted by 27 to 21 in favour of the resolution. The measure now goes to the full House for a vote.
The secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, had warned the resolution could set back Middle East peace prospects.

Its passage could also put US soldiers at risk in Iraq, the secretary of defence, Robert Gates, said, warning that America risked losing access to important supply routes. About 70% of air cargo for Iraq goes through Turkey.

However, the measure has strong support in the Democratic-controlled House, where more than half of members have signed on as co-sponsors, including the speaker, Nancy Pelosi. About half of the Senate has co-sponsored the measure.

The resolution calls on the president to use the word genocide during the commemoration of the killings each April.

Turkey has spent millions on lobbying to dissuade western governments from labelling the events of 1915-1917 a genocide.

The Turkish military cancelled defence contracts with France last year when its national assembly voted to make denial of the Armenian genocide a crime.

While Turkey does not deny that many Armenians were killed, it claims the deaths were the result of widespread fighting.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2188109,00.html
JPTF 2007/10/11

"Comité da Câmara dos Representantes dos EUA aprova resolução sobre o Genocídio Arménio" in CNN, 11 de Outubro de 2007

A House committee Wednesday evening narrowly approved a resolution that labels the killings of Armenians in Turkey during World War I as "genocide." President Bush urges lawmakers not to pass a resolution he says would harm U.S. relations with Turkey. The House Foreign Affairs Committee passed the measure 27-21, even though President Bush and key figures lobbied hard against it. The president, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates said passage of the resolution would hurt relations with an important U.S. ally. Bush urged lawmakers to oppose the resolution, which he said would cause "great harm" to U.S. relations with Turkey, which he called a key ally in NATO and the "global war on terror." "We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people that began in 1915. This resolution is not the right response to those historic mass killings," Bush said at the White House. But House Democratic leaders said earlier if the Foreign Affairs Committee passed the resolution, they intended to bring it to the House floor. The resolution's sponsor, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, said the measure already had 226 co-sponsors, more than enough votes to pass "and the most support an Armenian genocide resolution has ever received." Earlier, Rice and Gates made their comments jointly before reporters at the White House. They said Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military officer in Iraq; U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker; and Adm. William Fallon, head of the U.S. Central Command, raised concerns about the resolution. "We recognize the feelings of those who want to express their concern and their disdain for what happened many years ago," Rice said. "But the passage of this resolution at this time would, indeed, be very problematic for everything that we're trying to do in the Middle East because we are very dependent on a good Turkish strategic ally to help with our efforts." Watch why Rice and Gates oppose the resolution » The nonbinding resolution refers to the "genocide" of Armenians in the early 20th century during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, which preceded the creation of modern Turkey in 1923. "In the case that Armenian allegations are accepted, there will be serious problems in the relations between the two countries," Turkish President Abdullah Gul said in a letter to Bush. Nabi Sensoy, Turkey's ambassador to the United States, told CNN the resolution's passage would be a "very injurious move to the psyche of the Turkish people." He predicted a "backlash" in the country, saying there would be setbacks on several fronts: Turkish-American relations, Turkish-Armenian relations and the normalization of relations between the nations of Turkey and Armenia. Gates said good relations with Turkey are vital because 70 percent of the air cargo intended for U.S. forces in Iraq and 30 percent of the fuel consumed by those forces flies through Turkey. U.S. commanders, Gates said, "believe clearly that access to airfields and roads and so on in Turkey would very much be put at risk if this resolution passes and the Turks react as strongly as we believe they will." "Our heavy dependence on the Turks for access is really the reason the commanders raised this and why we're so concerned about the resolution," Gates said. The resolution calls on the president "to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian genocide, and for other purposes." A similar resolution passed the committee by a 40-7 vote two years ago, but it never reached the full House floor. House Republican leader John Boehner, noting the critical military and strategic alliance with Turkey, said bringing the resolution to the floor would be "totally irresponsible." "Let the historians decide what happened 90 years ago," Boehner said in a written statement. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer met with Turkish officials in Pelosi's office Wednesday morning. Hoyer said he and Pelosi informed the officials that they support the resolution. Hoyer said he told officials that while he considers Turkey a strong ally, "this was about another government at another time." "I believe that our government's position is clear -- that genocide was perpetrated against the Armenian people approximately 90 years ago and during the course of the First World War. And I believe that remembering that, noting that, is important so that we not paper over or allow the Ahmadinejads of the next decade or decades to deny a fact," Hoyer said. Schiff, who represents a southern California district with many Armenian-Americans, refers to "the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide." The term genocide is defined in dictionary.com as "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." But the description is hotly disputed in Turkey, the predominantly Muslim, but modern and secular, pro-Western ally of the United States. Turks argue that all peoples -- Armenians and Turks -- suffered during the warfare. But Armenians maintain there was an organized genocide by the Ottoman Turkish authorities, and have been campaigning across the world for official recognition of the genocide. The resolution arrives at a particularly sensitive juncture in U.S.-Turkish relations. The United States has urged Turkey not to send its troops over the border into northern Iraq to fight Kurdish separatist rebels, who have launched some cross-border attacks against Turkish targets. Observers of U.S.-Turkish relations have argued the House resolution could make Turkey less inclined to use restraint in dealing with its longstanding problems with the Kurdistan Workers Party. "The United States has a compelling historical and moral reason to recognize the Armenian genocide, which cost a million and a half people their lives," Schiff said. "But we also have a powerful contemporary reason as well. How can we take effective action against the genocide in Darfur if we lack the will to condemn genocide whenever and wherever it
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/10/us.turkey.armenians/index.html
JPTF 2007/10/11

"A França concretiza em quatro propostas a vontade de regresso pleno à NATO" in Le Monde, 9 de Outubro de 2007

llustrant la volonté exprimée par le président français, Nicolas Sarkozy, d'un retour au sein de la structure militaire intégrée de l'Alliance atlantique, Paris a transmis le 3 octobre un document au Conseil de l'Atlantique nord (NAC) de l'OTAN pour "renforcer la transparence et la coopération entre l'UE et l'OTAN", qui se décline en quatre propositions. Celles-ci doivent être présentées, le 12 octobre, au Comité politique et de sécurité (COPS) de l'Union européenne (UE).

La France propose qu'une "présentation systématique du programme et du bilan de la présidence" de l'Union européenne ait lieu au NAC et dans les différents comités de l'OTAN, avec la participation au Conseil atlantique du ministre des affaires européennes du pays exerçant la présidence de l'UE.

Paris demande ensuite "une pratique plus fréquente d'invitations croisées" du haut représentant de l'UE pour la politique étrangère et de sécurité, Javier Solana, au NAC, et du secrétaire général de l'OTAN, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, au COPS, "pour présenter des domaines d'action pertinents".

La France suggère d'autre part de développer les contacts de travail entre l'Agence européenne de défense (AED) et le Commandement allié pour la transformation (ACT), qui s'occupe également de programmes d'armement.

Elle souhaite enfin la mise en place "d'une procédure prédéfinie d'échange d'informations en cas de crise" entre le Centre euro-atlantique de réponse aux crises et le Centre de suivi et d'information (MIC, mécanisme de protection civile) de la Commission européenne. Le recours aux capacités militaires pour la réponse aux catastrophes humanitaires et naturelles resterait toutefois coordonné au niveau européen.

TROC DIPLOMATIQUE

Ces propositions, d'apparence techniques, prennent, dans le contexte du rapprochement atlantiste souhaité par Paris, une portée politique significative. Elles contrastent avec les positions traditionnelles de la France, qui a longtemps freiné la coopération institutionnelle entre l'OTAN et l'UE.

Elles illustrent la démarche du président français, basée sur une sorte de troc diplomatique : la France envisage de reprendre toute sa place au sein de l'OTAN, à condition que l'Alliance atlantique prenne davantage en compte le poids et l'influence des Européens, qu'elle se recentre sur sa vocation d'organisation militaire, que la France occupe des postes de responsabilité à la mesure de sa contribution militaire à l'Alliance, et enfin que les Etats-Unis et la Grande-Bretagne cessent de freiner tout progrès de la défense européenne.

Ces dispositions ont été accueillies à l'OTAN comme de premières "mesures de confiance", destinées à prouver les bonnes intentions de Paris. "C'est la manifestation que la France a quitté le camp de ceux qui disent non , comme la Turquie; c'est un pas en avant qui montre que Sarkozy veut concrétiser son intention politique", estime un haut responsable de l'OTAN.

"L'atmosphère a nettement évolué depuis les propositions du président Sarkozy; on a le sentiment qu'il n'y a plus de tabou du côté français, plus de lignes rouges", renchérit un diplomate britannique, qui reste dubitatif quant à un éventuel succès.

La stratégie française semble en effet aléatoire, tant les concessions demandées apparaissent ambitieuses. Du côté français, la consigne est désormais de tout faire pour "ne pas bloquer la discussion" au sein de l'Alliance atlantique. Dans le passé, la France a manifesté ses réticences à un rapprochement OTAN-UE, notamment concernant la planification opérationnelle et la création de cellules de liaison militaire, et elle a résisté à la mise en œuvre des moyens militaires de l'OTAN dans les crises humanitaires, au Darfour ou après le tremblement de terre au Pakistan.

Cependant, le pays qui aujourd'hui bloque le rapprochement OTAN-UE est moins la France que la Turquie. Hostile à toute reconnaissance du gouvernement de Chypre, Ankara s'oppose aux rencontres et au partage d'informations de sécurité entre les deux organisations.

La question du retour de la France au sein de la structure militaire intégrée est devenue un sujet dominant des discussions informelles au sein de l'Alliance, chacun supputant quel sera le "prix à payer" pour les deux pays européens – la Grande-Bretagne et l'Allemagne – qui occupent d'importants postes de commandement.

On prête à Paris l'intention de revendiquer le poste d'adjoint au commandant suprême des forces alliées en Europe, mais aucune demande officielle n'a encore été faite. Les diplomates otaniens mesurent que la démarche française constitue, à ce stade, une sorte de ballon d'essai, pour tester les réactions, tant au sein de l'Alliance atlantique que sur le plan de la politique intérieure française.
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3210,36-964615,0.html
JPTF 2007/10/09

"Uma União Europeia semidemocrática, semieuropeia, semiunião" in Público, 6 de Outubro de 2007

por Pacheco Pereira

Numa altura em que se perde de vez a possibilidade de os portugueses se pronunciarem sobre o novo tratado europeu, com o abandono do compromisso pela actual liderança do PSD de fazer um referendo, dá-se mais um passo num triste caminho de criar uma entidade internacional que é cada vez menos democrática e a quem entregamos cada vez mais a nossa soberania nacional. É uma decisão, por parte do PSD e do PS, inqualificável de falta de respeito pelos compromissos assumidos, tornada ainda mais grave quando é claramente manchada pelo facto de ter como principal razão o medo dos resultados do referendo. Ou seja, não se faz o referendo porque os eleitores europeus e portugueses não podem, por diktat, dizer "não". Os Governos e os grandes partidos europeus substituíram a democracia na legitimação do processo europeu por decisões iluminadas, tomadas in camera pelos Governos, sobre matérias decisivas para o futuro de todos nós.

A verdade é que esta era a última oportunidade de fazer um referendo útil, a última oportunidade de, votando sobre importantes mudanças na construção europeia, legitimar ou não o caminho recente da União. Não compreendo, aliás, por que razão os europeístas mais fervorosos a perderam, tanto quanto compreendo bem que os que olham para a UE apenas como manancial de subsídios não queiram quaisquer ondas no barco bruxelense, que já de há muito se habituaram a considerar o verdadeiro governo de todos nós.

Não é preciso ir mais longe para se perceber o que é hoje a UE do que o facto de, a semanas de se conhecer um novo tratado europeu, com as trombetas e as fanfarras que o vão acompanhar, ser espantoso que não haja qualquer discussão pública sobre o seu conteúdo e consequências. O nosso primeiro-ministro, o nosso ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros, assim como o nosso Presidente da República, entendem que quanto menos se falar sobre o assunto, melhor e como deixou de haver a ténue, mas mesmo assim existente, oposição à violação do compromisso do PSD e do PS, o silêncio entre o incomodado e o arrogante são a norma.

Tudo isto numa altura em que é mais que óbvio que nem a Europa nem a UE estão bem. A Europa porque se encurralou num "modelo social" que a prazo só tem duas consequências: o empobrecimento lento, mas seguro, dos seus cidadãos e a incapacidade de sobreviver num mundo globalizado a não ser como "fortaleza Europa". É verdade que quer a leste, quer a oeste, há excepções e resistências a este modelo, com o corolário de que aí não se empobrece como no "meio" do núcleo duro do "modelo", mas a tendência defensiva e proteccionista na UE continua a verificar-se. Os franceses e as suas "excepções" são a vanguarda de uma Europa que ergue fronteiras face ao Google, à Microsoft, aos transgénicos, ao iTunes, aos filmes de Hollywood, mas também ao chá moçambicano, aos vinhos sul-africanos, ao algodão egípcio, aos produtos agrícolas africanos e... ao canalizador polaco.

Quanto à UE, propriamente dita, e às suas instituições, a crise dos últimos anos, simbolizada no devolver à procedência dos Governos que a fizeram a Constituição Europeia com o voto "não" de holandeses e franceses, está a torná-la cada vez mais governamental e burocrática, num movimento único de recusa da legitimidade de eleitores e de enfraquecimento dos Parlamentos nacionais. Normalmente, na discussão da legitimação popular só se referem as objecções ao voto referendário, odiado em Bruxelas e agora colocado debaixo do tapete, apresentado como um voto impuro, o que "mistura" tudo, o que é contra os Governos, o que é xenófobo, o que é excitado apenas pelas mesquinhas agendas nacionais, o que é antieuropeu e "soberanista".
Mas esta sanha contra os referendos esquece que Bruxelas também não gosta dos Parlamentos nacionais, cada vez mais frágeis face à burocracia da UE, que são sempre apresentados como saindo reforçados de cada novo tratado, quando na realidade quem vê sempre os seus poderes acrescidos é o Parlamento Europeu, depois o Conselho e por fim a Comissão. O caminho para uma UE semidemocrática, uma condição semelhante, na sua impossibilidade, a estar semigrávida, deu mais um passo esta semana em Portugal e vai dar muitos mais nas semanas próximas.

Sobre este impasse democrático, para não lhe chamar outra coisa, projecta-se um impasse ainda maior: o do retorno ao confronto nacional e de uma sua pouco observada consequência, a dificuldade em definir fronteiras da UE. A questão turca, apenas a face mais visível de outras questões por resolver, igualmente graves, é uma projecção de velhas diferenças europeias nas suas políticas externas, assim como de interesses diferenciados em função da situação nacional de cada país. Se somarmos a isso a inexistência de política face à Federação Russa, que se manifesta nas dificuldades face ao Kosovo, os Balcãs em geral e no tratamento da Ucrânia, compreende-se que a UE pode tentar há muito tempo ter um telefone para o sucessor do senhor Kissinger, mas este falará sempre primeiro para o número 10 de Downing Street, para o Eliseu, para a Chancelaria de Berlim, e até para o castelo em Praga e para a sede do Governo polaco, muito antes de falar para Durão Barroso e muito menos para Solana.

Claro que, daqui a uns dias, se os polacos não estragarem a festa e cederem à chantagem, como tudo indica, nada disto conta, nada disto será referido, nada disto será lembrado. Haverá champanhe e sorrisos, muitos cumprimentos, muitas fotos em família. O futuro da Europa será radiosamente apresentado, como o fim de uma longa "crise" que foi ultrapassada. Depois da festa, ninguém quererá ir perguntar ao homem da rua o que ele pensa sobre aquilo que no dia seguinte será apresentado como facto consumado, que só meia dúzia de perturbadores reclamam dever ir a votos. Claro que em muitos países da Europa o eleitorado não tem a apatia e indiferença portuguesas, e podem bem obrigar os seus Governos a fazer referendos, contrariamente a todas as recomendações, mais do que isso, ordens, que Sarkozy e Merkel têm dado. E não demorará muito tempo até se ver que nenhum papel, muito menos o que agora sub-repticiamente se quer aprovar, resolverá a "crise". Os genuínos defensores da Europa de Jean Monnet e Schumann vão arrepender-se de não ter actuado a tempo, mas, nessa altura, pode ser tarde. E já não falta muito tempo para se compreender que foi assim.
http://abrupto.blogspot.com/
JPTF 2007/10/07

"Comandante norte-americano no Iraque acusa o embaixador do Irão de pertencer a uma força millitar de elite" in BBC News, 7 de Outubro de 2007

Gen Petraeus said Hassan Kazemi-Qomi was a member of the Quds Force, which the US believes backs foreign Islamic revolutionary movements. Gen Petraeus said he had no doubt Iran was behind attacks that had led to the deaths of US soldiers. Iran has so far not commented, but regularly denies any such involvement.

Diplomatic immunity
Gen Petraeus made his comments during a briefing to journalists at a US military base near Iraq's border with Iran. Gen Petraeus said the Iranian ambassador to Iraq was a "Quds Force member", but added: "Now he has diplomatic immunity and therefore he is obviously not subject [to scrutiny]. He is acting as a diplomat." Mr Kazemi-Qomi has twice met US counterpart Ryan Crocker this year. Mr Kazemi-Qomi has twice met US counterpart Ryan Crocker this year to discuss Iraqi stability. Iran admits the existence of the Quds Force but gives few details of its activities. Analysts believe it is behind funding of such groups as Hamas and Hezbollah. Gen Petraeus said: "There should be no question about the malign, lethal involvement and activities of the Quds Force in this country."He said Iran was "responsible for providing the weapons, the training, the funding and in some cases the direction for operations that have indeed killed US soldiers". Gen Petraeus said Iran was implicated in the car-bomb assassinations of two provincial governors in southern Iraq in August. The BBC's Jon Brain in Baghdad says some analysts believe the US is deliberately ramping up the rhetoric against the Iranian authorities to prepare public opinion for possible military strikes against Revolutionary Guard facilities within Iran.

'Safer streets'
Gen Petraeus also delivered a more upbeat message on security in Baghdad in the wake of this year's "surge" by US and Iraqi forces. He said in some parts of the capital it was secure enough for him to walk down the street unprotected. "Certainly in places you could do that. You could walk right down Haifa street right now," Gen Petraeus said. But he added: "Nobody will let me do it." The security surge that started in February has added about 30,000 extra US troops. The general said he was not "naive" and knew there was an ever-present threat of bomb attacks. "If you say: 'Will there be a time when you can walk around Baghdad?', obviously I hope that will be realised in the future." Sunday also saw Iraqi security officials report that bomb attacks in Baghdad had killed at least nine people. Two of the blasts targeted security patrols, but, in both cases, the victims were civilians.A third bomb exploded near the Baghdad provincial council building, killing three bystanders.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7032557.stm
JPTF 2007/10/07

"Ahmadinejad ou o triunfo modesto" in Courrier International, 4 de Outubro de 2007

La semaine dernière, le bureau de la présidence iranienne a publié un communiqué remerciant le noble peuple iranien pour ses témoignages d’affection envers le président Ahmadinejad et demandant aux habitants de ne pas organiser de cérémonie en son honneur.
“La présence du président iranien, héroïque, sage et spirituel, à la Conférence annuelle des Nations unies et ses nombreux discours et entretiens à New York ont soulevé des vagues de joie et de fierté au sein de la très pieuse nation iranienne, toutes classes sociales confondues, ainsi que chez les partisans et les soutiens de la Révolution islamique de par le monde”, était-il dit. “Nous avons appris que plusieurs personnalités, professeurs d’université, étudiants et autres groupes ont diffusé des communiqués séparés enjoignant à la population d’organiser une cérémonie d’accueil pour le retour du président à Téhéran.
Gardant à l’esprit la noble opinion du président, et tout en appréciant sincèrement cette initiative spontanée, nous demandons au brave peuple de la République islamique de se prosterner dans les mosquées, dans les hosseiniyeh [lieux dédiés à l’imam Hossein] et lors des prières rituelles du vendredi pour remercier Allah tout-puissant de ce grand succès et ne de pas organiser de cérémonie.
Nous prions aussi Dieu pour la grandeur, la fierté, le prestige et la pérennité de notre chère république islamique d’Iran.”
http://www.courrierinternational.com/insolite/insoliteaccueil.asp?obj_id=78254#78254
JPTF 2007/10/04

"A Cultura ‘Oficial‘ da União Europeia" in Público, 29 de Setembro de 2007

por Pacheco Pereira

A reunião em Lisboa do Fórum Cultural para a Europa foi mais um passo para definir uma política da União Europeia da "cultura", ou seja, como hoje se diz em burocratês, definir uma "agenda para a cultura". A seu tempo, como é habitual na UE, as "agendas" transformar-se-ão em "agências", embriões de ministérios europeus. No caso da "cultura", isso deve corresponder à institucionalização do modelo francês Malraux-Lang como norma europeia de "cultura". É natural que assim seja, porque os países mais dirigistas em matéria de cultura, França, Portugal, Bélgica, Espanha, adoptaram-no há muito em detrimento do modelo anglo-saxónico, menos intervencionista.

É natural que os governos, desde a direita à esquerda, dos socialistas ao PPE, estimem esse modelo construído para a glória da França de De Gaulle e Mitterrand, e que assenta na utilização da "cultura" como mecanismo de propaganda do poder, com a enorme vantagem de usar como instrumento uma realidade considerada intangível, intocável e aparentemente incontroversa, eficaz por isso mesmo. Este modelo tem duas consequências, ambas com muito "boa imprensa" e inúmeros e activos defensores com fácil acesso aos media. Uma é criar um establishment cultural dependente do Estado, muito para além da gestão patrimonial, com uma rede de "casas de cultura", animadores, agentes, produtores, "artistas", "trabalhadores" do cinema, do teatro, do circo, das marionetes, da "animação de rua", etc., etc. e toda uma "economia" à sua volta. Outra, e igualmente importante nos tempos que correm, é, através desses agentes, definir uma versão liofilizada politicamente da "cultura europeia" conforme com os paradigmas da UE.

A lógica dessa "economia" fortemente subsidiada não será a prazo muito diferente da "política agrícola comum", de quem toma, mesmo sem o saber, a linguagem que serve para o trigo, a manteiga e as batatas. A lógica é a protecção do emprego em nome da identidade "cultural" da Europa e, a nível mais vasto, o proteccionismo dos mercados europeus dos produtos alienígenas, em particular essa sinistra produção vinda de Hollywood de filmes populares que ameaçam matar a "cultura europeia". Do mesmo modo que os tenebrosos OGM servem de pretexto para proteger os agricultores principescamente subsidiados pela PAC da competição dos produtos agrícolas americanos, a "agenda cultural europeia" deve proteger uma miríade de produtos sem público e de qualidade duvidosa, subsidiados pelos contribuintes europeus das multidões que querem ver A Guerra das Estrelas. A reunião de Lisboa quer mais dinheiro para esta função.

O segundo aspecto, o de definir, por inclusão e exclusão, a "cultura europeia", é mais complicado e mexe em muito mais do que a economia. Tornar "europeia" a cultura das nações da Europa é uma tarefa difícil de levar a cabo, não muito diferente da de fazer um manual de "história europeia" que sirva de norma educativa nas escolas da Europa, também desejado pelos eurocratas. O problema é que, entendida nos seus genuínos factores de "unidade", a cultura europeia está bem longe de ser a versão iluminista, "progressista" e multicultural que a UE precisa para legitimar a sua cosmovisão olímpica. Como se viu com a discussão do Preâmbulo da defunta Constituição europeia, a definição de uma "cultura europeia", se for coerente com a história identitária da Europa (e não há outra, nem se decreta a identidade), ou está em choque com o islão, ou dá origem a sucessivas falsificações históricas para a moldar ao "politicamente correcto". Claro que este problema só existe, quando se quer ter uma "cultura" oficial que sirva uma "agenda".

É verdade que há uma herança greco-latina como factor de unidade, mas não se pode dar o salto do século de Augusto - a Roma que a UE gosta - para as Luzes - a filosofia que a UE gosta -, porque foi exactamente neste intervalo que a Europa se fez e essa Europa foi feita por uma religião que veio do Oriente, o cristianismo. Paulo trouxe o cristianismo do mundo dos judeus para o dos gentios, o que significou primeiro para os gregos e a filosofia grega, e depois para os romanos, para o direito romano. Desde que Constantino fez do cristianismo a religião do império, da Irlanda à Moscóvia, foi a religião que fez a Europa e essa religião defrontou desde cedo uma religião combatente, o islão.

Se o factor religioso na identidade europeia parece atenuado, isso se deve a um conjunto de factores que prolongam, mais do que se pensa, a "guerra" que antes se fazia nos mares de Lepanto (ao lado Nossa Senhora de Lepanto de Veronese) ou nos arredores de Viena. Na verdade, o crescimento da descrença, o imperialismo e o colonialismo, e a decadência do império otomano apagaram a fractura pela religião, embora na realidade a tivessem apenas mudado - ou seja, o cristianismo só deixou de ser um factor forte de identidade da "cultura europeia" quando o islão perdeu o poder militar, abrindo caminho dentro de si a ideias oriundas da Europa, como o nacionalismo (com os "jovens turcos" e Atatürk), ou o "socialismo pan-árabe" (de Nasser, Assad e Saddam Hussein). Mas, como se vê, todas essas ideias, ocidentais na sua génese, estão em crise com o ascenso do islão fundamentalista. Indo ainda mais longe, uma parte do conflito que opõe a Europa ao islão, como seja a necessidade da secularização do Estado, a condição feminina, ou a valorização da liberdade religiosa, são frutos da história europeia que incorporam a capacidade de instituições como a Igreja coexistirem com um mundo laico.

Ora este interregno dos factores da identidade clássica da Europa, que leva os burocratas europeus a acreditarem no sucesso do "multiculturalismo", está a acabar pelo retorno de um islão combatente e fundamentalista. Por tudo isto, a tentativa de fundar uma "agenda cultural" inócua só pode ser feita por exclusão, com a mesma atitude que levou a UNESCO a não querer publicar a Peregrinação de Fernão Mendes Pinto, porque não correspondia ao "diálogo de civilizações" mítico da culpa do homem branco.
http://abrupto.blogspot.com/
JPTF 2007/29

Cartoon de Kal na revista The Economist

"Previsão de um futuro problemático para os generais birmaneses" in Times, 27 de Setembro de 2007

por Ben Macintyre

The fate of the Burmese junta is written in the stars. That, at least, is what the Burmese junta believes. For one of the odder and most revealing aspects of the brutal military gang that rules Burma is its faith in astrology.

When the junta moved the capital from Rangoon to a malarial town deep in the jungle, it did so because an astrologer employed by Senior General Than Shwe had warned him of an impending catastrophe that could only be averted by moving the seat of government. The same astrologer asserted that the most auspicious moment for the move would be November 6, 2005, at 6.37 in the morning. Sure enough, at that precise hour on the ordained day, the bullet-proof limousines of Burma’s generals started to roll towards their new home on the road to Mandalay.

Burma’s intensely superstitious rulers have long been guided by a belief in portents and prophecies, cosmology, numerology and magic. The time and date of the ceremony marking independence from Britain was also chosen according to astrological dictates: 4.20am on January 4, 1948. General Ne Win was the mysticism-obsessed dictator who seized power in 1962 and steered Burma from prosperity to penury; in 1989 he introduced the 45-kyat and 90-kyat banknotes, for the simple but mind-bending reason that these were divisible by and added up to nine, his lucky number. He believed this move would also ensure he would live to the lucky age of 90. Ne Win, who insisted on walking backwards over bridges at night and other rituals to avoid bad luck, died in 2002, at the age of 92, which was either good luck or bad luck, depending on how you look at it. Even the decision to change the name of Burma to Myanmar was prompted by Ne Win’s soothsayer, and announced on May 27 (since 2 + 7 = 9).

Kipling once wrote: “This is Burma, and it will be quite unlike any land you know.” In its enduring fascination with superstition, Burma’s dictators seem like a throwback to another age. Each of the leading clans in the junta has a family astrologer. The army has its own zodiacal experts, but it is a dangerous job: astrologers who make negative predictions are liable to arrest and imprisonment.

The junta’s belief in astrology in part reflects the capricious weirdness of a peculiarly nasty regime, insulated from the rest of the world and divorced from reality. But the generals also follow a long tyrannical tradition: throughout history dictators have tended to put their faith in the occult, with unpredictable outcomes. An excessive belief in the supernatural is often the hallmark of a dying dictatorship.

Politicians in general have a peculiar weakness for astrology – Ronald and Nancy Reagan famously consulted an astrologer, as did both Charles de Gaulle and François Mitterrand. President Roosevelt would never travel on a Friday. Unelected politicians are more susceptible to superstition than democratic ones and, as a rule of thumb, the more authoritarian the regime, the more likely it is to seek explanations and omens in the stars.

Napoleon was said to fear black cats, and believed that a meal of chicken and crayfish would bring victory (and, presumably, indigestion). Leonid Brezhnev conferred with an astrologer named Dzhuna at key moments in the Cold War and was treated by a Georgian faith healer in his later years; Catherine de’ Medici consulted Nostradamus himself, while the Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph II had his horoscope cast by Johannes Kepler, the great German astronomer.

From the Roman emperors to the Nazis to the Burmese generals, tyrants need to feel that fate, rather then accident, has brought them to power and will keep them there. Since their own eminence is preordained, they seek to shape and predict the future. For most of us, the daily horoscope is a harmless, if pointless, pastime, but in the hands of a dictator it feeds easily into paranoia and megalomania.

Of no despot is this truer than Hitler, whose fascination with the occult shaped a regime that deliberately rejected rationalism in favour of mystical determinism. “We stand at the edge of the age of reason,” declared Hitler. “A new era of the magical explanation of the world is rising.”

In July 1933, Berlin’s most famous clairvoyant. Erik Jan Hanussen, was summoned to read Hitler’s palm at the Hotel Kaiserhof. Like most mystics, he foretold exactly what the customer wanted to hear. “I see victory for you. It cannot be stopped,” he said. It did him no good, for the Jewish Hanussen could not predict his own unhappy fate: to be murdered by the SS, and dumped in a field.

During the war, British Intelligence tried to exploit Hitler’s fixation with astrology by planting fake predictions of his imminent death in newspapers around the globe, in the hope that this would destabilise him and the regime. The intelligence officer in charge of the plan wrote: “This is probably the most curious thing I have ever been asked to arrange, but nonetheless most important.”

He was right on both counts: like the Burmese junta, Hitler’s obsession with the supernatural was a mark of instability and vulnerability, and a window into his strange and tyrannical regime. Gilbert Murray once wrote: “The best seed ground for superstition is a society in which the fortunes of men seem to bear practically no relation to their merits or effort.” That was true of Nazi Germany and it is equally true of modern Burma, where the good suffer and only the oppressors flourish.

Two sets of beliefs are colliding today in Burma today. On one side the monks, devotees to an ancient creed, demanding democratic freedom and modern economic reform, and on the other a vicious modern military machine, adhering to a medieval code of prophecies, astral omens and superstitious symbolism.

You do not have to be clairvoyant to be able to predict which of these beliefs will triumph in the end.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/ben_macintyre/article2547120.ece
JPTF 2007/09/27

"Face a um Irão nuclear miliar o que fazer?" in Libération, 26 de Setembro de 2007

Une certitude: selon tous les experts, au rythme actuel, dan deux ans, Téhéran aura la maîtrise du nucléaire. Face à ce danger Washington avance des options militaires si les sanctions de l’ON ne font pas plier un pouvoir iranien désuni. Six questions-réponse pour examiner cette alternative
L’Iran continue de construire des «cascades» de centrifugeuses nécessaires à la production d’uranium enrichi - elle en disposerait d’une dizaine, pour un total de 1 640 machines. De son côté, Téhéran prétend disposer de 3 000 centrifugeuses, ce qui, en théorie, lui permettrait de fabriquer une bombe par an. Mais, pour cela, il lui faut enrichir l’U-235 (destiné au réacteur nucléaire) à 90 %, et non à 4 % comme actuellement.
Existe-t-il une «solution militaire» à la crise nucléaire iranienne ?
C’est ce que laisse entendre l’administration américaine, et, récemment, Sarkozy et Kouchner. Si attaque il devait y avoir, il s’agirait essentiellement de frappes aériennes conjuguées à des actions menées par les forces spéciales. Une «invasion» terrestre de l’Iran, comme celle de l’Irak en 2003, semble totalement exclue. Deux pays sont militairement capables de conduire ces frappes aériennes : les Etats-Unis et Israël - la France et la Grande-Bretagne possèdent des capacités offensives nettement plus réduites.
La première difficulté est d’identifier clairement les cibles: lesquelles faut-il détruire pour stopper le programme nucléaire iranien ou pour déstabiliser le régime, en particulier les Gardiens de la révolution qui constituent son bras armé ? Il existe aussi un risque de contamination radioactive en cas de frappes directes de matériel fissible. Dans toutes les hypothèses, une seule frappe ne serait pas suffisante : il ne s’agit donc pas de rééditer le bombardement de la centrale nucléaire irakienne de Tamouz, conduit par l’aviation israélienne en juin 1981.
Autre difficulté : les Iraniens se préparent à une telle attaque. Ils ont donc dispersé leurs sites, les ont renforcés en les enfouissant, parfois sous des tonnes de béton. Enfin, ils ont développé des défenses sol-air. Dernier problème: si des frappes aériennes anéantissent ou réduisent les capacités nucléaires de l’Iran, Téhéran ne restera pas sans réagir. Les cibles potentielles sont nombreuses: l’US Army est en Irak, en Afghanistan et dans le Golfe. En cas d’implication d’Israël, c’est le front du Liban qui pourrait se «rallumer» via le Hezbollah. Comme en Irak, le déroulement des premières heures d’une opération militaire est assez prévisible. Pour les suivantes, c’est beaucoup moins sûr…
Où se situe la «ligne rouge» ?
Il y a plusieurs lignes : diplomatique, technologique, militaire… La plus communément admise par les experts, c’est lorsque l’Iran aura accumulé assez de matière fissile pour fabriquer une bombe. Un horizon qui devrait être atteint en 2009 si Téhéran poursuit son programme au rythme actuel.
Les sanctions du Conseil de sécurité sont-elles efficaces ?
Même si elles ont une portée limitée, les deux résolutions du Conseil de sécurité, la 1737 et la 1747, adoptées à l’unanimité en décembre 2006 et mars 2007, ont déjà sérieusement affecté l’économie iranienne, comme le soulignait un rapport du FMI publié en mars. C’est le secteur financier qui est le plus touché. Parallèlement, la réduction des investissements étrangers dans le secteur pétrolier va aggraver la baisse de la production - estimée à 5 % par an, selon Akbar Torkan, directeur de la compagnie iranienne Pars Oil and Gas. Le secteur du raffinage, capable de ne répondre qu’à 60 % de la demande intérieure, est, lui aussi, affecté. Fin juin, un plan de rationnement de l’essence a été instauré, provoquant des émeutes à Téhéran. Par ailleurs, l’augmentation des primes d’assurance à l’exportation a entraîné le renchérissement des produits importés par Téhéran. D’où une hausse de l’inflation, estimée à présent à 40%. Une troisième résolution pourrait encore aggraver la situation, mais ni la Russie ni la Chine n’y sont favorables. D’où la volonté de Paris de contourner l’ONU par des sanctions prises dans un cadre européen.
Face aux sanctions et aux menaces, le régime iranien serre-t-il les rangs ?
Il apparaît au contraire divisé, même s’il maintient une unité de façade. Ainsi, les ex-présidents Rafsandjani et Khatami sont soucieux d’éviter l’isolement de l’Iran. Dans l’ensemble, le régime craint une intervention militaire que ne semble pas redouter, en revanche, le président Ahmadinejad. C’est dans ce contexte qu’il faut replacer la déclaration de Kouchner, dont on peut imaginer qu’elle était destinée à inquiéter le pouvoir iranien.
http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/monde/280834.FR.php
JPTF 2007/09/26

"Presidente do Irão afirma que dossier nuclear está ‘encerrado‘" in Público, 25 de Setembro de 2007

O Presidente iraniano, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declarou hoje, perante a Assembleia-Geral das Nações Unidas, que considera "encerrado" o assunto sobre o dossier nuclear iraniano.

"Anuncio oficialmente que, para nós, a questão nuclear está encerrada e que passou a ser gerida pela Agência [Internacional de Energia Atómica]", declarou Ahmadinejad.

"Todas as nossas actividades nucleares têm sido completamente pacíficas e transparentes", acrescentou, acusando as potências ocidentais, "arrogantes", de tentarem privar o Irão "do seu direito à energia nuclear".

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disse que, apesar das ameaças militares e das sanções "ilegais", o "Irão avançou, passo a passo, e hoje é reconhecido como um país com capacidade para a produção de energia em larga escala, para fins pacíficos".
http://ultimahora.publico.clix.pt/noticia.aspx?id=1305777
2007/09/26

"Entre protestos, o Presidente do Irão fala em Columbia" in New York Times, 24 de Setembro de 2007

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, facing a hostile reception at Columbia University this afternoon, said that Palestinians were suffering because of the Holocaust, proclaimed that there are no homosexuals in his country and said he wanted to visit the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan during his trip to New York “to show my respect.”

In accepting an invitation to speak at Columbia while in New York for a meeting of the United Nations, Mr. Ahmadinejad subjected himself to protests from scores of students, faculty and others, and to a harsh critique from even the university’s president, Lee C. Bollinger.

In introductory remarks that ran more than 10 minutes, Mr. Bollinger defended the university’s right to invite Mr. Ahmadinejad to speak but moments later accused the Iranian leader of behaving like “a petty and cruel dictator.”

Earlier today, the university had been the scene of growing protests from hundreds of students and others who did not believe Columbia should have extended Mr. Ahmadinejad a platform. The lawn on campus was crowded with students and others who could not get into the forum, who watched him from a live telecast that had been set up by university officials.

Mr. Bollinger set the tone for what became a tense exchange between the Iranian leader and his hosts, who did not let him stray too far afield when he delivered a rambling speech by insisting that he stick to a time limit and putting direct questions to him about his country’s policies.

Throughout it all, Mr. Ahmadinjad tried to maintain a smile on his face, even when he began his remarks by complaining about his treatment at the hands of his hosts, saying that guests would not be treated in such a manner in Iran.

He described some of Mr. Bollinger’s remarks as an “insult” and “incorrect, regretfully.”

“In Iran, tradition requires that when we invite a person to be a speaker,” he said through a translator, “we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment and we don’t think it’s necessary before the speech is even given to come in with a series of claims and to attempt to provide a vaccination of sorts to our faculty and students.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad then meandered from science and religion, to the creation of human beings and the misuse of wisdom. But it was during the question-and-answer session that he was confronted about some of his most controversial positions.

He said that as an academic he questioned whether there was “sufficient research” about what happened after World War II, referring to the Holocaust. “We know quite well that Palestine is an old wound” for 60 years, he said at one point.

“We need to still question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it or not.”

He was asked to answer directly whether he or his government seeks the destruction of Israel. He did not. But to solve the “60-year-old problem,” he said, “we must allow the Palestinian people to decide on its future itself.”

Someone from the audience asked Mr. Ahmadinejad if he was calling for the destruction of the State of Israel.

The Iranian president did not provide a yes or no answer, but spoke instead about the issue of Palestininian self-determination: “We love all nations. We love the Jewish people. There are many Jews living in Iran, with peace and security.”

When John H. Coatsworth, the acting dean of Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs, challenged Mr. Ahmadinejad to give a yes or no answer, the president responded:

“ Where’s the free expression in that?” he asked.

He called for a “free referendum” in Palestine. “Let the people of Palestine freely chose what they want for their future,”

In answer to criticism Mr. Bollinger had made about Iran’s treatment of women and gays, Mr. Ahmadinejad had much to say.

“In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country,” he said to boos and hisses and even some laughter from the audience.

“In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon,” Mr. Ahmadinejad continued, undeterred. “I do not know who has told you that we have it. But as for women, maybe you think that maybe being a woman is a crime.

“It’s not a crime to be a woman. Women are the best creatures created by God. They represent the kindness, the beauty that God instills in them. Women are respected in Iran.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad also said he hoped to visit the site of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan, although police had forbidden him to do so. Mr. Ahmadinejad said he wanted to “show my respect.”

He added: “Regretfully, some groups had very strong reactions, very bad reactions. It’s bad to prevent someone from showing sympathy to the families of the victims of the 9/11 event, a tragic event.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad has been trying to cast a positive light on his policies during his visit to a country where they have been criticized. Iran has been accused by the Bush administration of arming Shiite militias in Iraq as well as developing a nuclear weapons program, charges that the Iranian government denies.

Earlier today, he spoke at the National Press Club at midday in Washington via videolink from New York.

At the National Press Club event, Mr. Ahmadinejad said that Iran sought only peace and security for Iraq; he appeared to deny that Iran was providing weapons for Iraqi insurgents, and he said any talk of war with the United States was “a propaganda tool” by the West.

But Mr. Ahmadinejad, in his first real dialogue with the Washington press corps, expressed no great admiration for the United States. “We oppose the way the U.S. government tries to manage the world,” he said. “We believe it’s wrong; we believe it leads to war, discrimination and bloodshed.”

And he defended or repeated his earlier comments about the Holocaust, saying Iran could not recognize Israel “because it is based on ethnic discrimination, occupation and usurpation, and it consistently threatens its neighbors.”

At Columbia Mr. Ahmadinejad was asked to participate in the World Leader’s Forum. He is also scheduled to address the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday.

This morning, protesters, including students bused in from other schools, gathered at the university grounds ahead of the speech. Student groups and individuals started covering the campus with fliers. Columbia security guards closed off the grounds to anyone without a campus identification card, and the police set up barriers outside of campus.

“The events in Iran are disturbing,” said Lauren Steinberg, a political science major who was hanging up signs. “We don’t want to turn a blind eye to them. I personally don’t think he should have been invited to campus, but now that he’s here, I see it as an important opportunity for free speech and for us to denounce his views.”

“With the amount of people we will have, we will most likely stretch down a couple of blocks,” said Dani Klein, the campus director for StandWithUs, one of the sponsors of the protests.

“We felt that this went above and beyond the issues of free speech,” Mr. Klein said, adding that his objections included the lack of human rights in Iran and the fact that the university had given Mr. Ahmadinejad a platform. “You can criticize his views without honoring him the way they are.”

Other protests against the Iranian president were expected in the streets outside the United Nations in New York.

“We have today an extraordinary opportunity to directly engage” Mr. Ahmadinejad, said John Coatsworth, a dean at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs, in an atmosphere of “civility and restraint,” the audience was told. Mr. Ahmadinejad arrived in the United States on Sunday and addressed people invited by the Iranian mission in a closed event at the New York Hilton.

The university was a scene of divergent views today: A group of Iranian-Americans taped a large Iranian flag in the middle of campus and taped up printed and hand-written fliers focusing on positive aspects of the Iranian government.

“There are Muslim, Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian representatives in Iran’s Parliament,” said a pink hand-written sign that was hanging on the side of Lerner Hall, where Mr. Ahmadinejad will be speaking.

“We want to show some of the positive things about Iran because we think there are a lot of the pictures in the past days that just create hatred and bigotry,” said Maryam Jazini, 23, who graduated from Columbia last year.

Another unsigned flier read: “Bollinger, too bad Bin Laden is not available. You could have presented him with some tough questions too.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad is allowed under international law and diplomatic protocols to travel freely within a 25-mile radius of Columbus Circle. But the police said last week that Mr. Ahmadinejad would not be allowed anywhere near Ground Zero during his trip.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/world/worldspecial/24cnd-iran.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
JPTF 24/09/2007

"Irão exibe poder militar" in Guardian, 22 de Setembro de 2007

The Iranian president was talking on the eve of his departure from Tehran, amid a storm of opposition to his visit to New York and growing international alarm over his country's nuclear ambitions. He is poised to deliver a defiant address to the UN General Assembly this week.
The Iranian military showed off a new long-range ballistic missile called the Ghadr - Farsi for 'power'. In a speech marking the event, Ahmadinejad shrugged off US and regional concerns about Iran's more assertive role, saying: 'Iran is an influential power in the region and the world should know that this power has always served peace, stability, brotherhood and justice.'

But with the Iranian leader expected to arrive in New York on Sunday for the annual meeting of the 192-member assembly, diplomats said his visit was likely to raise the temperature further surrounding international moves to curb Iran's nuclear enrichment programme.
Members of the UN Security Council have been informally consulting on the possibility of a new and tougher resolution in the wake of the Iranians' refusal to abandon its uranium-enrichment.

Last week, the French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner warned the Iranians that if diplomatic efforts failed to halt Iran from becoming a nuclear power, war was a possibility.

Speaking to The Observer, the British foreign secretary, David Miliband, played down that prospect, and interpreted Kouchner's remarks as a move to convey to Iran 'the depth of feelings' about 'the dangers of setting off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.'

He said both Britain and its EU allies were '100 per cent committed to a diplomatic solution.' But when asked whether he thought the issue 'will be solved by diplomatic means,' he stopped short of saying yes. He replied instead: 'I think it can be solved by diplomatic means.'

Ahmadinejad's visit has already sparked bitter opposition in New York.

He has been forced to cancel plans to 'pay respects to the American nation' at the 'Ground Zero' site of the September 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center amid protests from relatives of some of the victims.

On Friday, the president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, overruled its School of International and Public Affairs and rescinded an invitation for Ahmadinejad to speak at its World Leader's Forum. The invitation had prompted widespread criticism in the light of Ahmadinejad's remarks calling for Israel's destruction and questioning the facts of the Nazi Holocaust.

Bollinger said the school could still have Ahmadinejad speak to faculty and students in a less formal and high-profile forum, but there appeared no immediate plans to revive the invitation
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2174956,00.html
JPTF 22/09/2007

Internet ReformIslam.org Copyright © Muslims Against Sharia 2007. All rights reserved. E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org