Bunul meu prieten Liviu Antonesei mi-a trimis recent unul din editorialele sale, pe care le publica mai nou in Adevarul . Intitulat sugestiv “Monopol pe anticomunism”, articolul descrie modul samavolnic in care “anticomunisti de ziua a saptea” ca Ioan Stanomir sau Vladimir Tismaneanu l-au inlaturat de la conducerea Institutului pentru Studierea Crimelor Comunismului pe istoricul Marius Oprea.

Concedierea lui Marius Oprea m-a trimis cu gandul la propria mea situatie. Asa cum ii marturiseam lui Liviu, am in comun cu dansul faptul ca amandoi am fost atat victimele lui Ion Iliescu (presedinte sustinut de rusi) cat si ale lui Traian Basescu, omul americanilor la Cotroceni.

Metodele folosite de cozile de topor ale celor doi presedinti sunt, in esenta lor, importate din cultura politica… africana! De altfel, am atras atentia in mai multe materiale, inca din 1999, asupra preferintei liderilor politici romani pentru tehnicile utilizate de omologii lor africani atunci cand vor sa se mentina la putere si sa isi puna cu botul pe labe opozitia. Iata cum prezinta situatia din unele tari africane jurnalistul camerunez Etienne de Tayo, presedintele retelei Afrique Integre :

“S’il est fonctionnaire (ca Marius Oprea !), tout est mis en oeuvre pour le pousser `a la demission. S’il travaille pour une structure privee, des pressions sont mises sur son employeur pour qu’il le licencie. S’il exerce pour son compte (cazul meu), le pouvoir s’arrange pour fermer les debouches a ses produits ou empecher qu’on lui accorde le moindre marche. Des pressions sont aussi exercees sur son entourage afin qu’on ne le frequente plus. Parfois, sur son epouse, pour qu’elle le quitte.” Clochardiser et isoler l’opposant : la pratique a pour nom “chantage `a la marmite. (sursa: Le Monde diplomatique, fevrier 2010)

Am redat pasajul in limba franceza pentru ca ne pretindem pe ici, pe colo, popor francofon. Cine isi mai aminteste limba lui Voltaire, va constata ca tehnicile folosite de guvernantii nostri impotriva opozantilor sunt inspirate direct din experienta politica africana.

In cazul meu, nici nu a fost nevoie sa fac vreo opozitie regimului Iliescu. In luna ianuarie 1997 am participat la o conferinta internationala privind adoptarea monedei euro, care s-a desfasurat la Londra. Procedand astfel, mi-am nemultumit furnizorul englez cu care colaboram de ani de zile. Acesta mi-a atras atentia ca el a fost promovat in afaceri de catre o fundatie a Printului Charles, iar Buckingham-ul nu priveste cu ochi buni posibilitatea adoptarii unei monede unice europene.

Intors in Romania, m-am gandit ca e timpul sa ma afiliez ca membru la un partid, dupa ce sase ani ma ocupasem exclusiv de mica mea firma de import. Am decis sa optez pentru liberali, adevaratii conservatori romani, pentru ca scoala istorica de la Iasi pe care am absolvit-o a fost, la randul ei, o creatie a liberalilor - ca si Romania moderna de altfel.

Cererea mea de adeziune a ajuns pe mana informatorilor securitatii, ca Ioan Ghise (Brasov) sau Mircea Ionescu Quintus, presedintele de atunci al partidului. Fireste ca nu mi s-a aprobat, doar puteam ajunge un opozant serios pentru cercurile iliesciene si, mai tarziu, cele basesciene. In urmatoarele sase luni, tehnicile descrise mai sus au fost aplicate integral impotriva firmei mele, lasandu-ma cu familia pe drumuri. Bineinteles, furnizorul englez a dat o mana de ajutor tovarasilor din tara, ca deh ! nemultumisem “palatul”…

Rudele au fost amenintate sa nu ma mai primeasca sau sa ma ajute in vreun fel, sotia a fost sfatuita,cel mai recent in 2008, de rudele ei (din anturajul intim al lui Basescu) sa ma paraseasca, copilului i s-a repetat ca parintii lui sunt nedemni de el. Atacurile de presa s-au succedat halucinant, culminand in 2002 cu un articol publicat de Monitorul de Brasov in care toata familia era tarata in noroi cu ajutorul soacrei si a consulului roman din Canberra (Australia).

Ce i-a deranjat cel mai mult pe politicienii zilei ? In primul rand, faptul ca am fost un om de afaceri de tip Weberian: am reusit sa-mi platesc si impozitele si accizele, sa platesc ani de zile dobanzi impovaratoare pentru imprumuturile mele pe termen scurt, salariatii mei fiind platiti dublul mediei nationale. Cu toate acestea, am reusit sa ne construim o casa in afara Brasovului, platita cu bani lichizi.

Desi am lucrat cu tinere atragatoare, nu m-am dedat la practica la moda printre patroni de a-si transforma firma in bordel, profitand sexual de angajate. Cu alte cuvinte, am dovedit ca…se poate face un capitalism curat si profitabil pentru toata lumea : pentru patroni, salariati, stat, societate. Asa ceva nu putea fi tolerat. Daca s-ar fi luat si altii dupa mine… ? Unde am fi ajuns, domnule ?

In al doilea rand, a deranjat faptul ca am refuzat sfatul furnizorului englez de a-mi cumpara autoturism de lux, multumindu-ma cu un Daewoo si ca am investit diferenta de bani in participarea la conferinte internationale de interes national sau european. Ei, asta da - defect, monser !

Asemenea tehnici de pedepsire, din pacate, lasa indiferenta marea masa a romanilor, care sunt convinsi de catre oamenii regimului ca atacurile la care sunt supusi opozantii sunt de fapt meritate de acestia. “Au facut ei ceva, nu se poate…” Da, domnilor, am facut, si am motive sa nu-mi fie rusine nici cu activitatea mea in afaceri, nici cu cea jurnalistica sau de opozant politic. Da, stimabililor, unii dintre noi au ajuns cobaii unor tehnici politice africane. Din fericire, Romania este semnatara conventiei CEDO, unde am inaintat din 2002 o plangere impotriva statului roman pentru incalcarea drepturilor omului. Sunt inca in asteptare…

Latin American countries have made great strides in achieving political stability in recent years. Countries like Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador, to give but a few examples, have solved their differences peacefully, helping each other on the path to economic development.

In 2008, twelve Latin American countries have decided to form a defense alliance, Unasur, dedicated to solving the continent’s conflicts without outside interference. The organisation complements the existing Latin American common market body, Mercosur, aimed at preventing the expansion of the US-inspired pan-American common market project.

Faced with the withdrawal of troops from Irak and Afghanistan in the next few years, as well as with the likelihood of closing its bases in Okinawa, the US is expanding its military footprint in Latin America. The Colombian government has recently accepted to give the US army the use of 7 bases, which regional leaders like Mr. Lula de Silva (Brazil), Mrs.Kirchner (Argentina), Mr. Lugo (Paraguay) or Mr. Chavez (Venezuela) fear are going to be used for spying on their countries and for destabilising them. (source: Le Monde diplomatique)

Americans have left in South America an ugly legacy of coups d’etat (the one in Honduras is but the latest example), political assassinations and blatant disregard for the economic interest of nations. The poverty of most of these countries’ citizens are bringing to power left-of-centre regimes, which the US would like undermined whenever possible. This tendency, however, has less to do with any ideological preference, being more likely justified by the need to create enough “jobs for the boys” facing redundancy in other areas of the world where the US has military bases.

Latin America is important to the European Union. Spain, in particular, has invested heavily in the region and so have other European nations. China is another major player : as of this year, it has replaced the US as Brazil’s main trading partner. Both the EU and China are well-liked as trading partners, because they are far away and use soft power to achieve their political and economic aims.

The US, on the other hand, still seems to prefer putting boots on the ground to achieve its aims in the region. This is indeed a sad development, after the Obama administration has promised a clean break from the Republican-style  gunboat diplomacy which makes the US hugely unpopular in Latin America and elsewhere.

Last week’s 70-minute reception of the Dalai Lama by President Obama has greatly increased the tensions between the US and China, apparently putting Hu Jintao’s planned trip to Washington in April in doubt.

Whilst it is hard to gauge what US policymakers hope to gain from supporting Dalai Lama, one thing is clear : God has been enlisted as a major asset in the US’s quest for global leadership.

The only time the Church or religion had been successfully used against the enemies of the US was during the Cold War. During Jimmy Carter’s administration, countries like Romania were forced to give neo-protestant sects religious freedoms not enjoyed by the country’s Orthodox Church. During the 1980’s, CIA and the Catholic Church joined forces to cause the downfall of Poland’s shaky communist regime. Such efforts were successful because Soviet-style communists persecuted historical Christian churches in their bloc, thus gravely affecting the cultural identity of entire nations.

China, although led by communists, has never been Christian but Confucian. Trying to use the same recipes that worked against the Soviets shows the short-sightedness of Washington policymaking circles, which is sure to backfire. Chinese academics in Europe claim that the brand of Tibetan Buddhism which spreads within China’s urban areas promotes a Kama Sutra-type lifestyle among the young, affecting traditional family values (source: El Pais). If we add to that the US’s promotion and support of the Falun Gong sect, we can better understand why the Chinese perceive such activities as hostile and anti-Chinese. In truth, in the long run the Tibetans stand to benefit more from being part of China, in terms of infrastructure, education and economic opportunities, than from building a religious state under Indian-US influence…

Under the leadership of Ms. Rice at the State Department, the US neo-protestant sects and religions - Jehova’s witnesses, the Mormons, Baptists or the Adventist Church - were encouraged to intensify their expansion in Hungary, Romania or Bulgaria, greatly upsetting the religious leadership of these countries. During the 2004 and 2008-9 elections in Romania, for example, the voters attracted by such denominations, mainly Gypsies from Western Romania, helped elect a newly-minted Christian Democrat, very pro-Bush and pro-US party to power.

Another very well-known example of using religion as a means of neutralising one’s political enemies comes from Israel. During the 1980’s, Tel Aviv policymakers and secret services encouraged the spread of Islam in Gaza in the hope of counteracting the PLO’s Moscow-trained leader Yasser Arafat. This, however, ultimately led to the creation of Hamas, with disastruous consequences for Israel’s security.

Using religion to undermine or influence other countries is morally and politically wrong, and the Obama administration should abandon it for good. As history proves, encouraging militant religious movements could lead to more trouble than it’s worth.

Consider for a moment the following scenario. The leaders of Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Egypt and Sudan decide to create an African economic comunity. By putting aside their historical differences, they adopt the necessary institutional framework, prompting a boom in investment, exports and jobs. These developments attract resource-poor, cash-rich Britain. On the basis of its colonial past and its possession of Gibraltar, the UK applies to join the new African economic union.

In very broad terms, this is the position in which Turkey finds itself vis-a-vis the European Union. Its current political leadership (AKP) has realised this and is in the process of changing Turkey’s geopolitical agenda.

The architect of Turkey’s new foreign policy is Mr. Ahmet Davutoglu, an academic turned foreign minister. He has ushered his country into the era of “soft power”, using diplomacy to deal with its neighbours and to expand Turkey’s reach east- and southward.(Source: Le Monde diplomatique)

In a relatively short period of time, Turkey has succeeded in sending its army back to the barracks, in democratising its political system and in becoming the beacon of hope for Middle East countries like Syria and Lebanon, to name but a few. The country’s NATO and G-20 membership allows it to play the intermediary between Israel and Palestinian officials, as well as to steal the thunder from Iran in the quest for winning over the hearts and minds of Islamic intellectuals everywhere.

The current Turkish government’s new foreign policy agenda is driven by economics as well as by its Islamic roots. The country’s industrial products, while not competitive in European Union markets, sell well in Irak, Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East. Turkish building contractors or investors are also present in the Balkans, Russia, Cyprus or the Central Asian republics, areas which proved instrumental in supporting the Turkish economic boom between 2002 - 2007.

With Islamophobia sweeping our continent, from Denmark to the Vatican, from Paris to Berlin, it is not surprising Mr. Erdogan and his team have put the EU accession plans on the backburner. As the new geostrategic agenda has demonstrated, however, Turkey is the first functional Islamic democracy, one that proves an inspiration to other Muslim nations.

In the wake of the attacks on Greece, Portugal and Spain’s credit ratings, it is worth knowing how NY speculators - the same who provoked the 2007-2008 global financial crisis -  are now using rumour-mongering and the subsequent investor panic to turn a profit. Pitiful, but true.

In an editorial on the current debt crisis (”Cost of insuring debt is growing in Europe”)  the International Herald Tribune explains:

“The speculator’s bet is a simple one.

In an era in which government budget deficits have soared in response to the financial crisis, the same bond vigilantes that forced President Bill Clinton to balance the American budget in the 1990’s have turned their attention to the countries on Europe’s southern flank.

In effect, they have challenged those relatively weak governments to raise taxes and impose harsh spending cuts on a restive populace, to bring down their deficits from over 10 percent of the GDP to close to the target of 3 percent called for in the treaty that created the euro.

While such moves are highly unpopular politically, a failure to do so could send government borrowing costs soaring, enriching those who are betting that Greece, Portugal, Spain and perhaps even Italy will not be able to follow through on their commitments.”

A few comments are in order. First, it would be more appropriate for such smart bond vigilantes to force the US government to do something about the country’s huge budget deficit. Second, the countries mentioned do not have weak governments, with the possible exception of Portugal. Third, investors’ money should not be used to attack allied countries’ economies and political systems - a hostile act that could have unforeseen consequences in future. Fourth, speculators cannot - even if the US authorities currently allow them to - substitute themselves for their country’s foreign policy officials, playing their own version of international politics.

It is a no-brainer that during a severe economic crisis, governments are supposed to pick up the slack by engaging in deficit spending. By challenging Europeans and the euro, Anglo-Saxon financial circles are simply demonstrating that they are afraid of being dealt with in appropriate fashion, via the re-regulation of financial markets. After all, even the IMF and the current architecture of the international financial system is the work of Europeans. By themselves, speculators cannot and would not abandon the green table, or sniffing cocaine in excess, for more serious pursuits (like financing the industrial renewal of obsolete plants in the US, or the conversion to alternative energy sources, for example).

By now, the scenario employed against Greece, Portugal and Spain by New York-based international financial scoundrels is all too familiar to anyone who recalls the events of the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis. Then, as now, hedge funds targeted a country whose GDP was largely dependent on tourist dollars - Thailand - and had fiscal problems at the time. The crisis afterwards engulfed the “sick south” of the continent - Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea - and severely affected China, as well. The MO was slightly different, as hedge funds targeted these countries’ currencies, whose devaluation jeopardised their ability to repay the dollar-denominated loans, requiring the IMF’s massive intervention.

Then, as now, it all started with rumours about these countries’ fiscal management or the state of their currencies. Granted, the PIIGS, as they are nicknamed in NY (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece + Spain), are members of the euro club and therefore better protected. Hence, the euro’s viability is called into question. 

The size of the Southern European countries’ budget deficits and public debt are now the targets. The bet is that by raising the spectre of country default it would be much harder for them to sell the bonds necessary to finance their deficits. Thus, the concerted and vicious attacks led to a steep increase in the cost of insuring their bond emissions against risk : if for every 10.000.000 euros worth of T-bonds issued Germany pays around 45.000 euros, Greece has to pay 420.000 euros and Spain 250.000 euros !  This, however, is not all. Companies and corporations in the affected countries are seeing borrowing costs balloon. Austerity measures required to adjust budget deficits are already provoking pain and huge union protests, at a time when deficit spending should not be curtailed if the EU is to ride out of the financial crisis any time soon.

So why are these attacks happening ? Should we blame them on the blind “forces of the market”, as American spin doctors do ? Unfortunately for those concerned, we know the names of the investment and hedge funds responsible for unsettling the market and deriving benefits from the panic.

Since the ’70s, the American economy has hollowed out - a phenomenon that has not affected Asia or the European Union. The US has lost its consumer electronics industries to Japan, its car industry is in deep trouble, while the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs cannot, by themselves, compensate for the lack of investment opportunities in the country’s industrial sector. The mountains of cash available for investment have to find outlets (like the dot-com and the real estate bubble). Wall Street bankers are offering to investors high returns from either Ponzi schemes or… from raiding other countries’ economies, like buccaneers, and then scavenging their bankrupt companies, as in South Korea.

This time around, the EU is being “punished” because it adopted a single currency, has kept a strong industrial base and is vocal against the casino capitalism promoted by Wall Street bankers. During the Asian crisis, countries like South Korea were being punished because they were expanding too fast and did not allow American investors to take chunks of their industries. I remember that in 1998 some of the fund managers involved in sparking off the Asian crisis claimed that they possessed a “nuclear-financial” weapon that makes armed intervention obsolete…

By allowing its financial sector to go berserk and harm countries and societies around the world, the US loses influence and credibility in world affairs. To protect themselves,  Asian countries are busy planning an Asian economic bloc, whilst Europeans are looking at ways of renouncing the trans-Atlantic military and strategic partnership by adopting their own security architecture.

 It comes as no surprise, therefore, that President Obama has decided not to meet with the Union’s political leadership at the May summit. Indeed, what is there left to talk about ?

Last week’s Davos Economic Forum became a center stage for condemning casino capitalism in earnest. The most comprehensive critique came from French President Nicolas Sarkozy. His attacks on Wall Street bankers’ misdeeds and unreasonable bonus packages were combined with a call for the organisation of a second Bretton Woods conference. The stated objective was to abandon the dollar as the world’s only reserve currency, which presumably could benefit the euro. Sarkozy’s wish is to replace neo-liberal casino capitalism with its Weberian version, based on entrepreneurship and technological - as opposed to financial - innovation.

Undoubtedly, such projects are irking Americans. Thus, according to Greek prime minister George Papandreou, interviewed at Davos, the recent attacks and rumor-mongering directed against Greece are, in fact, part of a broader strategy employed by some international financial circles, aimed at affecting the euro and eurozone economies. Zeroing in on Greece as one of the eurozone’s “weak links” might, therefore, provoke the unravelling of the ten year-old monetary union itself. The charge might not even be far-fetched : New York economists are now in the process of fabricating scenarios according to which Spain becomes the next “target” in two-three years from now. (source: Kathimerini)

Fortunately, the EU’s economic ministers and Mr. Trichet, the ECB president, are adamant that Greece will not lose its membership in the euro club and will be helped by the other members to put its financial house in order.

As fewer legal professionals nowadays still take an interest in defending human rights, the city of Toulouse stands out as a shining example to the contrary. The well-known organisations such as Avocats sans frontieres, Cimade, the Institut d’Etudes Politiques and others organise regular events bringing human rights to the top of the political and civic agendas. Last month, for example, the city hosted the by-now-traditional Human Rights Week. Next week, the Toulouse-based human rights NGO’s have organised the 3rd Festival du film des droits de l’homme, aimed at raising awareness of human rights violations around the world.

In 2008, I have had the opportunity to participate at the annual Human Rights Week in Toulouse. The highlight was the ten-year anniversary of the creation in Toulouse of Avocats sans frontieres (France), presided by Maitre Francois Cantier. The guest of honour was Dr. Ashraf al-Hadjud, the Palestinian who had been on death row in Libya together with the Bulgarian nurses before being freed thanks to the ASF’s efforts and those of President Sarkozy. ASF is active in Africa, Latin America and Asia, helping local lawyers cope with corrupt justice systems and saving the lives of many victims in the process.

The Institut d’Etudes Politiques from Toulouse is very well-known, among other things,  for its excellence in discrimination studies. This is a hot topic in France and in the European Union since the deregulation of labour markets and the massive privatisations that took place in the 1990’s.

From an European perspective, Barack Obama’s first year in office has been less than spectacular as far as results go. His left-of-centre administration includes many of Bill Clinton’s former appointees in vital areas such as economic strategy or foreign affairs. Many of his supporters feel let down with the lack of progress in Iraq, in Afghanistan, on the environment or by the less-than-satisfactory health reform. To be sure, the Republicans are still in charge of the Defense Department, same as during the Clinton mandate in the ’90s. Thirty thousand additional troops were recently dispatched to Afghanistan, which is unfortunately becoming an Islamic Vietnam, with a Taliban victory no longer considered a remote possibility.

Today’s United States is a country with a decaying industrial base and infrastructure, being regarded around the world as a promoter of financial instability and military diplomacy. True, its relationship with Russia is less tense than during the Bush years, and these days American diplomats are required to “achieve more with less”. The US’s recent foreign affairs strategy was developed last April during a meeting of the Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) and the National Defense University. On that occasion, the representatives of the State Department freely admitted that the US are not able to stop China from developing further, much as they would have liked to: “we cannot change the course of events and we do not have any plausible recipe that would allow us to slow down their growth” (source Le Monde diplomatique) . The participants admitted that America has lost its claim to world supremacy and the fact that its diplomats can “no longer dictate to other states how to conduct their affairs, having to use persuasion instead”. In order to enlist the Russians’ support to pressure Iran in giving up its nuclear ambitions, the Obama administration has scrapped the missile shield deployment in Central Europe.

Obama also hopes that China’s support will help his administration in dealing with the North Korean nuclear threat. Consequently, during his November 2009 visit to Beijing he did not discuss Tibet with the Chinese leaders - an approach that could serve as a useful model for President Sarkozy.

One of Obama’s disappointments is that the Wall Street culprits for provoking the 2008 financial meltdown are back to business as usual, after paying back the Treasury bailout funds they had received a year ago. The administration’s efforts to limit their bonuses have failed so far, and moves to re-regulate the financial sector have been all but abandoned.

Obama’s performance during his first year in office has disappointed many of his supporters because they had burdened his presidency with too many expectations, from ending the war to solving environmental problems. This personalisation of power which afflicts presidential systems of government is mainly to blame. The hope that a ”miracle leader” could turn things around decisively has thus been exposed as just another political myth. Or, in the words of Serge Halimi, editorialist for Le Monde diplomatique, “the 2008 US presidential election has reminded us that miracles do not exist. And that, same as in other countries, a president’s political willpower or personality cannot be responsible for the destiny of the US”.