Saint Vincent de Paul et les esclavagistes maghrébins....

By AAA;

L’aventure humaine et spirituelle de St Vincent de Paul au 17ème siècle mérite réflexion.

Comment un saint homme, connu pour sa compassion et son esprit pacifique, en est-il venu à souhaiter et préparer une intervention armée en Méditerranée pour secourir les dizaines de milliers de chrétiens déportés comme esclaves ou emprisonnés et maltraités dans les geôles islamiques du Maghreb ?

Auparavant, après la prise de Constantinople en 1453, durant laquelle les Ottomans allèrent jusqu’à violer les religieuses sur les autels des basiliques chrétiennes pour savourer leur victoire, la géopolitique de l’Europe s’est transformée. Les Ottomans étendent leur zone d’influence, ils conquièrent l’Egypte des mamelouks, la Mecque et l’Arabie, Bagdad et la Mésopotamie, ils occupent les Balkans où ils brutalisent les populations.

C’est alors que les pirates barbaresques établis au Maghreb apportent leur puissante contribution au Sultan de la Sublime Porte qui déploie sa domination sur toute l’Afrique du Nord, à l’exception du Maroc. Leur intense activité de razzia et de rançonnement va faire vivre les populations maghrébines et enrichir Istanbul de manière fulgurante. Comme les Barbaresques vouent une haine féroce envers les chrétiens, ils attaquent systématiquement les villes côtières en Méditerranée, pour les piller et massacrer les habitants. Ils brûlent les églises, capturent les jeunes femmes et les jeunes garçons qu’ils expédient à Istanbul pour les harems et les loisirs sexuels des dignitaires musulmans.

Année après année, la méditerranée est constamment le théâtre de tragédies : les Barbaresques interceptent les navires européens chargés de marchandises et de richesses. Ils récupèrent le butin et font prisonniers les passagers, hommes, femmes et enfants destinés à être vendus comme esclaves. Des personnalités de la noblesse française, italienne, espagnole sont prises en otages et libérées contre forte rançon. C’est ainsi que leurs forfaits vont contribuer à consolider l’Empire turc et à développer leurs implantations au Maghreb.

Alger et Tunis deviennent les places fortes et les bases arrières de la piraterie musulmane. Les Turcs et les pirates maghrébins organisent ensemble les trafics humains et les prises de butin, rendant de plus en plus difficile la situation des états chrétiens dans les échanges commerciaux.

Le pape Pie V cherche à mettre en place une stratégie qui puisse desserrer l’étau des Turcs sur l’Europe et la méditerranée. Cela aboutit à la bataille de Lépante en 1571, qui met en échec une des tentatives turques de conquérir l’Europe chrétienne et de faire flotter la bannière islamique dans toutes ses capitales.

Mais le brigandage massif se poursuit grâce aux réseaux des pirates barbaresques qui interceptent tout ce qui doit effectuer la traversée, matériaux, épices, objets précieux, êtres humains. Les états chrétiens comme la France, l’Angleterre, l’Espagne, ne réagissent pas, ils acceptent de payer des tributs considérables, des rançons énormes, tandis que d’autres comme les Républiques italiennes, les Etats pontificaux, Malte, l’Autriche et la Russie refusent catégoriquement de négocier avec les pirates de Barbarie.

Les captifs de toutes origines s’entassent néanmoins au cours du 16ème siècle dans les bagnes de Tunis et d’Alger. C’est l’expérience que fait Vincent de Paul lui-même, puisqu’il est fait prisonnier avec beaucoup d’autres passagers lors d’un voyage en 1605.

Vincent De Paul est né en 1576 près de Dax. Brillant dans les études, il s’oriente vers l’Ordre des Cordeliers (Franciscains) et il est ordonné prêtre en 1600. En voyage à Marseille, il prend le chemin du retour vers Narbonne en prenant le bateau. Mais les pirates sachant que le navire est chargé de marchandises l’arraisonnent sabre à la main. Ils l’escortent jusqu’à Tunis, où l’entrée du port est noire de monde criant « Allah ou Akbar » et exultant d’avance à la vue du navire marchand capturé.

Après l’accostage, les notables sont mis à part pour être restitués contre rançons, et les autres passagers acheminés vers le lieu de vente des esclaves. Alger compte alors environ trente mille esclaves chrétiens, Tunis autour de six mille. Vincent est vendu à un vieux fondeur alchimiste chez lequel il doit tenir douze fourneaux.

Ayant constaté son intelligence et sa culture, son maître cherche par tous les moyens à le convertir à l’islam, sans succès. Puis il le revend à un propriétaire terrien. Vincent est conscient de la condition insupportable des milliers d’esclaves chrétiens en terre d’islam. Il apprend que la Sublime Porte ne respecte pas le traité signé en 1604 avec la France pour libérer les esclaves. Il se demande comment alléger les souffrances des prisonniers.

Mais les circonstances favorables de ses allées et venues dans la propriété où il travaille lui permettent un jour de s’enfuir, après deux ans de captivité et de travail forcé. Accompagné d’un autre candidat au retour, c’est dans une barque qu’ils traversent périlleusement la mer pour aboutir finalement à Aigues-Mortes.

De là, Vincent de Paul se rend à Rome où il partage son souci du sort des esclaves avec l’ambassadeur de France. De retour à Paris, il fait la rencontre du cardinal de Bérulle, et met au point – grâce à des mécènes – son projet de fonder une société au service des pauvres, la société des dames de Charité. Nommé aumônier des galères du roi, il va au devant des condamnés pour les assister. Sensible au sort tragique des enfants abandonnés dans les rues de Paris, il parvient à en sauver des milliers en quelques décennies. Sa rencontre prolongée avec François de Sales, évêque de Genève, l’enracine dans sa volonté d’apporter des secours spirituels à ceux qui en ont le plus besoin.

En mai 1627, il crée les Prêtres de la Mission, avec l’appui du roi Louis XIII. Cette congrégation prendra le nom de « lazaristes ».

Le désir d’organiser le soulagement des souffrances, c’est aussi pour Vincent le projet de venir en aide aux esclaves prisonniers des bagnes de Barbarie, au Maghreb. Il fonde une œuvre en 1645, qui lui permet de faire délivrer plusieurs milliers de captifs chrétiens par paiement de rançon, mais il met en place une sorte d’aumônerie qui se soucie d’offrir un soutien spirituel et une amélioration des conditions de vie. Les missionnaires envoyés par Vincent vont se heurter à l’hostilité des chefs musulmans qui répugnent à voir des prêtres sur le sol de l’islam et qui ont déjà à plusieurs reprises refusé catégoriquement la construction de chapelles. La conversion surprise au catholicisme du fils du bey de Tunis parti avec sa suite se faire baptiser en Espagne n’arrange pas les choses.

Avançant en âge, et actif au service des pauvres et des souffrants de son temps, Vincent se rend compte que les accords et traités passés avec les autorités islamiques ne sont jamais respectés. Les navires des Barbaresques mandatés par le Sultan et sous l’autorité des deys de Tunis et d’Alger abordent les bateaux marchands des états chrétiens, les pillent et capturent les passagers. Les captifs sont traités comme du bétail, et vendus à leur arrivée. Les jeunes femmes, y compris les religieuses, sont expédiées dans les harems des dignitaires et du sultan. Les souverains européens protestent continuellement contre ces exactions, et pourtant rien ne change. Le roi de France montre des réactions assez molles, et il ne semble pas décidé à faire la guerre aux pirates musulmans. Le dey d’Alger a beau jeu de souligner ironiquement cette attitude velléitaire : « Ces Européens ont des cœurs de femmes ! Ils ne tourmentent point leurs ennemis ! »

De son côté, le grand Bossuet, dans son éloge de Pierre de Nolasque, écrit : « S’il y a au monde quelque servitude capable de représenter la misère extrême de la captivité horrible de l’homme sous la tyrannie du démon, c’est l’état d’un captif chrétien sous les mahométans, car le corps et l’esprit y souffrent une égale violence… »

Un prêtre genevois de la Mission, le père Noueli, raconte que circulant en soutane dans les rues d’Alger pour visiter les esclaves chrétiens mourants, appartenant à des musulmans, il est pris par les autochtones pour un juif, et les enfants lui crachent au visage, en l’appelant « papa des hébreux » et en l’insultant copieusement. Tout chrétien ou tout juif, en tant qu’infidèle, peut être poignardé dans le dos à tout moment.

Face à cette redoutable dégradation générale, ayant essayé tous les moyens pacifiques, diplomatiques, mis en échec par la stratégie musulmane, Vincent de Paul en arrive à ne plus se satisfaire de son Œuvre des Esclaves, et il envisage donc à partir de 1658 la manière forte pour résoudre le problème lancinant des captifs chrétiens en Barbarie. Pour cela il s’appuie sur son réseau de consuls présents dans les villes maritimes du Maghreb.

N’obtenant aucun résultat concret de la part du roi de France, Vincent de Paul constate que les succès défensifs déjà réalisés en Afrique du Nord par les Vénitiens, les Génois et les Maltais sont utiles mais insuffisants, et il prend la décision de financer lui-même une expédition militaire pour aller au secours des esclaves et des captifs, et pour stopper les persécutions et les exactions permanentes des Barbaresques. Des notables contribuent aux frais de cette entreprise de nettoyage des côtes de l’Algérie. Mais Vincent de Paul meurt en 1660, avant d’en voir les premiers résultats. La même année, Louis XIV envoie enfin une quinzaine de navires au devant des Barbaresques. Cela aboutit à un traité, signé par le dey d’Alger en 1666, garantissant la sûreté de la navigation chrétienne en Méditerranée. En 1668, l’abbé Alméras, successeur de Vincent de Paul, prend en charge la supervision des esclaves chrétiens en Barbarie. Mais la piraterie islamique reprend de plus belle, et la situation continue de se péjorer. Toutefois, le sultan du Maroc accepte de négocier avec la France et ouvre Fès aux Européens, ce qui n’empêche nullement les Algériens de continuer de nuire.

Lors des funérailles de Marie Thérèse d’Autriche, Bossuet s’exclame : « Alger ! Riche des dépouilles de la chrétienté, tu disais en ton cœur avare : je tiens la mer sous mes lois et les nations sont ma proie. Mais nous verrons la fin de tes brigandages ! »

Un nouveau traité signé en 1684 est de nouveau violé par les forbans islamiques. La France bombarde Alger et Cherchell. En représailles les Algérois exécutent de nombreux captifs. Nouveau bombardement.

Atermoiements du roi de France. Un peu plus tard, un nouveau projet de libération des territoires maghrébins est proposé à son successeur le roi Louis XV. Dans ses annales, le prêtre et savant italien Ludovico Muratori écrit : « Ce sera toujours une honte pour les Puissances de la chrétienté, aussi bien catholiques que protestantes, que de voir qu’au lieu d’unir leurs forces pour écraser, comme elles le pourraient, ces nids de scélérats, elles vont de temps à autre mendier par tant de sollicitations et de dons ou par des tributs, leur amitié, laquelle se trouve encline à la perfidie ».

Ce sont les Espagnols qui maintiennent la pression et qui reprennent Oran en 1732. Mais ils ne parviennent pas à briser les chaînes des milliers de prisonniers.

Nouveau traité signé par le Premier Consul avec Alger en 1801, aussitôt transgressé, comme d’habitude, mais le trafic s’atténue quelque temps. Lors du Congrès de Vienne, les Anglais et les Français semblent d’accord pour une intervention contre les pirates d’Alger. L’amiral Smith adresse un message à tous les gouvernements européens. En 1824, les esclaves chrétiens sont toujours au nombre d’arrivages de dix mille par an.

C’est en 1830 que le corps expéditionnaire français fort de trente sept mille hommes débarque à Alger. Deux cent ans après son initiative, le projet de Vincent de Paul aboutit sur le terrain. Les esclaves sont libérés.

La presse internationale salue avec enthousiasme la réussite de l’expédition. La Suisse déclare que la prise d’Alger est une victoire de la civilisation.

« Un succès vient de couronner une glorieuse entreprise tentée contre le plus puissant des états d’Afrique asile du brigandage ! Elle promet la sécurité de la Méditerranée, elle brisera les fers des esclaves chrétiens ».

Jules Ferry lui-même y voit un « acte de haute police méditerranéenne ».

Les Lazaristes de Vincent de Paul maintiennent leur Œuvre en Algérie, en Tunisie et au Maroc, au service des plus pauvres....

Market pressure for more "money printing" remains high in ZOG UK, Europe, and USA.....

Market pressure for more "money printing" remains high in ZOG UK, Europe, & USA.....

Cracks in Europe....
Commentary and weekly watch by Doug Noland

There were important developments last week on the liquidity analysis front. Tuesday's release of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) minutes (March 13 meeting) threw chilled water on market expectations for near-term additional quantitative easing. In Europe, Wednesday's auction of Spanish 10-year bonds disappointed increasingly nervous markets. Demand for Spain's debt has waned. This is a serious issue for a country suffering from deep recession, a troubled banking sector and ongoing borrowing requirements. Even from a bearish perspective, one would have expected the massive liquidity operations by the European Central Bank (ECB) to have bought Spain more than just a few short months.

It's the nature of inflationism that once commenced the "money



printing" just becomes incredibly difficult to stop. Over the years, US and global markets have been conditioned to expect policy measures that ensure ongoing marketplace liquidity support. The ECB's US$1.3 trillion Long-term Refinancing Operations (LTRO) liquidity facilities coupled with concerted global central bank liquidity measures were a game changer for global risk markets. Rapidly escalating de-risking/de-leveraging dynamics were stopped dead in their tracks.

From my analytical framework, the key issue these days boils down to a fundamental question: did policy measures commence a new bullish liquidity cycle for global risk markets? Or, instead, did these interventions only foment a period of upside market dislocation and instability with attendant susceptibility to disappointment?

Many were quick to downplay the markets' poor reception to the FOMC minutes. Only a "couple" committee members saw the potential need for additional quantitative easing, down from the "few" at the previous meeting. It is clear that the majority of committee members see no need for additional stimulus, although the markets the previous week were excited by chairman Ben Bernanke's dovishness. The marketplace is less than appreciative of the steady chorus of mixed messages from various central bankers.

Yet the markets do believe that Bernanke retains a keen desire for additional stimulus, in spite of heightened internal and external pressures. Last week's data will embolden the doves, if not the bulls. And the markets remain quite confident that the Fed chairman will move quickly to bolster the markets in the event of a return of market instability (the "Bernanke put"). This market perception inflates the market values of equities, bonds and risk assets more generally.

However, the markets last week clearly turned more sensitive to potential liquidity risks. In Europe, the markets took a meaningful step back toward instability. Spain's 10-year yields jumped 41 basis points (bps) to 5.74% (high since January 10), and the country's two-year yields jumped 46 bps to 2.93% (high since January 24).

Credit default swap (CDS) prices for Spain's sovereign debt jumped 27 bps this week to 464 bps, the high since last November. Worryingly, Spanish bank CDS prices spiked significantly higher. Italian 10-year yields jumped 34 bps this week to 5.44%, the high since February 24. Italian CDS surged 21 to 418 bps (two-week gain of 38 bps).

It is worth noting that Italian CDS traded at 127 bps one year ago; at that time Spain CDS was trading near 200 bps. Elsewhere in Europe, Belgium CDS rose 12 bps (245), France gained 10 bps (179), and Portugal jumped 26 bps (1,103). The new Greek 10-year bond saw its yield surge 96 bps this week to 21.50%, with a three-week gain of 372 bps.

And while policymaking plays a profound role in shaping market perceptions, my analytical framework recognizes the global leveraged speculating community as the marginal source of marketplace liquidity.

When the speculators are building positions and adding leverage, the markets enjoy self-reinforcing higher prices, bullish sentiment and liquidity abundance. The markets do, however, remain acutely vulnerable to any serious move to pare back risk/leverage. We saw again last year how quickly seemingly robust global markets can falter and succumb to self-reinforcing liquidation and illiquidity.
Two articles this week from the Financial Times (Sam Jones) shed some interesting light on speculator activities: "Hedge Funds Make Most of Assymetric Risks," and "ECB Liquidity Fuels High Stakes Hedging." "The European Central Bank's moves to boost liquidity in the Eurozone are powering big returns for the high-stakes hedge fund strategy made notorious by the collapse of Long Term Capital Management more than a decade ago: relative value bond arbitrage." Super.

From Sam Jones' FT article:

Across the eurozone, and beyond, hedge fund managers are now pointing to "significant" pricing anomalies on a scale not seen since 2008. A huge rally in credit has seen spreads tighten to pre-Lehman lows. The reason for most hedge funds is clear. For all of its protestations to the contrary, the European Central Bank's longer-term refinancing operation is having as profound an effect on markets as quantitative easing. "The Fed and the Bank of England were early and significant proponents of QE; the ECB has only recently begun," Michael Hintze, the founder of the $11bn credit hedge fund manager CQS wrote… "The thinly disguised QE move by the ECB - LTRO - still has further scope for expansion," he said. "The LTRO was a game changer,' says Suki Mann, a strategist at Societe Generale. "We have seen the mother of all rallies in the first quarter - the third best quarter for credit ever." It was a question of buying risk, says Mr Mann - "the higher the beta the better."

The odds are decent that the markets have been set up for major disappointment. Market participants - and surely the speculators - have viewed the introduction of LTRO in similar light to quantitative easing: once started, policymakers will be held hostage to the markets and forced into ongoing liquidity injections.

At long last, the markets have assumed, the ECB fell in line with the Federal Reserve and Bank of England. And once the risk market rally took off, there was intense pressure throughout the marketplace to participate. The bears were run over and the cautious were forced reluctantly to jump aboard.

Exceptionally strong markets then bolstered the view that the LTRO had fundamentally changed the liquidity and risk backdrop. In this liquidity-induced euphoria, a fallacy took hold that Europe was well on the way to actually resolving its debt crisis.

There is support for the view that the unlimited nature of the LTRO was ill-conceived; that the ECB lost control as the liquidity facilities ballooned to unimaginable dimensions. But perhaps, instead of the beginning of something - might the LTRO actually prove to be something more akin to the beginning of the end? Rather than the ECB finally succumbing to the Fed's inflationist policy doctrine, might the LTRO spur the Bundesbank (and others) to take a harder line with liquidity operations?

Whether one examines the LTRO or the Fed's QE programs, the scope of these market interventions has become staggering. Resulting market distortions have been commensurate. The whirlwind of speculation has turned too unwieldy. And with the LTRO having incited powerful forces of re-risking and re-leveraging, European markets have actually become increasingly vulnerable to an abrupt deterioration in the liquidity backdrop.

The euro was hit for 1.8% last week. German bunds rallied, with spreads to other European borrowers widening meaningfully. The so-called "relative value bond arbitrage" and other leveraged strategies might have had a rough go of it. The Italian 10-year yield to bund spread widened 41 bps this week to 371 bps (9-wk high). The Spain to German yield spread widened 47 bps to 401 bps (wide since November). The French to bund spread widened 16 bps to the widest level since January 19. European equities performed poorly. Germany's DAX dropped 2.5%, reducing its year-to-date gain to 14.9%. Spanish stocks were hit for 4.5% (down 10.6% y-t-d) and Italian stocks were smacked for 5.0% (up 0.8% y-t-d).

The week brought important confirmation for the thesis of heightened European market vulnerability. There's a strong case that an important market inflection point has been reached in Europe. Once de-risking/de-leveraging dynamics commence in earnest they generally persist. Contagion effects build momentum. And last week global markets also appeared increasingly vulnerable. But how this might play out in US markets is less clear.

There was a certain amount of intrigue heading into Friday's US payroll data, not the least of which was that most markets were closed for the holiday. Many thought somewhat disappointing data would support Bernanke's case for QE3, in the process bolstering the flagging "risk on" trade. Others, including myself, believed US equities would prefer stronger data, employment growth that would support the "US as relatively best performer" thesis.

But at 120,000, the increase in nonfarm payrolls was the weakest reading since October (112,000) and below even the pessimistic estimates. Bonds surged on the news, as S&P 500 futures sank more than 1%. The dollar retreated somewhat on the news, although the currencies were mixed overall.

Friday accounted for much of last week's decline in 10-year Treasury yields. Fixed income spreads were generally resilient in the face of heightened European stress and resulting pressure on global risk markets. If Friday's Treasury rally is sustained Monday, it will be interesting to monitor various credit spreads (many credit instruments did not trade Friday).

There is growing market chatter regarding huge positions in various credit indices being traded by major market operators (including JPMorgan). I would tend to see such a backdrop raising the odds of market fireworks if the reemergence of European debt stress provokes a bout of general risk aversion. With markets poised for a weak Monday open, those positioned aggressively "risk on" had a long weekend to contemplate an increasingly unsettled backdrop.

US stocks were lower for the week, although they significantly outperformed Europe and most global bourses. While Friday's data don't help the cause, it's too early to dismiss the possibility that US equities have been anointed "best game in town" by the sophisticated market operators. At the same time, I see added support for the view that much of the global leveraged speculating community is operating with "weak hands".

When markets head south - albeit Spanish stocks and bonds, commodities or gold equities - there's intense pressure to liquidate positions and cut losses. At the same time, our bubble markets have a history of trying to ignore European developments. At the minimum, it is at this point reasonable to presume that the recent halcyon period for global risk markets is winding down....

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/ND11Dj01.html

Germany Looks for Bigger Piece of Central Asian Pie....

Germany Looks for Bigger Piece of Central Asian Pie....

Germany’s Changing Role in Central Asia

Richard Rousseau

The international community, following the September 11, 2001 events and the subsequent outbreak of war in Afghanistan “rediscovered” the strategic importance of the Central Asian region. Germany was among the first countries to pay more attention to this region. However, Berlin already had decades of experience of dealing with major issues in Central Asia. Germany was the first European country to recognize Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, and as early as 1992 it sent various diplomatic missions to the region. Now Germany is showing even greater interest in forging closer relations, both politically and economically, with these five Central Asian governments.

---

Richard Rousseau is Associate Professor and Chairman of the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Khazar University in Baku, Azerbaijan and a contributor to Global Brief, World Affairs in the 21st Century (www.globalbrief.ca) and the Jamestown Foundation.

---

Yet, the lack of improvement in the democratization process in the Central Asian countries could negatively affect these relations in the not-too-distant future (the recent deterioration in the German-Uzbek relationship is a sign of that). Such a development could seriously put at risk the successful implementation of the German (officially European Union) strategy for Central Asia.[1]

Germany’s interest in Central Asia

At first sight, the massive and willfully promoted presence of Germany in all five Central Asian states, all relatively poor countries by world standards, appears somewhat absurd. Nevertheless, substantial human and financial resources are being allocated to the region by Germany, and a recent increase in the numbers of German staff, supported by some European Union (EU) officials, testifies to the seriousness of Germany’s plans for that part of the world. Berlin has created a network in which its diplomatic missions are supported by numerous economic and development institutions, such as the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ, German Society for International Cooperation), the Bankengruppe (KfW, German Development Bank) and cultural bodies, such as the Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst (DAAD, German Academic Exchange Service), the Deutschen Volkshochschul-Verbandes e.V. (DVV, German Adult Education Association), the Welthungerhilfe (emergency aid), the Goethe Institute, the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS, policy expertise) and the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftun (FES, think tank). In Almaty, Kazakhstan, the Germans have established the Kazakh-German KGU University. It is interesting to note that German is one of the most widely spoken foreign languages in the five countries making up the Central Asian region.

Berlin’s motivation in creating a network of cultural institutions and economic programs in the region is many sided. Reinhard Krumm, in his paper “Central Asia, the struggle for power, energy and human rights”[2]suggests that this has taken three chronologically distinct phases, in each of which German interests have changed (although it would perhaps be more correct to say that new interests have been added in the light of changes in external conditions). In the period immediately following the five republics’ independence, Berlin was primarily interested in protecting the approximately one million ethnic Germans who had lived in the region since their deportation to that region during the Second World War (through an edict of August 28, 1941, Joseph Stalin personally ordered the deportation in mass of ethnic Germans from the Volga region to Central Asia).

This displaced population (concentrated mainly in Kazakhstan, and to a lesser extent Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan) is the key to understanding why political relations between Germany and the five Central Asian republics have been so intense since the early nineties. At the beginning of the 2000s, however, more interest was stirred by the rich energy resources (oil and gas) yet to be found in the region. This was clearly explained in a 1998 document presented by the German Social Democratic Party and entitled “Zukunftsregion Kaspisches Meer” (“the Future of the Caspian Sea”[3]).

The September 11, 2001 attacks on America marked a critical turning point in German policy towards Central Asia, which became for Berlin an area of strategic importance in the fight against international terrorism. The German strategy, outlined in the “Central Asia Concept” of March 18, 2002, was summarized by the German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle in last November during his visit to Astana: “If we are to ensure the success of the political process of reconciliation in Afghanistan, then it is crucial that neighboring countries become involved, that they (…) are politically engaged but have also such strong links with the Afghan economy that it can develop favorably.”[4]

Berlin’s interests in the Central Asian region are also predominant in the economic sphere and are keeping growing. These German economic interests there in Central Asia are certainly not limited to oil and natural gas, though these continue to be a primary focus – for instance, on March 14-15 next year Berlin will host the “Turkmenistan Oil & Gas Road Show 2012.”[5] Equally important are German exports of machinery, vehicles and chemicals to the five republics, especially at a time when the global economic crisis has led to a decline in global demand for such products, which have always been the backbone of the German economy.

Political relations, but not good ones

Since the early nineties Germany has maintained good relations with the political leaders of all the republics of the region. The results are seen in the frequent visits by senior government officials, conclusions of economic agreements and a flurry of political activity by a growing number of German companies. The intensity of cooperation in the cultural sector is another indication of the intensity of these relations. To cite just one example, a “Year of Germany in Kazakhstan”[6] was celebrated in Kazakhstan, the main German partner in the region, between February 2009 and February 2010. During the Kazakhstani President’s visit to Germany in 2010 Berlin decided to reciprocate by proclaiming the “Year of Kazakhstan in Germany.” There have been numerous mutual visits made over the last few years by top government officials of both countries, including one to Astana by German federal President Horst Koelher in September 2009, during which a series of official documents were signed, including six trade agreements. In 2010 Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, twice visited Astana to sign a series of “investment memorandums.”[7] More recently, on July 20, 2011, Westerwelle met his Kazakh counterpart in Berlin. A few days earlier in Karaganda was held the 5th meeting of the “German-Kazakh Intergovernmental Working Group on Business and Trade” (RAG).

Germany’s relations with the five Central Asian republics seem therefore to continue to be strengthened over time. However, a closer analysis reveals some hidden weaknesses and inherent risks in Berlin’s relations with these young states. These were brought to the forefront by the recent friction between the German and Uzbek governments. Berlin had planned for a German delegation to visit Tashkent in November 2010 to hold bilateral meetings with the Uzbek government and parliament in order to discuss human rights in the region. The visit was, however, rejected through a statement from the Uzbek foreign ministry. Frictions between the two governments also increased in August 2011, when the Uzbek authorities in Tashkent took control of Steinert Industries, a major German-owned bakery. Not even the German Ambassador, Wolfgang Neuen, was subsequently allowed entry into the facility.[8]

Tashkent’s behavior in this matter was most likely prompted by President Karimov’s desire to impose tight control over the national economy. As early as 1993 he issued a decree establishing a national economic model which on the one hand supported the opening up of the country to international trade but at the same time maintained strict governmental control over the goods and services coming in and out of the country. The presence and expansion of large German companies in the country may have been interpreted as a threat to the Uzbek government’s control of the economy. The punitive action taken against the bakery was probably meant as a way to send a clear message to Berlin.

On the other hand, this unexpected reaction alone does not explain Tashkent’s current discontent with Germany. Karimov’s recent attitude could equally be read as a reaction to the Bundestag’s May 19 investigation into violations of human rights in Uzbekistan. On May 19, 2011, six years almost to the day after the Andijan massacre, during which about 800 people were killed after the Uzbek security forces opened fire on demonstrators in this eastern region of Uzbekistan, four members of the German Parliament (Viola von Cramon, Johannes Pflug, Dagmar Enkelmann and Volker Beck) officially called on Chancellor Angela Merkel to raise the cases of Akzam Turgunov and twelve other human rights defenders unjustly imprisoned and tortured by the government of Uzbekistan.[9] Tashkent must not have liked this initiative, and Karimov is probably now sending to the Berlin government a clear message that he will not accept any kind of German interference in Uzbekistan’s internal affairs.

Human rights

It is increasingly evident that the speed of democratization in the Central Asian states will to a large extent determine the success or failure of the German strategy towards the “stans.” The key issue here is to define the optimal strategy for ensuring the maintenance of the close ties which bind Germany to this key region, an indispensable bridge between Europe and Asia.

Until recently, Berlin has favored a very tolerant attitude towards the authoritarian regimes of the five Central Asian republics. This has set the tone for the relationship between Berlin and Tashkent. In consequence, strong pressure from the German government has persuaded the EU in November 2009 to finally (and reluctantly) lift the sanctions – including an arms embargo – imposed on Uzbekistan following the May 15, 2005 Andijan massacre.[10] Between 2005 and 2009 Berlin did not comply with EU sanctions anyway, and continued to support the Uzbek president – for example, Germany paid 67.9 million euros to Tashkent between 2005 and 2009 to cover the costs of using the Termez military base, which provides essential logistical support for the German troops deployed in Afghanistan. During the same period, in breach of the Europe-wide ban on Uzbek officials imposed by Brussels (penalties were attached to EU members hosting visits by members of the Uzbek government), Berlin allowed the Uzbek Interior Minister, Zokir Almatov, to travel to Germany for medical treatment.[11] Since 2010, Germany has granted the Uzbek government an additional 15.9 million euros a year as “financial compensation” for its use of the Termez base, even though Tashkent has demonstrated no real will to respect human rights of its citizens, as the EU demands.

Putting the moral considerations involved in these disbursements aside, one cannot pin the slightest hope for success on any strategy based on the appeasement of Tashkent’s anti-democratic policy. Berlin’s disinterest in dealing with human rights issues in Uzbekistan means a huge loss of bargaining power. Its passivity is now more likely to enhance the level of blackmail undertaken by the Uzbek government. This will only strengthen Tashkent’s conviction that there is no need to review its human rights and democratization practices.

Judging from its official policy documents, Germany does seem to understand that the issue of human rights is fundamental, not only on the humanitarian level but also in terms of protecting Germany’s own interests in the region. The democratization, pacification and stabilization of the area are at the centre of the EU’s strategy for Central Asia, which was drafted in 2007 under the German presidency of the time and coincides almost completely with Germany’s own. A reading of both German and EU official documents shows indeed a clear understanding of the importance of democratization and the protection of human rights. The EU document reads: “The aim of the European Commission’s assistance Strategy Paper for Central Asia (2007-13) is to promote the stability and security of the countries of Central Asia, to assist in their pursuit of sustainable economic development and poverty reduction and to facilitate closer regional cooperation both within Central Asia and between Central Asia and the EU.”[12] However, these official statements, if anything, do not constitute a sufficient means of improving, or at least ensuring, the protection of human rights, despite the many useful projects also being implemented by the EU and Berlin in this field. The key will be to add even more strategic and humanitarian projects to these statements, to take immediate and firm action against any violations and to refuse to accede to the socio-economic demands of Tashkent and those of other regional governments, unless progress is made.

Such a course of action would involve, for example, linking the payment of a ‘financial contribution” for the use of the Termez base to real action on various humanitarian issues. Germany should react immediately and firmly to Karimov’s recent initiatives, make sure that any sanctions deemed necessary are actually applied and ensure that demands for democratization are taken seriously in Tashkent. Such a strategy would increase the bargaining power and the credibility of Germany and the EU in throughout all of Central Asia.

NOTES

[1] See European Community Regional Strategy Paper for Assistance to Central Asia for the period 2007-2013.http://www.eeas.europa.eu/central_asia/rsp/07_13_en.pdf

[2] Krumm, Reinhard , Central Asia, the struggle for power, energy and human rights, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftun, January 2007. http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/04329.pdf

[3] Zukunftsregion Kaspisches Meer : deutsche Interessen und europäische Politik in den transkaukasischen und zentralasiatischen Staaten (Future Caspian Sea: German and European policy interests in the Transcaucasian and Central Asian States), SPD parliamentary group policy paper, Bonn, 1998. http://www.gernot-erler.de/old/ot/ot1.html#Inhalt

[4] Federal Foreign Office website, November 17, 2011. http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/AAmt/BM-Reisen/2011/11-Tkm/111116-Ankuendigung-TKM-node.html

[5] See http://www.turkmenistan-europe.com

[6] See http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Aussenpolitik/Laender/Laenderinfos/01-Nodes/Kasachstan_node.html

[7] Seehttp://portal.mfa.kz/portal/page/portal/mfa/resources/Pictures/Astana%20Calling%202010%20(PDF)/Tab/Astana%20Calling%20092110.pdf;http://www.investkz.com/en/journals/69/571.html; http://www.kazakhembassy.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=142:news-bulletin-of-the-embassy-of-the-republic-of-kazakhstan&catid=37:economy-&Itemid=86

[8] Catherine A. Fitzpatrick, Uzbekistan Cancels German Parliamentary Rights Committee Visit, Eurasianet, June 30, 2011. http://www.eurasianet.org/node/63778

[9] See http://www.freedom-now.org/news/members-of-the-german-parliament-call-on-chancellor-merkel-to-raise-the-cases-of-freedom-now-client-akzam-turgunov-and-12-other-imprisoned-human-rights-defenders-with-the-government-of-uzbekistan

[10] Simon Tisdall, Why does the EU Give Credibility to such Dictators as Islam Karimov? The Guardian, January 26, 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/26/eu-dictators-islam-karimov

[11] EU, US Should Press for Accountability, End to Rights Abuses, Human Rights Watch, May 11. 2011.http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/05/11/uzbekistan-6-years-no-justice-andijan-victims

[12] European Community Regional…, op. cit.

The return of the Zioconned Keyboard Warriors....

The return of the Zioconned Keyboard Warriors....
By Pepe Escobar

Waiting for the end of the world,
Waiting for the end of the world,
Waiting for the end of the world.
Dear Lord, I sincerely hope you're coming
‘cause you really started something.
Elvis Costello, Waiting for the end of the world

Be afraid. Be very afraid. The Return of the Keyboard Warriors - a prized Return of the Living Dead spin-off - is at hand. From Republican chicken hawks to public intellectuals, right-wing America is erupting in renewed neo-conservative revolt. The year 2012 is the new 2002; Iran is the new Iraq. Whatever the highway - real men go to Tehran via Damascus, or real men go to Tehran non-stop - they want a war, and they want it now.

Go ahead and jump
Exhibit A is an op-ed piece at the Wall Street Journal [1] - similar to countless others popping up virtually everyday not only in this Masters of the Universe vehicle but also in the Washington Post and myriad rags across "Western civilization".

The festival of fallacies ranges from the usual "diplomacy has run its course" to "the sanctions are too late" - culminating in the right-wing weapon of choice; "Iran is within a year of getting to the point when it will be able to assemble a bomb essentially at will." Why bother to follow what the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is doing, not to mention the National Intelligence Estimates released by the US intelligence community?

And why not add imperial disdain tinged with racism, as in "Iran is a Third World country that can't even protect its own scientists in the heart of Tehran". Of course not; they are being killed by the Iranian terror group Mujahideen-e-Khalq, merrily trained, financed and armed by Israel's Mossad, as US corporate media has just discovered. [2] Everybody in Iran has known this for months.

As a climax, still another fallacy - "the Islamic Republic means to destroy Israel" - unveils the real agenda; "the broader goal of ending the regime." Oh, if we could only have our Persian gendarme of the Gulf back.

This is what passes for geopolitical analysis in Rupert Murdoch-controlled US corporate media - read and relinked daily by the Masters of the Universe. Scary monsters, super freaks
Exhibit B is an op-ed piece at Tina Brown's The Daily Beast, [3] signed by Niall Ferguson, professor of history at Harvard, senior research fellow at Jesus College, Oxford, and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford.

Recently, I actually took the trouble of reading Ferguson's latest book, Civilization: The West and the Rest, during my favorite West-to-Rest flight, the 16-hour New York to Hong Kong (from the American century to the Asian century).

Ferguson sets out to refute the reasons why Israel should not attack Iran. He assumes "the Saudis stand ready to pump out additional supplies" of oil (wrong). He assumes a "military humiliation" will lead the regime in Tehran to collapse (wrong). He claims that Tehran will not "become a sober, calculating disciple of the realist school of diplomacy ... because it has finally acquired weapons of mass destruction" (multiple wrong; Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is very sober and calculating, and he has banned nuclear weapons as anti-Islamic).

Former US vice president Dick Cheney would have been proud to hire Ferguson as an apparatchik, as he states that "preventive war can be a lesser evil" and duly advocates "creative destruction".

Ferguson ranks Israel as "the most easterly outpost of Western civilization"; not bad for an isolated, supremacist theocracy/ethnocracy armed with at least 200 (undeclared) nuclear weapons whose favorite sport is to terrorize Palestinians and now Iranian scientists. Talk about a sponsor of terror state springing from the womb of "Western civilization".

Ferguson's toxic fusion of arrogance and ignorance - about the Middle East, about Persian culture, about Asia, about the nuclear issue, about the oil industry, about, in fact, "the Rest" - would be just innocuous hadn't he be hailed as a top public intellectual. The best thing about his piece are actually the comments, ranging from "I'm shocked that a research fellow at Jesus College would advocate the bombing of Muslims" to "What's with all these Brits that look to the USA as a platform to re-inflate their dreams of Empire?"

If this is what passes for intellectual analysis in the upper strata of the Anglo-American axis, no wonder the whole business of Empire is doomed.

Far more insidious than The Invasion of the Keyboard Warriors is its effect on the warrior-in-chief, US President Barack Obama. Recently, Obama has been conducting product placement for Robert Kagan's new book, The World America Made. Kagan, a neo-con stalwart, advises Mitt Romney - who may, or may not, become the Republican presidential nominee, assuming he wins over the visceral repulsion he provokes in extreme right-wing circles.

As Andrew Levine from the Institute for Policy Studies has shrewdly observed, [4] Obama the neo-con may be a very clever move to pre-empt Mitt and win even more votes. But it may be an exercise in transparency, as Obama, even before his State of the Union address, has been reciting Kagan to the letter, as in forget Asia, this will be another American century, and I will be at the helm; thus remember, it is I that coined the only change you can believe in.

And that's when this really becomes a scary movie; if Obama the neo-con concludes that to get to his new, dominant American century first he needs to do some vacuum-cleaning in Southwest Asia, blowback or not, he'll do it - to the delight of the Keyboard Warrior brigade.

Notes
1. (How) Should Israel Bomb Iran? by Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal, February 7.
2. Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News, February 9.
3. Israel and Iran on the Eve of Destruction in a New Six-Day War February 6.
4. Why the Neo-Con Turn? by Andrew Levine, Counterpunch, February 9.