Diplomacy & Crisis News

Les accords de Moscou du 27 août, imposés sous la pression des forces d'occupation soviétiques, ouvrent une nouvelle et pénible phase dans la lutte du parti communiste et du peuple tchécoslovaques pour la démocratisation du régime socialiste ; mais il est à prévoir que l'épreuve de force engagée entre (...) / URSS, Armée, Communisme, Idéologie, Impérialisme, Mouvement de contestation, Tchécoslovaquie 1918-1992, Relations Est-Ouest - 1968/09

Different strains of bigotry have come together under Jeremy Corbyn, and he can't fix it.

Le conflit palestinien apparaît comme l'affrontement, parfois latent, souvent aigu, du nationalisme arabe et du nationalisme israélien. Retracer la chronique, très chargée, de cet affrontement, excéderait les limites de ce bref article ; nous nous bornerons donc à noter quelques aspects saillants de (...) / Israël, Monde arabe, Colonialisme, Idéologie, Nationalisme, Guerre israélo-arabe 1967 - 1967/07

According to research conducted by the Center for Near East Policy Research, Palestinian youngsters currently attending Hamas summer camps are learning methods of attacking and killing Jews. This is a blatant violation of children’s rights. Palestinian children living in Gaza should be given the opportunity to reach their full educational potential. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial and religious groups.”

Unfortunately, due to the activities of Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian Authority and their Iranian supporters who fund such terrorist activity, these basic human rights that should be granted to Palestinian children are denied to them. Under the auspices of Hamas, Palestinian children, instead of being educated to love and to reach their potential in life, are systematically being taught to kill and to fight rather than to seek self-improvement, to respect human rights and to support fundamental freedoms.

According to research conducted by Iranian investigative journalist Neda Amin on behalf of the Center for Near East Policy Research and Israel Resource News Agency, Iran is presently funding a new training camp for Palestinian youngsters in Gaza titled, “How do we kill an Israeli?” In this training camp, 180 young Palestinian children are taught to shoot with M-16 rifles at Israelis. Some of the children who are taught to use weapons are of elementary school age. And according to Amin, “Iran is fully aware of all of the indoctrinating activities that go on in the summer camps that they are funding. The Iranian regime supports it.” 

There is a strategic objective behind Iran funding Hamas summer camps. A couple of months ago, the Times of Israel reported that Hamas is seeking an alliance with Hezbollah and Iran in order to foil Trump’s peace plan. Now, Amin’s research implies that Hamas is increasingly warming up to the Islamic Republic of Iran. According to the report, a spokesman for the Resistance Committees of the People of Palestine (a coalition of armed Palestinian terror groups opposed to Fatah and the Palestinian Authority) acknowledged how Iran is funding summer camps for Palestinian children, stressing: “All the world knows that Iran has always been the protector and supporter of the Palestinian people and resistance.” A report by the Palestinian Information Center, an independent Palestinian organization, added that Abu Mujahid said on Facebook: “We should not ignore anyone’s good deeds and support and we are obliged to appreciate and thank the government of Iran for that.”

In an exclusive interview, Amin stressed that although America is viewed as the great Satan and Israel as the little Satan, the Iranian regime still considers Israel to be their most dangerous enemy since they never at any point have accepted any bribes from the Iranian regime, like the Europeans, Arab states and even the US under Obama did. For this reason, she claims that Iran believes that the only chance that they got to undermine Israel is to empower the Palestinians and this is what is motivating Iran to fund anti-Israel pro-terror summer camps in Gaza. This is also why Iran supplies the Palestinians with arms and weapons, intelligence and military training, an annual budget for their living expenses and pays the Palestinians to kill Israelis.

Naturally, there are many parallels between how Iran is funding Hamas’s abuse of Palestinian children in these summer camps and how Iran commits horrific human rights abuses against their own citizens. According to Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov, “A country that does not respect the rights of its own people will not respect the rights of its neighbors.” Sadly, Amin indicated in an exclusive interview that she witnessed numerous injustices first hand that were committed by the Iranian regime. When she submitted her first book for publication at age 18, she faced the opposition of the Iranian Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, an institution who decides for a writer, poet, a musician and whoever else wishes to create an art whether their work is in accordance with Islamic thought as understood in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Even though her work focused on social issues, animal rights and human rights, she noted that the Iranian regime decided to brutally repress her. They told Amin: “By questioning social issues, you are questioning the Islamic Republic and if you continue, this will be considered a political crime.”

The Iranian regime seeks to have both Palestinian children in Gaza and its own citizens serve as pawns in order to create the Shia Crescent from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea. And just as Hamas murders Palestinians who are opposed to their tyrannical rule, the Iranian regime also does the same to its citizens. According to Amin, “My guilt was increasing by the day after every book I wrote. I was arrested, had to pay fines, was raped and beaten in prison and after I was sentenced to 2 to 3 years in prison, I had to flee the country. I sought refuge in Turkey but the Turkish government did the same thing that the Iranian government did plus a new charge of supporting Israel and writing for an Israeli news agency. After several interrogations and being threatened by Turkish intelligence agencies, I had to flee Turkey. They wanted to deport me to Iran, where they were already calling me a filthy Zionist Jew.” Fortunately for Amin, Israel accepted Amin as a refugee and her life was saved. Unfortunately, countless Palestinian children to date are still being utilized as Hamas’s cannon fodder under the patronage of Iran and most of them have not been fortunate enough to escape that fate

The post Iranian regime funds the horrific abuse of Palestinian children’s rights appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Ankara blames Washington for its financial troubles, but it is fighting the wrong enemy.

Cette recension a été publiée dans le numéro d’été de Politique étrangère (n° 2/2018). Katja Borck, chargée de projet au Comité d’études des relations franco-allemandes (Cerfa), propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Georg Blume, Der frankreich-Blues. Wie Deutschland eine europäische Freundschaft riskiert (Körber Stiftung, 2017, 184 pages).

Georg Blume, chef du bureau parisien de l’hebdomadaire allemand Die Zeit, lance ici un fervent appel aux Allemands pour repenser leur politique et leur attitude vis-à-vis de la France. Dans un style engagé, il met en garde contre l’arrogance allemande envers un partenaire français certes fragilisé sur le plan économique, mais qui demeure d’une importance cruciale. L’ouvrage se veut un plaidoyer passionné pour retrouver une amitié sincère, d’égal à égal, qui permettrait de relancer un projet européen soutenu par ses citoyens, et susceptible de les protéger dans un monde globalisé.

En dix chapitres enrichis de ses rencontres et de ses expériences personnelles, l’auteur, non sans une certaine subjectivité, manie thèses philosophiques – en passant de Voltaire à Finkielkraut et de Goethe à Habermas – et citations de presse pour réveiller et convaincre le lecteur. Sous le titre « Pourquoi l’Allemagne donne une mauvaise impression de la France », le journaliste ouvre un état des lieux des relations franco-allemandes qui s’étend sur trois chapitres. Angela Merkel et d’autres responsables politiques d’outre-Rhin n’en sortent pas sans dommages. Puis sont passés en revue les personnages clés des relations franco-allemandes, les difficultés surmontées et les efforts entrepris pour en arriver d’abord à la réconciliation, puis au couple moteur du projet européen.

Georg Blume déplore les occasions manquées et l’absence de volonté politique du gouvernement allemand, qui lui semble se complaire dans un rôle de « dirigeant de l’Europe » et de « bon élève ». Un gouvernement qui aurait, notamment, manqué à la fois de respect et de compréhension dans une gestion presque unilatérale de la crise grecque et dans celle des réfugiés. L’auteur se montre fortement déçu que public et médias allemands aient cru possible l’accès au pouvoir de l’extrême droite en France. Deux chapitres sont consacrés à son regret que les élites allemandes ne prêtent pas suffisamment d’attention aux discours des intellectuels français – notamment d’origine juive.

Quant aux divergences des cultures économiques nationales, sous le titre « Le plus fort n’a pas toujours raison », le journaliste exige plus de compréhension de la part des Allemands, et termine en soulignant que l’amitié ne persiste jamais sans effort : médias et dirigeants politiques d’outre-Rhin feraient bien de s’en aviser…

Si les festivités du 55e anniversaire du traité de l’Élysée, tout comme le contrat de coalition du gouvernement Merkel IV, semblent témoigner d’une certaine amélioration des relations franco-allemandes, ce livre – écrit avant les élections fédérales de septembre 2017 – incite toutefois à la réflexion sur l’importance de signaux politiques, notamment à l’heure du numérique, ainsi que sur la difficulté et la fragilité d’une « amitié entre
peuples ».

En dépit de la rhétorique d’un auteur quelque peu biaisée par sa francophilie – et sans doute « de gauche » –, c’est un wake-up call que Georg Blume lance aux Allemands, qui auraient tout intérêt à ne pas l’ignorer. Car, in fine, il n’y a pas d’alternative à l’amitié franco-allemande si le projet européen veut perdurer.

Katja Borck

S’abonner à Politique étrangère

When the main belligerents in South Sudan’s five-year-long civil war signed a new peace agreement on August 5 in Khartoum, the international response was circumspect at best. This reaction reflects a new attitude on the part of the international community -- especially the United States, which for years failed to sufficiently pressure Kiir’s government even as his forces massacred civilians, carried out widespread sexual abuse, and tortured prisoners as part of a civil war that has displaced more than four million people since it began in 2013. To understand draw lessons for preventing future atrocities, I recently interviewed more than 30 former and current U.S. government officials and policy experts, analysts, and civil society leaders who have worked on issues involving South Sudan for many years. 

Kofi Annan was the epitome of international diplomacy—which is why he was both an inspiration and a disappointment.

Sur la liste des relations inavouables entretenues par l'argent et la politique, le clientélisme talonne la corruption. Mais analyser cette pratique comme relevant de systèmes prédémocratiques ne dit rien sur les modes ordinaires de fonctionnement de la politique. / Argentine, Élections, Idéologie, (...) / Argentine, Élections, Idéologie, Parti politique, Politique, Société, Corruption - 2010/06

Joseph Nye’s concept lost relevance, but China could bring it back.

Donald Tusk is the mild-mannered president of a quiet EU institution—and the West’s loudest voice against populism.

Deux ans après son arrivée au pouvoir, M. Evo Morales subit les assauts des forces conservatrices, et la Bolivie demeure profondément divisée. L'approbation d'une nouvelle Constitution par l'Assemblée constituante, sans la présence de l'opposition, qui la qualifie d'illégale, constitue l'un des (...) / Bolivie, Agriculture, Inégalités, Pétrole, Protection sociale, Région, Nationalisation - 2008/02

When President Donald Trump announced on 8th May that the United States would not be a party to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran deal, anymore, it was easily predictable that new tensions between Tehran and Washington will emerge soon. It didn’t take long for the European Union to voice its regret over President Trump’s decision and say in an unequivocal manner that Trump’s unilateralism won’t mark the premature death of the Iran deal, signed and sealed only three years ago.  

Britain, France and Germany issued a statement in which they reiterated their continued commitment to the JCPOA as long as Iran abides by its nuclear commitments. They said Europe will honor the terms of the Iran deal and encourages trade and business with Iran. It was then when the advent of a gap in the US-EU relations was noticeable.  

In phone conversations with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, the leaders of the three countries gave assurances that Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal would not be translated into the demise of the agreement, secured in July 2015.  

However, it isn’t difficult to conclude that the fulfillment of one of President Trump’s main campaign promises is a lethal blow to the foundation of a deal, which according to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, was so meticulously negotiated that there were lengthy discussions and debates between the interlocutors over each of its words. The document runs to 109 pages, including five annexes and is an intricate and detailed roadmap for collaboration between Iran, the United States, the European Union, China, Russia and finally the United Nations Security Council on the prospects of Iran’s nuclear program. The Iran nuclear deal is endorsed by the UN Security Council Resolution 2231, specifying the restrictions Iran voluntarily imposes on its nuclear program in return for the removal of all nuclear-related sanctions it was subjected to by the six countries involved in the negotiations and the Security Council itself. 

The departure of one of the main signatories of the agreement, followed by the enforcement of new sanctions against Iran, however, means a lot of things, including disappointment for those who believed Barack Obama’s commitment to diplomacy and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s overpowering of hardliners at home, translated into the signing of the nuclear deal, were the first steps in a long walk to a lasting Iran-US reconciliation which even Donald Trump couldn’t thwart.  

Even if the European countries, China, Russia and the traditional clients of Iran’s oil in Asia such as India, Japan and South Korea continue doing business with Iran under the shadow of harrowing US sanctions and even if the nuclear deal is salvaged through day and night efforts and diplomacy by the remaining parties, it’s undeniable that the psychological effect of the new sanctions imposed 6th August cannot and will not be alleviated and the international community’s relations with Iran will always be marred with fear of US penalties over business with a country which the Trump administration is apparently fully committed to bring to its knees. Unless anything changes in the White House or unless Iran is back to talks with the United States, Iranians shouldn’t await any good news as their country becomes a pariah state shunned by partners and rivals and isolated on the international scene.  

For a number of reasons, Trump’s decision in pulling out from the nuclear deal with Iran and imposing new sanctions will lead to serious complexities in the future of Iran-US relations and make any rapprochement and reconciliation implausible or at least hard to achieve. Iran has said no to new negotiations with the United States even as its economy is collapsing with the first bites of the sanctions.  

The demands put forward to Iran by the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as the US government’s preconditions for the improvement of relations with Iran, sound impossible to be granted by the standards of the Iranian government. The granting of these requests mean forgoing the quintessential and prototypical footing of the 1979 revolution: exporting the revolution. Maybe, situation in the future will be such that Iran forgets about its ideological ambition of exporting its revolution in the Middle East and to its neighbors, but for the moment, Trump’s antagonistic attitude hasn’t convinced the authorities in Tehran to come back to the negotiation table and it goes without saying that the geopolitical dynamics of the Iranian society are fundamentally different from North Korea, so it’s not possible to expect Iran to give in to pressure easily even when it’s conspicuously suffering. 

The new round of US sanctions which target the Iranian people and statesmen alike will be complemented by additional measures shortly when the second phase of sanctions will be triggered on November 5. The first round of sanctions renders three major contracts between Iran and aircraft manufacturers Airbus, Boeing and ATR for the delivery of 230 commercial airplanes to Iran null and void and even cancels deals for $852 million worth of pistachio export and $424 million in carpets export. 

Even if the sanctions imposed by President Trump, who warned the world countries boldly to stop doing business with Iran or they will have their US trade ties compromised, aren’t examples of human rights violation – they directly affect the livelihoods of millions of Iranians including patients in need of imported medicine, they have a clear message. The message imparted by the new US sanctions is that forty years after the Iranian revolution and the cutting off of diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States, the two countries aren’t on a promising path to rapprochement and détente. They continue making the proponents of diplomacy and peace even more disappointed, rendering the mending of their flawed relations more difficult for the future Iranian and American administrations.

The post Trump Sanctions: The Latest Disappointment for the Advocates of Iran-US Reconciliation appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Si les manœuvres de dernière minute des secteurs les plus conservateurs ne réussissent pas à les faire ajourner, les élections générales du 4 décembre prochain pourraient être « historiques », en Bolivie. A cette occasion, et malgré leurs divisions, les mouvements sociaux sont à même de s'emparer du (...) / Amérique latine, Bolivie, Élections, Inégalités, Mouvement de contestation, Multinationales, Politique, Syndicalisme, Nationalisation - 2005/11 Désastres contre utopie

Catch up on everything you need to know about Trump’s $92 million military parade, the Blackwater founder’s proposal to privatize the war in Afghanistan, North Korea’s demands for a declaration to end the Korean War, and more.

Cette recension a été publiée dans le numéro d’été de Politique étrangère (n° 2/2018). Michel Drain propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Christian Deubner, Security and Defense Cooperation in the EU: A Matter of Utility and Choice (Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2018, 272 pages).

Christian Deubner, membre d’un groupe de réflexion commun au Comité d’études des relations franco-allemandes (Cerfa) de l’Ifri et à la Fondation Genshagen, publie un bilan critique des politiques de sécurité et de défense de l’Union européenne (UE) jusqu’en 2017.

Il s’en tient aux orientations fixées en décembre 2016 par l’UE pour mettre en œuvre la « stratégie globale » de juin 2016, sans examiner les mesures adoptées depuis lors. Il parvient néanmoins à définir certains des obstacles fondamentaux qui ont, jusqu’à présent, empêché l’émergence d’une Europe plus autonome dans la gestion de sa propre sécurité.

Christian Deubner considère que les pays de l’UE bâtissent leurs politiques de sécurité extérieure sur la base de quatre options institutionnelles : l’Organisation du traité de l’Atlantique nord (OTAN), l’Organisation des Nations unies (ONU), les coalitions d’États volontaires et l’UE, chacune de ces options étant retenue en fonction de la perception nationale des avantages offerts dans chaque cas. Face à la réaffirmation de la puissance russe, les pays de l’UE auraient ainsi tendance à s’adresser à l’OTAN. S’agissant des menaces émanant du sud et sud-est de l’Europe (terrorisme, mouvements migratoires illégaux), les pays les plus interventionnistes, et tout particulièrement la France, préféreraient l’action nationale, si nécessaire en coalition, notamment avec les États-Unis et le Royaume-Uni. Pour les défis de sécurité du Sud, c’est le cadre de l’ONU, en liaison avec l’Union africaine ou les organisations sous-régionales, qui serait généralement privilégié.

La Politique de sécurité et de défense commune (PSDC) de l’UE ne serait retenue que pour les missions les moins dangereuses, de plus en plus à caractère civil. Même en dehors d’Europe, l’OTAN paraîtrait plus adaptée en cas d’emploi significatif de la force, en raison de la robustesse de ses structures de commandement, qui bénéficient de l’affectation prévisionnelle de la majeure partie des forces nationales.

Ces préférences, variables selon les pays, découleraient également des cultures stratégiques nationales. L’Allemagne trouve dans l’OTAN un cadre de coopération multilatéral éprouvé, et la France considère souvent qu’elle peut agir plus efficacement seule ou au sein de coalitions ad hoc.

Christian Deubner relève cependant que les défis du terrorisme et des migrations de masse introduisent un élément nouveau. Si le rôle de l’UE devenait plus actif dans ces deux domaines, l’opinion publique, dont c’est une des attentes, le soutiendrait probablement. Mais il faudrait pour cela mieux articuler les politiques de sécurité extérieure et intérieure de l’UE, en dépit de leurs profondes différences de nature et de moyens.

Au total, Christian Deubner n’envisage pour la PSDC que des perspectives de développement réduites dans l’état actuel des risques et menaces, ce qui le conduit peut-être à sous-estimer la portée d’une innovation comme l’intervention de la Commission européenne dans le domaine de la défense, et plus particulièrement de l’armement. Il demeure également sceptique quant à la capacité de la France et de l’Allemagne à s’entendre pour développer l’autonomie stratégique de l’UE. Sa recherche n’en constitue pas moins un utile cadre de référence pour l’évaluation des évolutions à venir des politiques européennes de sécurité.

Michel Drain

S’abonner à Politique étrangère

In October, the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan will turn 17. The human and material costs of what has become the United States’ longest-ever war are colossal. More than 2,000 U.S. military personnel have been killed and over 20,000 have been injured. The UN estimates that nearly 20,000 Afghan civilians have been killed and another 50,000 injured since 2009 alone. The United States has spent some $877 billion on the war. The Trump administration’s recent initiative to seek direct peace talks with the Taliban—a first since the start of the war in 2001—highlights that Washington is actively looking for new ways to wind down its involvement in the conflict. But why has the U.S.

Read More

Public anger at home pulled the United States out of Vietnam, but the public's indifference about the intervention in Afghanistan has allowed the United States' longest war to drag on.

Les graves événements qui ont secoué la Bolivie en janvier et en février derniers ont fait plusieurs dizaines de morts et des centaines de blessés. Ils prouvent une fois de plus, concrètement, la faiblesse des propositions d'ajustement du Fonds monétaire international et l'aveuglement des classes (...) / Amérique latine, Bolivie, Libéralisme, Mouvement de contestation - 2003/05 Animalité

Le prix Nobel de littérature, remis ce 10 décembre, à Stockholm, à Vidiadhar Surajprasad Naipaul, c'est un peu comme le prix Nobel de la paix décerné il y a quelques années à M. Henry Kissinger. L'effondrement d'un mythe : celui d'une assemblée éclairée, éclairante, courageuse, indépendante et intrépide, (...) / Inde, Idées, Littérature - 2001/12 Reprise en main