Tag Archives: Greece

Political Persecutions in Eastern Europe to prepare War with Russia (and a note on Hungary, Trump and the refugees)

By Dimitris Konstantakopoulos

We have witnessed during the last two years the multiplication of cases of political repressions in various Eastern European countries, like Poland, where Mateusz Piscorski, leader of the party Smena is detained illegally already for two years, without any accusations formulated against him! But this is not the only authoritarian action of the Polish authorities, which, by the way have been condemned by UN Human Rights Committee and by the Polish Ombudsman (Rzecznik praw obywatelskich) for their actions. Among them the process against the Polish Communist party, the harassment against the trotskyte group “Power to the Councils”, a pro-Palestinian conference and scientific conferences about Karl Marx! To all that you may add the massive expulsion to the streets of impoverished tenants due to the re-privatization process. Continue reading Political Persecutions in Eastern Europe to prepare War with Russia (and a note on Hungary, Trump and the refugees)

Germany intervening again in Greek affairs!

By Dimitris Konstantakopoulos

The German Government has called upon the political parties of Greece and of FYROM to support the Agreement for the resolution of the dispute on the name of FYROM which was recently signed by Greek FM Kotzias and FYROM’s FM Dimitrov.

This is the latest of numerous German interventions in the Balkans since 1990 and in Greece since 2010, all of them, with no exception, have had absolutely catastrophic consequences for the whole peninsula, but also for Europe as a whole, as well as for the prospects of peace between East and West.

This was not the only outside intervention. The Socialist International, in a rather rare move, also strongly supported the Agreement, in spite of the objections of its Greek section and of the fact that this Agreement is officially not supported by a majority of Greek Deputies! Tsipras and Kotzias did not have any legitimacy to sign it.

The President of the “Movement for Change”, the Greek socialist party, Mrs. Fofi Gennimata, has asked the European Socialists to be very careful regarding issues affecting Greek national issues. Mrs. Gennimata supported the “European prospect” of FYROM, but she underlined that such a prospect requires the cancelling of all forms of irredentism. According to the leaders of the Greek Socialists, this Agreement is bad because it doesn’t solve but rather perpetuates and complicates the problems, without leading to a comprehensive and viable solution of the dispute. The Agreement, according to Mrs. Gennimata, is going to fuel nationalism in both countries and  will undermine the security and stability of the region. She concluded:

«We do understand the interest of European Socialists for an Agreement to be reached, but we don’t accept instructions and we don’t share their belief this Agreement will be effective”

 

A bad agreement

We will further explain in this article why we believe the Agreement signed, but not yet ratified,  is a bad one from the perspective of bringing peace and reconciliation between the Greeks (Macedonian or not) and Macedonian Slavs in the Balkans.

This Agreement will not end the dispute between the two neighboring nations, Greeks and Slavs of Macedonia. It is not the product of a genuine reconciliation between the two sides but rather of outside, backstage intervention by the US against the will of both.

By the way, the US Envoy in Athens is the same man who was serving, before being sent to Greece, in Kiev, Ukraine.

How many Ukrainian-type crises does Berlin need?

We know that most Western media are supporting this Agreement and hail it as a historic one. But most western media also favored destroying Yugoslavia and bombing the Serbs. Let us also not forget how they recently treated Greece, and what they wrote about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and how they contributed to the destruction of Libya etc.etc.

Western media have systematically distorted reality and they have contributed in policies which have led to nothing else than to the transformation of the Balkans and of a large part of Middle East and Africa into a land of ruins.

There was not a single western intervention, during the last decades, be it in the Balkans, the former USSR, the Middle East or Africa, which didn’t produce absolutely catastrophic results.

USA and European pressure on Greece and FYROM to sign a bad agreement which both societies do not like and reject will also have the same catastrophic consequences.

Read more at http://www.defenddemocracy.press/germany-intervening-again-in-greek-affairs/

Greek protests about Macedonia are complicating US-NATO plans for war with Russia

For the BBC (16.00 London time) a revolt in Greece directly threatening the expansion of NATO was not among top stories. It preferred to speak at length about a train crash in the USA and what is going on in Maldives.

But it is clear that today’s monster meeting in Athens is seriously complicating the NATO and EU’s project of incorporating more countries of the Balkan region into Euro-Atlantic structures, thus expelling any remaining Russian influence and solidifying the control of the peninsula by Washington and its generals.

Hundreds of thousands of people (significantly more than 500.000 according to reliable specialists) gathered in the center of Athens to ask their government not to concede to the use of the word Macedonia or its derivatives by the Former Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) in one of the biggest demonstrations organized in Athens, comparable to the last great anti-austerity meeting of 2012. Such numbers represent something more than 5% of the whole population of the country.

An agreement between Greece and FYROM about the name of the latter is a precondition for admission of FYROM into NATO and EU.

The central speaker of the meeting was the Greek composer, Mikis Theodorakis, a world known symbol of resistance, who asked for a referendum to be held if the government wants to conclude an agreement. Theodorakis was firm that FYROM must be prevented from joining NATO or the EU if it insisted on keeping the word Macedonia in the name of the country. Professor Kasimatis, one of the top Greek specialists on Constitutional Law spoke also to the crowd, explaining the link between foreign policy concessions, the colonial terms incorporated in the Agreements with Creditors (EU, IMF, ECB) and the betrayal of the 2015 referendum.

The meeting was greeted also by representatives of the hierarchy of the Greek Orthodox Church. The Archbishop had originally discouraged people from participating in public meetings for Macedonia, before the Salonica meeting, but he was obliged to change his position under the pressure of its success and of the public opinion.

As for the Greek government and, in particular, Nikos Kotzias, the Greek Foreign Minister, they seem completely detached from reality, if their reactions to today’s demonstrations are anything to go by. Or, alternatively, Kotzias is getting with him the whole government, into his line. Anyway, demonstrating a public ignorance worthy of Marie Antoinette, they dismissed the demonstration as not much of a success! The Greek government is under heavy pressure from the US administration, to whom they have probably made commitments they are finding difficult to fulfill without committing political suicide. Tsipras understands that more than Kotzias, but he does not seem to be able to react to the line of his own Foreign Monster.

The fact is that if they stick to their present position, they will clash frontally with Greek public opinion and provoke a very dangerous crisis in the country. It is not just that 70% of the population is against their policy, it is also that this opposition is very firm and considers the government’s policy a national betrayal. The demonstration today was peaceful today but the demonstrators appear willing to do everything to stop the parliament from ratifying any agreement Athens and Skopje sign.

D.K

Greeks are revolting again

By Dimitris Konstantakopoulos *
04/02/2018

In the beginning, nobody paid much attention. Two activists, ex-members of the Movement of Independent Citizens, which was created back in 2011 following an appeal by Mikis Theodorakis, took the initiative to call for a protest meeting in Salonica. The aim was to protest the intention of the Greek government to conclude, under pressure from Washington, an agreement with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), better known internationally as  the “Republic of Macedonia”, terminating the dispute with the latter over its name that has been ongoing since the breakup of Yugoslavia.

After the capitulation, the defeat and the humiliation of 2015, Greeks have seemed unable to mobilize about anything. They were licking their wounds. They were looking more or less passively at the continuing destruction of their country and at its neocolonial plundering, by Germany and other EU countries, under the general direction of the IMF and with the green light of the USA. They had neither the courage nor the will to think through their problems. They did not have leaders or ideas or political subjects to lead a new revolt against the colonialist Troika. Many believed Tsipras and SYRIZA’s dire warnings about the cost and the uncertain outcome of any revolt against the creditors. They tried to forget and survive. This assassination of Hope has inflicted an unprecedented national depression on nearly all the people of the country of Apollo, the God of Sun.

So no one expected any more than five or ten thousand people at the Salonica meeting. But something seemed to emerge from the very depth of the national, collective subconscious. It was the same thing that had happened three days before the referendum of July 5th,, 2015 and conditioned its result.

There were not five or ten thousand in Salonica, they were probably around five hundred thousand, nobody knows exactly. It was not a simple demonstration, it was a revolt, even if peaceful, for the time being. And today, everybody waits a much larger crowd in and around the Constitution Square in the center of Athens, named after the 1843 Revolution which obliged the first King of the Country, the Bavarian Otto, imposed on Greece by the Holy Alliance, to accept constitutional rule.

A demonstration about Macedonia but a cry about Greece

It will be a demonstration about Macedonia, against what many Greeks understand as one more usurpation of their history, their national symbols and their cultural heritage. But behind it, one clearly discerns the desperate cry of a historic European nation that has been insulted and offended, destroyed and plundered, by its own supposed Allies and Partners and by the Union it has adhered to. A nation which has contributed as very few to the defeat of Nazism, only to see now “democratic Germany” destroying it, with help from Brussels bureaucracy, the US and Goldman Sachs.

What Greeks will say to their government today will be essentially: Stop conceding the country to foreign powers. Give us back our country.

For ten years Greeks have witnessed their “allies and partners” destroying their country, pretending they are helping it.

They took and they are taking everything, the banks, the airports, the ports, the railways, the communications and the energy infrastructure. They confiscate even homes of ordinary people. Parents cannot bequeath their homes to their children because of confiscatory taxation, necessary for paying a “highly unsustainable debt” (according to the IMF). They have cut pensions 24 times. They have imposed on a member of the EU neocolonial terms not imposed to any Third World country. Greek mothers used to be the most overprotective of their sons, in all Europe: they wanted their children to live next door all their lives if possible. (Probably, because of what they had suffered under Ottoman occupation, when the Turks were rounding up male children of Christians). Now their dream is to see their children migrating to Australia, Africa or the Emirates to find a job. Greek hospitals are crumbling under German-EU draconian cuts to their expenses, but at the same time Greek doctors, for the education of whom Greeks have paid, are stuffing German or British hospitals.  72% of young people in Greece say to the polls they want to leave the country, if they will find a job somewhere.

As a result of a program that is supposed to help Greece, the country lost 27% of its GDP, something comparable to what happened to US during the Great Depression, or to the Weimar Republic before the rise of Hitler. It is a bigger percentage than the material losses of Germany or France during the First World War. This is not a program of neoliberal “reforms”, it is a program designed to destroy a European nation and its democracy and to transform its state into an instrument of International Finance, with the long term prospect of creating a “Greece (and Cyprus) without Greeks”.

No one can understand reality by taking for real what he believes its actors want or do not want to do. Attention must be paid to what is happening, to what the actors are doing, not what they are pretending to do or any the intentions that can be attributed to them.

Under the cruel light of the available statistics, not beginning from any prefabricated theory or ideological or political or national preference, the program they imposed on Greece is clearly a program of destruction of a nation. If it was a mistake, they would long ago have found a way to correct it. Since they have not, it is because the “Greek experiment” is an important experiment in the advent of a new European totalitarian order. European governments and EU bureaucrats may or may not be conscious of that. But somebody has enough influence on them to impose it.

If somebody has some other serious explanation or theory about what has happened or is happening to Greece, explaining better than the above description what is going on, let him advance it. By the way, I believe the Empire of Finance was right in choosing Greece as its main target for a variety of reasons. I find very symmetrical and quite justified to organize such a crime against the country in the language of which humans, for the first time in history, wrote the word freedom (Eleftheria), in the 8th century B.C. in Homer’ s Iliad).

German newspapers were right in their comments about modern and also ancient Greece in 2009-10. Greeks have always been anarchists. Not only did they write the word Freedom in their language, they have dared to discover Logos, a word which means analogy, reason, motivation, cause, purpose, logic, all at once, and to oppose it to the divine order. In Athens they decided to write off the Debts of the poor people and then, based on that experience, they dared to spell, first in History, the word Democracy.

This is one of the reasons I strongly believe the choice of Greece as the first target of the Financial Totalitarianism was correct. Symbols are always important. They help shape thinking and emotions.

In 2015, the Troika was able to deal a devastating moral and psychological blow to the Greek people by transforming its supposed Left into its instrument. The blow was even more important as partisans of the Greek Left had shed oceans of blood to defend their country, its democracy and the social rights of its people. That was why it was a blow to the sense of dignity of the Greek nation. No nation, especially no nation living in this geographical location, in the intersection of the Slavic, the Middle Eastern and the Western European worlds, no nation bearing the tradition of such a History, can exist without its dignity.

This is why the capacity of the Greek people to project any kind of social resistance was near to zero, after 2015.

But this unequal duel between the Empire and the Greek “national DNA” was not over in 2015. Neither side was satisfied. The empire was not satisfied by simply transforming Greece into a “debt colony”. It wanted more, it wanted the geopolitical and cultural “capital” of the country (and of Cyprus), which is also the main remaining arms of the Greek people, if it will wish one day to reclaim the control of its state. It wants to get from the Greeks their legitimate rights to exercise sovereingty over its country, and in particular in the Aegean, in Cyprus, in Crete, in Northern Greece. Because Greece and Cyprus control the access of Russia to the Warm Seas, they are located between the Middle East and Western Europe.

The Empire deems necessary to control Greece (and Cyrpus) in the strictest possible way, because since 1200 their control is absolutely essential to launch the Crusades against the East, the Islamic or the Russian one.

On the other side, the national feeling and pride of the Greek nation was not dead, in spite of the terrible 2015 defeat. This is pushing now to a new revolt, but, unfortunately, it is a revolt without any leadership, any clear political and social aims or ideas. The Empire was able to “decapitate” the Greek nation, as it has largely achieved with nearly all European nations and to control all its politics and potential representatives.

Greeks will cry today for Macedonia because, as they understand it, somebody wants to take from them their symbols and their cultural heritage, to usurp their History. They will also demonstrate today because they believe all the main political parties of their country are sold to foreign powers and these foreign powers are destroying their country. And they will do it because they have not, for the time being, any tool to challenge, for a second time, the economic and political Imperialism of Germany and the EU.

But behind their slogans about Macedonia, they will cry essentially “give us back our country”. And nobody can now really predict where all this will lead. As the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus, the father of Dialectics, put it, two and a half thousand years before Ilia Priygozin and his Chaos theories, “Time is a child playing dice. To the child belongs the Kingdom”

The dispute over Macedonia

Since the dissolution of Yugoslavia, Greece has refused to recognize any “Republic of Macedonia” on the grounds that such a name may reflect territorial claims on Greece. Most geographers and historians worldwide define Macedonia as a wider multinational region, following the administrative delineation of the Ottoman Empire, where Macedonia once belonged. More than half of Macedonia, as defined above, belongs today to Greece, about a third is FYROM, most of the remaining is the Bulgarian Pirin Macedonia and a tiny part, about 1%, belongs to Albania.  Because of Greek opposition to the recognition of this new state, produced out of the destruction of Yugoslavia, as “Republic of Macedonia”, it was admitted in the UN as Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, until Athens and Skopje agree to a name commonly accepted by both sides.

But Greeks do not define Macedonia in such a way. They identify it with ancient Macedonia which is now Greek Macedonia. And this is an important part of the Greek national ideology.  This is one reason they cannot easily accept a Republic of Macedonia suddenly appearing in their northern frontiers. When Greeks say Macedonia is Greek, which may seem offending to foreigners, they mean Greek Macedonia is Greek. The nature of today’s Greek nationalism is essentially defensive.

The bloody destruction of Yugoslavia, by Western forces using nationalisms (in the name of combating them!) has created a legitimate fear among Greeks that their country may come next, in the context of the “new world order”. Some of President Clinton declarations about Balkans could also be interpreted as an indirect threat.

Those fears are also fuelled by FYROM’s official ideology, which presents all of Macedonia as one country with one legitimate, so to say, nation, the Macedonians. It represents a late mutation of the Komintern slogan of a “United and Independent Macedonia”, “United and Independent Thrace”, which crated a lot of huge problems, at its time, to the Greek communist movement. By the way the use of the word Macedonians to describe the dominant nationality in FYROM (our personal opinion is that the name Macedonian Slavs would be more clear), creates also serious problems, because it is implying that Greek, or Bulgarian, or Albanian Macedonians are not genuine Macedonians. But Macedonia in the wider sense was always a multinational region and it was for that reason French have named their famous salad Macedonian. They did it because it is made of many nationalities, exactly as Macedonia was inhabited by many nationalities.

The first leader of FYROM, Kiro Gligorov, was a serious guy, member of the Yugoslav League of Communists. But later, forces controlled directly by US, the CIA and various “globalisation” think tanks have gradually taken complete control of the state and its political elite. It is widely believed that CIA has played a huge role in bringing the new government in Skopje, in order to use it to “close” this question hindering NATO expansion and undermine any relation between FYROM and Russia.

These forces have begun to construct a completely fake national ideology and history, pretending Macedonian Slavs are heirs of Alexander the Great and his Kingdom. The whole thing is ridiculous, as the first Slavs have come to the Balkans one thousand years after the death of Alexander.

That way they try to refuse to the Greeks the use of their national cultural heritage, a part of which is Alexander’s saga, a heritage which is a strong ideological component of the Greek nation-state, the state chosen as the No1 target of the Empire of Finance in Europe. Indirectly, all that could lead into undermining the cohesion of Greece itself. This is happening also in many other regions of Europe, where nation-states are pressed from above (Globalisation and EU) and from below (“Europe of Regions”). We cannot consider the destruction of the nation-states progressive in any way, because it practically means the destruction of the sole level where there is still some degree of democratic control and social protection. The debate about a European federation is in reality misleading, as long as in reality we are not speaking of any kind of federation but of uniting European under the power of the Finance and of NATO.

This kind of ridiculous ideological “ethnomechanics”, applied in FYROM has another consequence also, it is entrapping Slav Macedonians into defending a completely fake and ridiculous national ideology, thus making them more than ever dependent upon the empire.

It is true that FYROM is too tiny to threaten Greece, but not if it would act as a strategic ally of Turkey or any other power threatening Greece.

But the main wars now are not military, they are economic, political and ideological. The empire needs to destroy historical nations and their states, because they represent objectively a source of potential challenge to itself.

Many British or American intellectuals do not grasp well the fundamental importance of the notion of the nation, an importance which Lenin understood very well and this was one of the secrets of the success of the October and subsequent Communist revolutions. Maybe they don’t grasp it because they come from nations which they believe or believed that all the world belongs to them. They don’t think in terms of Nations, they think in terms of Empires.

By adopting the ideology of Globalization, that is of the World Dictatorship of the Finance, important sections of the Left legitimize imperialism and they inherit all its contradictions regarding nations and nationalisms. Because you cannot dismiss Nations and Nationalisms in general, criticize Serbs, Greeks or Russians for “nationalism”, and then use Croatian, Albanian or Ukrainian nationalisms. You cannot accuse Serbs as nationalists and then use other nationalism to destroy a multinational structure like Yugoslavia.

Greek political parties were caught between their desire to satisfy Western powers, on whom they remain dependent and their own public. As a result, the official position of the country has oscillated from “no Macedonia, no derivatives” (1992) to “composite name with geographical connotation for all uses” (2008). But no Greek nowadays believes his parties are going to defend any position if subjected to western pressure. This is one of the reasons they felt they had to demonstrate.

In 2008 they were believing their government was defending Greek national interests. Only 5.000 people participated in a demonstration similar to those taking place today about Macedonia.

US and NATO come into the equation

This dispute has been ongoing for 25 years now, without creating any particular problem for bilateral relations between the two countries. Nobody really cared very much about solving this problem, except one player, the United States of America. A peace loving power, USA is not confining itself to its peace building activities in the Middle East, the Korean peninsula or Latin America. It is also very interested in promoting prosperity in South Eastern Europe!

FYROM is situated in the center of Balkans, between Greece and Serbia, Bulgaria and Albania. Who controls FYROM, controls the Balkans. Who controls the Balkans can wage war against Russia. It is as simple as that.

Hitler was of the same opinion. This is why he devoted precious time and he lost his best elite paratroopers divisions in 1941 to smash the formidable resistance of the Greeks to the Fascist Axis before attacking Soviet Russia, probably losing the war because of the prior expenditure of effort in his Serbian and Greek campaigns. Germans do not seem to have forgiven Serbs and Greeks for that.

This is the main, strategic reason US administration asked from the SYRIZA-An.Ell. government in Athens to conclude an agreement over the name quickly so that FYROM can become a member of NATO (and in the future of the EU). Berlin and Brussels are also pressing Athens in the same direction.

The Athens government has some very dangerous traits. It does not understand Greek national feelings, it doesn’t have much understanding of foreign, military and international policy or, for that matter, of Greek History. They only want to satisfy the US, Germany, NATO, Israel etc., without even understanding the consequences for themselves and the country. Tsipras is a kind of Gorbachev in Athens, who makes any concession possible, without really realizing what he is doing. Of course this is not valid for all his government. Some of its members, like the Foreign Affairs Minister, Mr. Kotzias, realize too well what they are doing.

Plan A of the Empire is clear: Solve the dispute between Greece and FYROM, dealing one more blow to the strength of the Greek national feeling, a historically un-parallel anti-imperialist force in the Balkans, along with Serb national feeling. Include FYROM in NATO, encircle and discipline Serbia, forcing it to accept the loss of Kosovo, extirpate the last remains of Russian influence in the Balkans and conclude the transformation of the region from the Mediterranean and the Adriatic to the frontier of the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics into a zone of strictly controlled protectorates, ready to go to war against the Russia.

By the way, Balkans is also an alternative possible route of attack against Iran, through Greece, Bulgaria, Black Sea and Transcaucasia.

A secondary aim is the inclusion of this region, or large parts of it in the EU, which will help finish any last potential of a united, independent, democratic Europe, leaving two main alternatives for the EU: to complete its transformation into a totalitarian imperial structure, under the control of international Finance and NATO, or to provoke its destruction in a catastrophic way.

But what if the Plan A fails? Empires have always fall back plans. Besides, it is more than obvious that this one is divided between its “Bolshevics” (Huntington, Netanyahu, Trump, Le Pen…) and its “Menshevics” (Fukuyama, Obama, Merkel, Macron, Soros…). The failures of the latter and the general dissatisfaction they provoke, lay the grounds for the others to try making their reckless Chaos strategies dominant western strategies.

One particular characteristic of the “Bolshevic” imperial faction is that it is using the methods of Entryism to put Neocons in all important positions of the western establishment. Another one is that they don’t present clearly their own program as such, they try to use the forces of dissent unleashed by the crisis of the mainstream western strategy, in order to radicalise it.They are producing fake revolts, color revolutions of different kinds, or they prove able to manipulate genuine ones. SYRIZA in Greece, Trump in the USA, Kurds in the Middle East are some of the examples one could cite. Last year, the Masters were debating in Davos about “post-Truth” and “post-Democracy”. The introduction of such terms is reflecting the extent of use of deception methods in contemporary politics.

We cannot explore analytically here what can be at stake in the Balkans if the plan A fails. This is why we limit ourselves to some ideas circulating around, from time to time, like dismemberment of FYROM between Albania and Bulgaria, or trying to create “fake” and pro-imperialist in the last analysis nationalisms in Serbia and Greece, or the open destruction of democratic rule in Greece. In the long run, in case of a crisis of the EU leading to its destruction, one of the ideas and scenarios circulating is to incorporate all Southern Europe and Northern Africa into a kind of Meditarranean Union under the aegis of France and Israel.

The only Plan which we cruelly lack is a Plan of cooperation of the Balkan nations and, beyond them, of Moldova and even Ukraine probably, if it gets rid from its present day dictatorship. All this region is now in ruins, as a result of Western military, political and economic inteventions, the object of a clear neo-colonialist policy. Such a Plan for South Eastern Europe could also be part of a Plan for a new, democratic, united, social and independent Europe, which we also cruelly lack.

Published at http://www.defenddemocracy.press/greek-protests-about-macedonia-are-complicating-us-nato-plans-for-war-with-russia/

De Córdoba à Paris: Hugo Moreno. le “Dragon” (1943-2017)

C’est dans l’année qui se termine, que notre bon ami Hugo Moreno est parti. Il était un grand homme et autant, un combattant pour le socialisme. Un socialisme que lui-même et le courant politique auquel il appartenait le définissait comme «le régime de l’autogestion sociale généralisée».

Homme très chaleureux, Hugo se distinguait par son souci sincère et profond, son empathie pour les gens. Il incarnait dans sa conduite personnelle les valeurs dont il se réclamait intellectuellement et politiquement. Ce qui n’était pas toujours le cas pour beaucoup de cadres politiques des organisations de gauche, si souvent dominés par leur amour du pouvoir, petit ou grand…

Amoureux de la vie, comme tout le continent, l’Amérique Latine, dont il était issu, Hugo avait un comportement à l’opposé de la politesse “formellement correcte” (comme on dit politiquement correcte), mais froide comme le soleil d’hiver, qui distingue souvent beaucoup des Européens. Et surtout, Hugo était caractérisé par un sens très puissant de dignité humaine, plutôt rare, surtout à notre époque.

Forme dans les années 1960 en Argentine révolutionnaire, Hugo a incarné l’un des meilleurs exemples de sa génération, un combattant internationaliste pour le socialisme, très cultivé et à l’esprit critique. Il n’a pas abandonné ses idées pour passer à l’autre bord, au contraire, il a poursuivi son voyage jusqu’à la fin, même si, comme toute sa génération, il a connu tant de déceptions amères ainsi répétées alors en cascade.

Ayant d’abord participé aux Monteneros dans les années 1960, il a été rapidement en désaccord et en rupture avec eux. Torturé de manière atroce au Brésil et en Argentine, il s’est vu forcé à prendre la route vers Europe, d’abord au Portugal, puis en France, où il a fini par devenir Professeur à l’Université de Paris VIII. Mais la politique ne l’a jamais perdu de vue, elle a toujours demeuré  au fond de son être.

Il a connu et rencontré Michael Raptis (Pablo), l’ancien secrétaire grec de la Quatrième Internationale, au Chili de Salvador Allende en 1973 et il avait rejoint le mouvement que Pablo avait créé, la Tendance Marxiste Révolutionnaire Internationale (TMRI) dont Hugo  est devenu un des dirigeants.

Peut-être le caractère d’ Hugo n’était pas si étranger à ses choix politiques. Le charismatique Pablo était une légende pour le rôle qu’il a joué dans la révolution algérienne, et c’est probablement par ce rôle, que le trotskisme français ait pu sortir de l’obscurité et le déclin de la première période de l’après-guerre. « Au commencement c’était la Praxis », fut l’axe de la philosophie politique du révolutionnaire grec qui a conduit ses amis et camarades a la lutte pratique aux cotes surtout des révolutionnaires du tiers monde.

La TMRI, a laquelle Hugo a adhéré représentait du reste un courant de marxistes révolutionnaires très critiques, qui essayaient de traiter le marxisme comme une « science expérimentale » de la société, pour ainsi laisser la réalité compléter, corriger, ou revoir les doctrines héritées et qui ne cessent d’être finalement déterminées par l’espace , le temps et les besoins qui les ont fait naître. Pablo lui même, originaire d’un pays qui se trouve a la jonction du monde de l’Industrie, de l’impérialisme et de la lutte des classes d’une part, et du monde des colonies et de la lutte des nations d’ autre part, il a toujours essayé d’orienter les trotskystes vers la révolution anticoloniale, tandis qu’il était autant intéressé par l’autogestion. Approche théorique, essayant de répondre à l’impasse profonde des régimes staliniens bureaucratiques, mais aussi approche pratique, développe à partir de l’implication des trotskystes dans l’expérimentation de la Yougoslavie de Tito à ses débuts et dans la Révolution Algérienne.

La chaleur joueuse de ton regard Hugo… elle nous manquera.

Dimitri Konstantakopoulos

Ensuite, nous publions deux articles d’amis et de camarades d’Hugo Moreno qui l’ont si bien connu, Guillermo Almeyra et Patrick Silberstein

Lire aussi

Le désastre argentin

Hugo Moreno (1943-2017) | by Carlos Abel Suárez

Working class protest, popular revolt and urban insurrection in Argentina: the 1969 Cordobazo – James P. Brennan

Le phénomène Trump, la course vers la guerre et la crise de l’ UE

Le phénomène Trump, la course vers la guerre et la crise de l’ UE

Dimitri Konstantakopoulos,

Conférence Internationale sur le capitalisme financier et ses alternatives, Chisinau, 15-16 décembre 2017

Lire aussi
The danger of Nuclear War and the Political Paralysis of Europe, the European Left, Russia and China

Dijsselbloem Speaks: The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

By Dimitris Konstantakopoulos

During a debate in the Committee on Employment of the European Parliament, a Greek Eurodeputy asked the President of the Eurogroup (the informal economic government of the Eurozone) if the Greek bail-out program was an effort to help and save Greece, or an effort to save the banks. Mr Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the Dutch Finance Minister, answered that “We have used the money of the taxpayers to save the banks. Those who say that everything was done to save the banks have some point”.

We remind our readers that Mr. Dijsselbloem threatened the Greek government with closure of Greek banks three days after the election of the new SYRIZA-ANEL government in January 2015, asking it to recognize the legitimacy of the debt and the validity of the neocolonial agreements signed by previous Greek governments, both accepted by Tsipras and Varoufakis one month later. He also applied every kind of pressure and blackmail during the first six months of 2015 in order to scupper any attempt by the Greek government to resist the program designed “to save banks” (and destroy Greeks), as he admitted in the Europarliament.

This same Dijsselbloem said more or less the same things in a recent interview to a Greek newspaper. Speaking about the way Europe addressed the problems after the 2008 crisis he answered:

“We improvised. We did it in a very expensive way for the taxpayers, including the Greek taxpayers, but the same goes for almost all the European countries. Banks were saved by the taxpayers at a huge price, leading to very high sovereign debt. Would we do it the same way again? No”.

Of course he did not explain why they “improvised” in such a way. They saved the banks, but they destroyed a member state of the Union. Why did they not improvise in the opposite way – giving priority to saving the population and not the banks? Just in passing,  this “improvisation” in reality required much more preparation time than other run-of-the-mill “improvisations”. Two years before imposing the catastrophic bail-out (in reality bail-down) program on Greece and one year before the German media began the concerted sadistic slander campaign against Greece (very much reminiscent of the propaganda campaigns against Serbs, Iraq, Libya, before the launching of the military campaigns against those nations), the international press began calling Southern Europe PIGS. A year and a half before the “improvised” imposition of the “bail-out” program on Greece, a close friend of Berlin, ex-Prime Minister Simitis, warned in the Greek parliament of the danger of seeing the IMF arrive in the country.

There was not any improvisation. Everything indicates that the program applied to Greece was nothing other than a carefully prepared and executed “experimental program” of abolishing the welfare state, democracy, popular and national sovereignty in a member state of the EU, by destroying its economy and its population. No more, no less. Mrs. Merkel herself went on record, the day the program was imposed, to explain that other Europeans will see what Greeks will suffer and they will get a lesson (BBC, May 10, 2010).

What does a country (or an enterprise or a person) facing the problem of a huge debt do? They invite their creditors (in Greece’s case mainly German and French banks) and they try to negotiate the restructuring of the debt. What happened with Greece? It was obliged, in the context of the bail-out program, first of all to recognize the debt and undertake to pay it to the last cent. To do that it was given money by the Europeans, and this is why the Greek program was indeed a bail-out program, but for the banks, not for Greece. The journalist interviewing the Dutch Eurogroup President asked him exactly that, i.e. if there should be a restructuring at the beginning of the program, and he got the following answer

“If there were to be an up-front restructuring in the future, I would be in favour of it because in the ESM treaty it actually says that before a country can enter a program, there needs to be some debt sustainability up-front. The only way to do that is if you include the private sector. But of course it’s a fundamental change that we have to think about”.

Ok, let them think about it. The fact remains that Mr. Dijsselbloem, along with Merkel, Juncker, Lagarde etc. inflicted upon a European nation damage comparable to what Nazi occupation troops did to it in the past, albeit with very different methods. And they insist on continuing to inflict this damage.

Mr. Dijsselbloem is not alone in making such a self-criticism. The IMF and Oli Rehn did the same in connection with the Greek disaster. But after performing such self-criticism not only do they not propose some compensation for the country they have destroyed: they multiply the pressures to continue with the same policy that is ruining the Greek people.

Here is the interview with Kathimerini: Leave Greek elections till 2019, Dijsselbloem tells Kathimerini, Alexis Papachelas | Kathimerini

Published in http://www.defenddemocracy.press/dijsselbloem-speaks-the-confessions-of-an-economic-hit-man/

Yiğit Bulut: “I am sorry for the Greeks. They have been left with nothing”

Greece will be in a “non-functional condition” until 2020, predicts the advisor to the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan  Yiğit Bulut, who characterizes the Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras as a “tool of the imperialists”.

Speaking on the state television programme “Deep Analysis” he gave the example of Greece to show the consequences of imperialism for global political developments.

”They sold off everything. The banks have passed into the hands of the Germans. They have been left with nothing. People in Greece wait for products from Germany and Italy.  There is a film about 300 Spartans who fall heroically in battle. Those 300 of Leonidas should come back to Greece now, because nothing has remained standing.

The plundering of Greece is so huge that the Greek people don’t realize it. Tsipras doesn’t wear a tie. He was going to stop imperialism. But Tsipras works for them. Do you remember? There was a finance minister who rode around on a motorcycle. An academic. They got rid of him. I mentioned that on this programme in the past. They will sack that Greek finance minister and then Greece will sign the agreement with the INF. I said it. When they had got rid of the finance  minister they brought an Englishman and the Englishman became a minister of the Greek government and they signed. We said that on our programme here before it happened.

The imperialist model hasn’t changed. Countries get into debt. They sink into crisis. The property of the people is transferred and after that they simply change the government. The same thing happened in Turkey in 2001. They sent Kemal Derviş to Turkey to put things in order for the imperialists. They appointed him Roman governor in Turkey.  But fortunately Devlet Bahçeli was found to spoil their game for them,”  Erdoğan’s advisor stated, and continued: “I feel sorry for the Greeks. They are victims of imperialism.”

The above declaration by the Turkish official was made to the Turkish state television. It was translated for DDP from the Greek sites that reproduced it, under the headline “Erdogan’s advisor makes provocative declarations”.

Turkey still occupies a large part of Cyprus after having invaded the island in 1974 and expelled more than 200,000 Greeks from their homes. It has territorial claims on Greek Aegean islands and deploys the world’s largest fleet of landing craft some miles from them. The Turkish National Assembly has voted a resolution threatening Greece with war in the event of use by Athens of its right to expand Greek territorial waters to 12 miles. It is only natural that Greeks do not much appreciate a Turkish official speaking of their country in this way. It is indeed a “provocation” from the point of view of rules of diplomatic behavior, given that Mr. Erdogan is preparing his visit to Greece.

Of course Greeks know only too well that the description of the Turkish official is quite close to the truth. It is probable that the advisor of the Turkish President does not so much have the intention of provoking Greeks as influencing Turkish politics by showing his public opinion what happens to a country that surrenders to “Western Imperialism”.

There is a deep irony to Turkey depicting, as it does here, the EU, Germany, the Eurozone, NATO and big finance destroying a member-state of the EU, and using this argument rhetorically!

D.K.

Published in http://www.defenddemocracy.press/yigit-bulut-i-am-sorry-for-the-greeks-they-have-been-left-with-nothing/

Γιατi δεν πρεπει τωρα να φυγουμε απο το ευρω!

Του Δημήτρη Κωνσταντακόπουλου

 

«Εκεί που φυτρώνει ο κίνδυνος, εκεί φυτρώνει κι αυτό που θα μας σώσει» (Φρίντριχ Χαίντερλιν)

«Η ελληνική φυλή ήταν πάντα και είναι ακόμα η φυλή που έχει το επικίνδυνο μέγα προνόμιο να κάνει θάματα. Όπως όλες οι δυνατές, μεγάλης αντοχής φυλές, κι η ελληνική μπορεί να φτάσει στον πάτο του γκρεμού, κι ακριβώς εκεί, στην πιο κρίσιμη στιγμή, όπου οι αδύνατες ράτσες γκρεμίζουνται, αυτή δημιουργεί το θάμα. Επιστρατεύει όλες τις αρετές και πετιέται μονομιάς, χωρίς διάμεσους σταθμούς, στην κορυφή της λύτρωσης. Το απότομο τούτο απρόβλεπτο από το λογικό, ανατίναγμα, προς τ’ απάνω ονομάζεται θάμα. Όλη μας η Ιστορία δεν είναι τίποτα άλλο παρά ένα βίαιο επικίντυνο δρασκέλισμα από τον χαμό στη σωτηρία» (Νίκος Καζαντζάκης, Ταξίδι στον Μωριά)

 

Αποφάσισα τώρα, που μπάζει από παντού το ευρωπαϊκό καράβι, να κάνω το αντίθετο από τα ποντίκια. Πριν πέσω, ή με πετάξουν στο νερό, όπου δεν με περιμένει ο παράδεισος του «εθνικού νομίσματος», αλλά μάλλον οι καρχαρίες, να εκμεταλλευθώ τον ελάχιστο χρόνο που απομένει και ό,τι υλικά βρω, να φτιάξω μια σχεδία πριν βρεθώ στο πέλαγος.

‘Έβαλα τον τίτλο για να προκαλέσω σκέψη, όχι γιατί πιστεύω, ποτέ δεν πίστευα, ότι πρέπει να μείνουμε καλά και σώνει στο ευρώ. Πάντα το θεωρούσα πολύ κακό νόμισμα για Ελλάδα και Ευρώπη. Μας διώχνουν άλλωστε. Άσε που μπορεί να διαλυθεί μόνο του!

Χρειαζόμαστε οπωσδήποτε ρήξη και σύγκρουση με τις κυρίαρχες ευρωπαϊκές πολιτικές για να γλυτώσουμε. Αυτό που δεν χρειαζόμαστε είναι τους αυτοσχεδιασμούς και τυχοδιωκτισμούς που υποστήκαμε και εξαιτίας των οποίων ο ελληνικός λαός είναι τώρα στο χώμα, χωρίς ούτε τη δύναμη να χτυπήσει το κεφάλι του στον τοίχο

Ήμουν από τους πρώτους που άρχισαν τη συζήτηση περί νομίσματος στις αρχές της κρίσης, με μια συνέντευξη του Σαμίρ Αμίν στον Επενδυτή που τάχθηκε από τότε υπέρ της εξόδου από την ευρωζώνη. Όσοι τάχθηκαν υπέρ τέτοιας εξόδου συνέβαλαν να σπάσει ένα μεγάλο ταμπού. Η υπόλοιπη κουβέντα όμως δεν ήταν παρά μια υπεκφυγή.

Για τους μεν η «Ευρώπη», για τους δε η «έξοδος από την Ευρώπη», δεν χρησίμευσε παρά σε συγκάλυψη της πιο απόλυτης προγραμματικής αμηχανίας, ως προς το πώς η χώρα μπορεί να αντιμετωπίσει τις πολλές, σύνθετες προκλήσεις της, είτε μένοντας, είτε φεύγοντας.

Δεν είναι σοβαρό να συγκρίνουμε θεωρητικά μια οικονομία εντός και εκτός ευρώ. Γιατί κάνουμε αφαίρεση της πραγματικότητας: δεν έχουμε σχεδόν, έθνος-κράτος εν λειτουργία σήμερα που θα βγάλει νόμισμα, έχουμε υποστεί τεράστια καταστροφή, έχουμε επικίνδυνους γείτονες, θα αντιμετωπίσουμε οικονομικό πόλεμο, το χρέος είναι μη βιώσιμο και υπογράψαμε την υποδούλωσή μας. Δεν υπάρχει, κι αυτό είναι το πιο σημαντικό απ’ όλα, το κυριότερο, το πιο βασικό, πολιτική ηγεσία των Ελλήνων ανεξάρτητη από ξένους, με την ικανότητα και την απόφαση να εκφράσει τη συλλογική βούληση των Ελλήνων. Έχουν αποκεφαλίσει τον ελληνικό λαό, το έθνος μας.

Αντί να γράφουμε διατριβές για την ανάγκη εξόδου, καλύτερα να τα μελετήσουμε όλα αυτά, ώστε, αν χρειαστεί ή θελήσουμε, να μπορούμε να φύγουμε από το ευρώ χωρίς να καταστραφούμε ή να υποταγούμε ακόμα πιο πολύ στην αποικιακή μας κατάσταση, στα ίδια ή λίγο παραλλαγμένα αφεντικά. Αν το κάνουμε, και μεγαλύτερη αυτοπεποίθηση θα χουμε και να διαπραγματευτούμε θα μπορούμε.

Το να λες «φεύγω από το ευρώ και σώζομαι», είναι σα να έχει πάθει κάποιος έμφραγμα και να του λες να κόψει το τσιγάρο και τα γλυκά. Αν το είχε κάνει, μπορεί και να μην το πάθαινε. Αυτήν τη στιγμή το έμφραγμα είναι το μη βιώσιμο χρέος, οι νομικές συνέπειες όλων των δανειακών συμβάσεων, που εγκαθίδρυσαν μια «οικονομία δουλείας» στην Ελλάδα και την έκαναν προτεκτοράτο, η πολυετής διεθνής πολιτική επίθεση εναντίον της, η αποσύνθεση του παραγωγικού ιστού, της κοινωνίας και του κράτους.

Πρέπει να αντιτάξουμε σε αυτό το «έμφραγμα» μια ολοκληρωμένη στρατηγική σωτηρίας. Από αυτήν και όχι ανάποδα, πρέπει να καθορίσουμε τη στάση μας απέναντι στο νόμισμα. Δεν ωφελεί άλλωστε καθόλου την ελληνική υπόθεση μια διεθνής συζήτηση για το ευρώ, που θα εξελιχθεί σήμερα, σε μια κουβέντα γιατί η αναξιοπαθής Ελλάδα δεν είναι ικανή να μείνει εκεί μέσα. Η συζήτηση που ωφελεί τώρα την Ελλάδα, είναι ποιος έχει φτιάξει το χρέος, ποιες είναι οι συνέπειες των μνημονίων, τι είδους Ευρώπη θέλουμε, αν είναι δυνατό να αφήνουμε τους τραπεζίτες του Σίτι και της Γουόλ Στριτ να υπαγορεύουν στην Ευρώπη πότε θα ενώνεται και πότε θα χωρίζει και τι είδους Ευρώπη θα φτιάχνουν.

Αυτή είναι η συζήτηση που συμφέρει εμάς, και όλη τη Νότια Ευρώπη, αλλά που μπορεί επίσης να ενδιαφέρει και πολλούς στη Γερμανία, στη Γαλλία και σε όλη την Ευρώπη. Αυτή τη συζήτηση δεν καταφέραμε να ανοίξουμε σοβαρά τόσα χρόνια.

Δεν πας να αμυνθείς σε κατωφέρεια, ούτε ξεκινάς τον πόλεμο αυτοδεσμευόμενος να στέκεσαι συνέχεια στο ίδιο σημείο! Μου έχει μάλιστα κάνει μεγάλη εντύπωση ότι διάφοροι Έλληνες αντίπαλοι ή και μη του ευρώ, που συμμετέχουν και πρωταγωνιστούν σε διάφορες διεθνείς συναντήσεις και κινήσεις, δεν φροντίζουν καν αυτές οι συναντήσεις να βγάζουν τουλάχιστον ψηφίσματα και αποφάσεις υπέρ της Ελλάδας, της διαγραφής του χρέους της, της καταγγελίας των αποικιακών συμβάσεων. Δεν τους έχει περάσει από το μυαλό ότι μπορεί οι Γερμανοί ή οι Γάλλοι φίλοι τους να θέλουν να βγουν για εντελώς αντίθετους λόγους από αυτούς που μπορεί να θέλουμε εμείς;

Πρέπει να γίνουμε, γιατί δεν είμαστε ακόμα, έτοιμοι να φύγουμε από το ευρώ, ώστε να μη μας εκβιάζουν, δεν υπάρχει όμως κανείς λόγος να φύγουμε τώρα με δική μας πρωτοβουλία. Εκτός μιας περιπτώσεως, αν ο Σόιμπλε προσφέρει εξαιρετικά γενναιόδωρους όρους για να φύγουμε, που δεν μοιάζει πολύ πιθανό. Αμφιβάλλω μάλιστα κι αν έχουμε κανέναν που να μπορεί να εκτιμήσει καν μια τέτοια πρόταση. Πάντως τέτοιος δεν υπάρχει σήμερα στο επιτελείο της κυβέρνησης, των κύριων πολιτικών δυνάμεων και του κράτους, το τραγικό δε είναι ότι κανείς εκεί δεν φαίνεται ούτε να μπορεί, ούτε να θέλει να σκεφτεί με το δικό του και όχι με δάνειο μυαλό

Οφείλουμε να θυμόμαστε ότι η ελληνική κρίση δεν οφείλεται μόνο στο ευρώ. Οφείλεται επίσης στην κατάρρευση του ελληνικού μοντέλου «κλεπτοκρατικού καπιταλισμού», στην παγκόσμια οικονομική κρίση, σε κρυφή «γεωπολιτική ατζέντα». Συνέκλιναν όλα να μας κάνουν πρώτο στόχο νέας μορφής πολέμου, με οικονομικά, πολιτικά, ψυχολογικά και γεωπολιτικά μέσα. Γίναμε το πεδίο εφαρμογής παγκόσμιας σημασίας πειράματος καταργήσεως των εθνών και των κρατών, εφαρμογής, με τη θέληση του θύματος, νέων μορφών ολοκληρωτισμού.

Δεν αρκεί μια επιλογή νομισματικής πολιτικής για να απαντήσεις σε τέτοιες προκλήσεις. Θέλει ολοκληρωμένη στρατηγική απάντηση σε όλα μαζί και όχι μόνο σε ένα από τα προβλήματα. Αν καταλάβουμε εξάλλου τι γίνεται και το εξηγήσουμε και διεθνώς, θα βρούμε πολύ περισσότερους συμμάχους από όσους νομίζουμε, γιατί η Ελλάδα παράγει τώρα την ιστορία της Ευρώπης και του κόσμου, όπως είπε κάποτε ο Ουίνστον Τσόρτσιλ.

Η λογική υπαγορεύει να αφήσουμε στους άλλους την ευθύνη αποβολής της Ελλάδας από το ευρώ, αφού εξαντλήσουμε όλα τα πολλά θεσμικά και πολιτικά όπλα που μας δίνει η ιδιότητα μέλους της Ε.Ε. για να διεκδικήσουμε το δίκιο μας. Ουδείς είναι προετοιμασμένος, όπως π.χ. για τη δυνατότητα να μπλοκάρεις τη λειτουργία της Ε.Ε. που εξακολουθεί να έχει αναρίθμητα βέτο, όπως έκανε ο Ντε Γκολ, έχοντας προηγουμένως δημιουργήσει πολιτική δυνατότητα για να το κάνει αυτό.

Η επιβίωση υπαγορεύει ότι, μια χώρα σε αυτό το σημείο που βρίσκεται η Ελλάδα, τα παίζει όλα για όλα για να σώσει το τομάρι της. Εξηγεί σε εταίρους και συμμάχους ότι δεν γίνεται να έχουν το ελεύθερο να κάνουν ό,τι θέλουν στον χώρο της, στρατιωτικά και στρατηγικά, και ταυτόχρονα να την καταστρέφουν. Υπαγορεύει επίσης πολύ σοβαρή προσπάθεια στους τομείς παραγωγής, δικτύου καταναλωτικών-παραγωγικών συνεταιρισμών, ετοιμασίας εισαγωγής μεθόδων «πολεμικής οικονομίας», αναζήτηση συμμαχιών σε όλα ανεξαιρέτως τα σημεία του ορίζοντα, πολύ σοβαρή νομική προετοιμασία και, ασφαλώς, όλα όσα συνεπάγεται η προετοιμασία και ετοιμότητα εισαγωγής εθνικού μέσου πληρωμών. Αν υπάρχει άλλωστε μια πιθανότητα ενός κάποιου υποφερτού συμβιβασμού, αυτή μόνο με τέτοιες απειλές και τη βεβαιότητα ότι θα πραγματοποιηθούν, μπορεί να υπάρξει. Είναι αυτό που οι Γάλλοι λένε «αποτροπή του αδύνατου απέναντι στον ισχυρό». (Πρέπει βέβαια κι ο Δαυίδ να είναι πιο έξυπνος και όχι πιο χαζός από τον Γολιάθ!)

Για να συζητήσουμε καν θέμα εθνικού νομίσματος, οφείλουμε να έχουμε πάρει πολλές αποφάσεις και να κάνουμε σοβαρές ετοιμασίες. Στο παρελθόν Παπανδρέου, Σαμαράς, Τσίπρας μας κράτησαν στο πρόγραμμα υποθέτοντας ότι κάπως θα μας φροντίσει η Ευρώπη. Αγνοούσαν ότι χρησιμοποιούσαν την Ευρώπη δυνάμεις που ήθελαν την καταστροφή μας (αν δεν το πιστεύετε, πείτε τι επιδιώκουν). Δεν αποκλείω ότι, αν μαζευτεί διεθνής υποστήριξη στο σενάριο «εξόδου από το ευρώ» («πολύ επιθυμητό» για Heritage Foundation και Σόιμπλε) θα δούμε αύριο νέο εθνοσωτήρα, που θα ξεκινήσει αγώνα κατά της «γερμανικής Ευρώπης», χωρίς να μας πει πού πάμε, να οργανώσουμε πάλι μόνοι μας την καταστροφή μας (τα μνημόνια δεν μπορούσαν να υπάρξουν αν δεν τα υπέγραφαν Έλληνες πρωθυπουργοί). Εμείς θα τον πιστέψουμε, γιατί ο πνιγμένος από τα μαλλιά του πιάνεται. Την πατήσαμε με την ψευτο-αριστερά, δεν χρειάζονται τώρα ψευτο-εθνικισμοί.

Η χώρα δεν πρέπει ούτε να μείνει, ούτε να φύγει από το ευρώ. Χρειάζεται να ξαναγίνει κράτος, με δική της, ιθαγενή βούληση. Χρειάζεται σοβαρό plan Α και σοβαρό plan Β (γιατί χωρίς το δεύτερο, δεν υπάρχει πρώτο). Αλλιώς, θα φύγει στο τέλος, όχι με όρους επιβίωσης, αλλά Σόιμπλε, Goldman Sachs και αμερικανικών κύκλων που θέλουν να διαλύσουν την Ε.Ε. (ίσως χρησιμοποιώντας και μας), για τους ακριβώς αντίθετους από τους λόγους που δεν μας αρέσει εμάς η Ε.Ε.

Ακόμα πιο σημαντικό από το θέμα του ποιο νόμισμα θα χρησιμοποιείται (αλλά και για να μπορούμε άλλωστε να έχουμε αν θέλουμε δικό μας νόμισμα), είναι το να παύσουμε να είμαστε αποικία χρέους, όπως ήταν ο εύστοχος τίτλος ενός βιβλίου του κ. Κοτζιά, προτού γίνει και ο ίδιος υπουργός της αποικίας. ‘Έστω κι αν είδε πολύ καλά τον ρόλο της Γερμανίας, δεν είδε σχεδόν καθόλου τον ρόλο του ΔΝΤ, του μεγάλου κυρίως μη ευρωπαϊκού χρηματοπιστωτικού κεφαλαίου και των ΗΠΑ πίσω τους. Αν είμαστε μόνο αποικία του Βερολίνου και όχι του παγκόσμιου Χρήματος και αρκετών άλλων, το θέμα μας θα ήταν πολύ ευκολότερο. Ο σκοπός δεν πρέπει να είναι να βγούμε από την ευρωζώνη, για να βουλιάξουμε ακόμα περισσότερο στην τωρινή αποικιακή κατάσταση. Και δεν καταλαβαίνω γιατί, προτού βγούμε, να μην το κάνουμε «μπάχαλο» εκεί μέσα.

Προς αποφυγήν παρεξηγήσεων επαναλαμβάνω. Ο γράφων δεν τάσσεται υπέρ της παραμονής στο ευρώ υπό όποιους όρους. Είναι απολύτως αναγκαία για την κοινωνική-εθνική επιβίωση των Ελλήνων, η διακοπή της εξυπηρέτησης του χρέους, η καταγγελία των δανειακών συμβάσεων και των μνημονίων, ο αυστηρός επανέλεγχος των μεταφορών ιδιοκτησίας, η άμεση οργάνωση ευρωπαϊκής και παγκόσμιας άμυνας της Ελλάδας, επικοινωνιακής-πολιτικής αντεπίθεσης. Χρειαζόμαστε όμως μεγάλη προετοιμασία και σοβαρότητα, αφοσίωση, λαό σε εγρήγορση, πολλαπλές στρατηγικές. Πρέπει να τα αποκτήσουμε όλα αυτά, όσο δύσκολα κι αν φαίνονται, για να μην μας πάρουν οριστικά το κράτος μας, μας καταστρέψουν και μας διασκορπίσουν στα πέρατα της Οικουμένης, όπως έκανε ο Αυτοκράτωρ Τίτος στους Εβραίους.

Σας φαίνονται ουτοπία όλα αυτά; ‘Ίσως, δεν έχετε άδικο. Μόνο που η εναλλακτική είναι να πεθάνετε, να πεθάνουμε όλοι μας δηλαδή, άλλος νωρίτερα, άλλος αργότερα, και μάλιστα χωρίς καμιά αξιοπρέπεια. Μετά από επτά χρόνια, το ξέρετε καλά, ό,τι κι αν λέτε για παρηγοριά στον εαυτό σας και τους άλλους, όσο σφιχτά κι αν φυλάτε, όπου τα φυλάτε, τα όποια, λίγα ή πολλά υπάρχοντά σας, ότι αυτό ακριβώς θα συμβεί και σε μας και στη χώρα μας. Μη σας μπερδεύει ότι είσαστε σε διαφορετικό όροφο ο καθένας του βυθιζόμενου σκάφους. Ακόμα και στο εξωτερικό να πάτε, κι εκεί ακόμα, μην έχετε αμφιβολία, θα σας πριονίζει πολύ καιρό το κεφάλι και θα στοιχειώνει το υπόλοιπο της ζωής σας, η κραυγή ενός ενδεχόμενου τέλους.

Μήπως είναι καλύτερα να ψάξουμε τώρα όλοι μαζί έναν τρόπο να αλλάξουμε, έστω και την υστάτη, αυτό το παιχνίδι;

 

Σημείωση: Το άρθρο, με κάποιες επιμέρους προσθέσεις και διευκρινίσεις που προσθέσαμε, αλλά που δεν αλλάζουν τη βασική δομή του επιχειρήματός του, γράφτηκε στα τέλη Ιανουαρίου και δημοσιεύτηκε την 1η Φεβρουαρίου στο περιοδικό Zero.
Δηλαδή πριν από την έμμεση πλην σαφή πρόσκληση της κυβέρνησης Τραμπ προς την Ελλάδα να φύγει από το ευρώ και πριν γίνει γνωστή η συνάντηση στο Παρίσι των κ.κ. Τσίπρα και Ρότσιλντ

Obama, Kissinger and Nuland: Cyprus 1974 – Cyprus 2017

By Dimitris Konstantakopoulos

06/01/2017

In July 1974 the US-controlled Athens military junta organized a coup d’état in Cyprus and an assassination attempt against the President of Cyprus Archbishop Makarios. Everything was executed in exactly the same way as it had been a year before in Santiago Chile. (Cyprus is an island of great strategic importance, now a member of EU and Eurozone. 82% of his population are Greek by nationality and 18% Turkish Cypriots. The country obtained its independence from Britain in 1960, after one of the most successful national-liberation struggles after the 2nd World War)

Unlike Salvador Allende, Makarios escaped death and with him his state survived also, albeit mutilated by the Turkish invasion that followed suit. Kissinger had to admit that Cyprus had been the greatest failure of his career.

Why did he do all this? Because Kissinger was the early neocon prototype, albeit much more capable than what his epigones proved to be. In spite of using his intellectual skills to build his image, he could never be something like Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher king, nor even like the shrewd Rabin, who knew when the time had come to transform into a permanent peace, from a hegemonic position, what he had won in the war.

Kissinger wants to play God (even though he should know that sometimes hubris is followed by nemesis. But this is not the kind of argument to stop such a man).

He has enormous capacities, great charisma and a global strategic vision, even if not everybody would agree with it. He was by far the most astute of the great cold (and also hot) warriors. By achieving an otherwise impossible alliance with the leader of the Chinese Communist Revolution, by what he did in Europe, the Middle East, Japan and even Latin America, he was able to encircle Russia and lay the strategic foundations for the demise of the USSR. His influence upon US foreign policy and strategy has lasted much longer than the time of his service as Secretary of State and National Security advisor.

The Master of Deception

His unparalleled achievements were due to the combination of two weapons he knows how to use very well.

One, he never hesitates. Every time he thinks it necessary to use every possible method, he has no moral, or any other, scruples. The end justifies the means, as the Jesuits used to say (or probably their opponents claimed they said).

The second and even more fearful weapon is his capacity to understand, better than they themselves do, what all the various players in a given game are thinking: their mentality, their needs. He is thus able to send all of them, including his rivals, the signals that are right for his purposes, signals formulated in the language the most likely to persuade them and make them move in the direction he wants them to go. Even if they continue to harbour some doubts, he is the master of the game because he knows what he wants and he does not hesitate for a moment. That was the secret of his triumphs.

I think even now Kissinger is one of the very few people who can maintain very good relations with both camps in what seems very much like a civil war at the very top of the Empire, probably between globalizers and practitioners of chaos, something like the war between the emperors Antonius and Octavius in ancient Rome.

Cyprus: a masterpiece of deceptive diplomacy

In 1974 Kissinger was able to prepare his Cyprus coup first by deceiving everybody about his real intentions, including the Greek dictator Ioannides, Archbishop Makarios and Soviet FM Gromyko (when he met both of them in Nicosia weeks before the coup), the British government and even his own President Richard Nixon, probably exploiting his serious troubles with Watergate.

It was a masterpiece of deceptive diplomacy, even if this is something he cannot openly claim.

In March 1974 Major-General Ioannides the Greek dictator invited to his office the ship owner Aristotelis Onassis. He told him, according to one of the very close associates of Onassis, “Aristotelis, everything is fine with foreign policy. The Americans told me to get rid of the priest (Archbishop Makarios, President of Cyprus) and they will give us the island” (Cyprus to be united with Greece). Ioannides was a little bit mad and the only thing Onassis could think of saying to him was “And why they don’t do it themselves?”. Such a question was not enough to make Ioannides think, let alone deter him from what he was already planning.

When Ioannides realized after the coup that he had been deceived and that it was Turkey not Greece that was to be “united” with Cyprus, he ordered the Greek Armed Forces to defend the island by all means and attack Turkey on all fronts. Nobody did anything. The USA were controlling all the Greek military hierarchy. The Turkish troops invaded the island essentially without resistance, proceeding to ethnic cleansing of the Greek population from the zone they controlled. Cyprus lost 3% of its population during this operation, which is more than the Iraqi losses during the invasion of 2003.

Ioannides, a veteran of anticommunist struggles in Greece, died in prison, always refusing to explain what had happened. He said only “I don’t speak because if I speak all Greeks will become Communists”. Some time after the events the Greek Parliament itself adopted a special provision to stop any investigations about Cyprus, invoking the need not to disturb the foreign relations of Greece.

Kissinger meeting Makarios and Gromyko

Just before the coup Kissinger himself visited Cyprus and there met with Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko and Archbishop Makarios. We don’t know much about what was said during their conversations except that Kissinger told the Archbishop as he was leaving the island: “Monseigneur, you are too great a leader for such a tiny place.” It was a flattering remark for this son of peasants to hear such words from one of the most powerful men on Earth.

If we don’t know what was said in those talks we do know what happened afterwards. Makarios began to act with increasing assertiveness in his relations with the junta, ignoring desperate messages from some people in Athens, that they were planning to kill him. He even wrote the junta a letter asking them to recall their officers from Cyprus. This served as the final pretext for the coup against him.

As for the USSR, it reacted only a posteriori to the chain of events and only by the usual diplomatic means. It was the opposite attitude to the one Nikita Khrushchev had adopted in 1964. Then, warned by Makarios’s envoy Vassos Lyssarides, the Cypriot socialist leader, who had met him personally at his southern resort, he had send a strong message to US President Lyndon Johnson explaining that a Turkish plan to invade the island would be unacceptable for the Soviet Union. Johnson sent a letter (published since) to the Turkish leader Inonu, telling him to cancel the invasion plans.

But all plans may have some problematic points. Not only did Makarios survive but the Socialists and other democrats resisted the coup on the ground. Kissinger’s chosen man in Cyprus, Clerides, who had in the meantime become the acting President, and Kissinger’s friends in Athens, could not do much finally but accept the return of the Archbishop to his island after some months abroad. He had saved his state, but nearly half of the island was already occupied and hundreds of thousands of refugees were living in tents. His heart broken, he died three years later.

Turkey enters the game

The Turkish forces invaded the island in July 1974 to “protect the Republic of Cyprus and Turkish Cypriots”. The constitutional order of the Republic had been restored on the island, nobody there was in any real danger, the Athens junta had collapsed. But one month later, while negotiations were being held in Geneva, the Turkish Army began its second phase of the invasion, occupying nearly half of the island, where it still stands. According to relevant UN documents the Northern occupied zone of Cyprus remains the most militarized region on Earth. The day before the second military operation Kissinger and the Turkish PM Ecevit had had 14 telephone conversations.

In November 1974 Kissinger met Denktash and explained to him what kind of solution he should demand for Cyprus. Later, US undersecretary of State Clifford explained to Makarios what kind of solution was fit for the island.

On the basis of a solution of this type, decades later, the “Annan Plan for the solution of the Cyprus conflict” was developed and presented to the Cypriot people in a 2004 referendum. Cypriots rejected the proposal.

From Kissinger to Nuland – from modernity to postmodernism (with Turkey invited to join EU)

Now Mrs Nuland wants exactly the same solution before she leaves the State Department. She wants to impose it on Cyprus through a new coup d’état, of a very different, less dramatic and more dangerous type. The coup d’état is to take place in Geneva, on 12th January.

She knows that she cannot win a referendum under the given circumstances. She will therefore try to take everything she can from the powers of the existing Cypriot state, on a legal and political level and at the level of international law, before holding probably two and not one referenda, which is logical as there will be not one but two states in Cyprus after January 12. She will hold the promised referendum she cannot win under the circumstances only when she has changed those circumstances. And she will hold two, not one.

All of this is illegal, but if Anastasiades and Tsipras or Kotzias sign the agreements under pressure from her, there will be not be many people around even to protest, as they did during the Iraq war. They will not survive such an act, politically, but I am not sure how they interpret the situation. The more so as most of the international players in fact prefer such a “solution”, and many of them, unbelievable as it may seem, just do not know the real details and provisions of the Annan plan. They know only that they have to support it! If all this planning does not falter somewhere in the next few days, it will soon be announced on the screens of CNN and world TV: Breaking News: Peace in Cyprus. The two sides announce the creation of a new partnership. Historic foes Greece and Turkey sign a Pact of Alliance.

At some point in the future Cyprus will be transformed into a Bosnia. But who will then remember what was on the CNN screen that day? Do you hear anything now about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? They will just say: “Oh, those Greeks and Turks, they are at it again. They never know how to behave. They are genetically or culturally disposed to violence.

The Cyprus settlement risks becoming, simultaneously, the last victory of the old “globalization” and a prelude to the new Order of Chaos!

One small detail: the Annan-Anastasiades-Nuland plan also provides for Turkey to become something like a full member of the EU, a decades-old project of US policy, which now seems all but unachievable through normal means.

One more reason for Mr. Obama and Mr. Erdogan to eye the cheese and ignore the trap. The only thing I don’t know is what Netanyahu thinks of all this.

Kissinger: The reasons I did it

Speaking to a closed seminar under Chatham House rules, Mr. Kissinger justified his policy by saying that whoever rules Cyprus, Crete and Malta “rules the world”. Given that he had already lost Malta, he could not afford also to lose Cyprus, ruled by this “red priest”, the “Mediterranean Castro”.

This is misrepresentation. Makarios was a very anticommunist, pro-American, conservative, right-wing politician. The only reason that he was flirting with the Soviet Union and that he became a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, was the threat of extinction of his state, which was always London’s and Washington’s policy aim for Cyprus. .

As the Colonial Secretary of the United Kingdom said of the Commonwealth Harry Hopkinson said, answering a question about Cyprus from Labour’s ex-colonial secretary Griffiths in the House of Commons, “It has always been understood and agreed that there are certain territories in the Commonwealth which, owing to the particular circumstances, can never expect to be fully independent”. (28.7.1954)

Cyprus is an island like Britain and (strategically speaking) the USA. From there you can attack anybody in the Eastern Mediterranean, but nobody can easily attack you. When the British PM Disraeli acquired the island from the Ottoman Empire he said “we have got the link we were missing”. Imperial planners not only always thought it would be too risky to let the inhabitants of the island rule themselves (this used to be, and still is, the “Cyprus problem”). They often used the most destabilizing methods to attain their goal of taking the island from them.

Kissinger can say whatever he wants. He all but destroyed the South East wing of NATO. Monteagle Sterns, US Ambassador to Athens, said the only reason the Soviet Union was not able to make huge strategic gains out of the mess produced by Kissinger was its own unwillingness or incompetence.

From Kiev to Nicosia

The same is true of Mrs. Nuland. She could claim, for instance, that what she did in Kiev was necessary to stop Putin from recreating the Soviet Union. But it is not true. The West, if it wanted, could incorporate not only Ukraine, but also Russia into the Western system. They did it with Germany after the War. All that would be required would be to send money there, not IMF economists, and to avoid having NATO troops penetrate deep inside the ex-USSR. Now they don’t understand how it is possible that Putin should be ruling the Kremlin. They believe it is just a misunderstanding of history and they look for ways to remove him from his position. This attitude is not serious.

On the subject of Kiev, I really don’t know how to evaluate it. What happened in Kiev was the strongest possible motivation for Putin to decide to send his army to Syria. The West is already facing the consequences of the biggest strategic defeat it has suffered since the Vietnam War. Can you really call such an outcome a triumph?

Obama, Cyprus and two schools of imperial thinking

Some friends of mine will be shocked to discover that I greatly esteem the President of the United States, Barack Obama, for one thing he did , and I really do. He stopped the crazy neocon plan for a new Syria invasion (as in Iraq) and the even crazier idea of bombing Iran, probably with tactical nukes, as Seymour Hearsh was already warning us a decade ago. I consider the very existence of such plans as the most serious indication of a deep decline of our civilization

Of course Obama should be criticized for many other things. But one should not judge the presidents of the United States only by the policy of their country. Those seemingly all-powerful people are much more hostages of the mad machine they are running than we are! And for any judgment to be correct one should take into account the real situation in which one person acts.

Obama said something very serious, answering the critiques he had received of the “failures of his Middle Eastern policy”. He criticized the previous administrations for the legacy they had left him and for the method of “first shooting and then looking”.

But he also made the same mistake and he admitted it in the case of Libya, when he heard Sarkozy. He is a clever man and he probably understood finally that something had gone wrong with Kiev, but he will not admit it. He is familiar with Third World problems but not with Russia. He represents a generation that lacks the terrible education and experience that was the Cold War. About Russia, but not about Cyprus, he could gain a lot from talking with Kissinger and even more from reading Kennan or Cohen. As for Brzezinski, passions are usually misleading. His anti-Russian mania undermined the other aims of his interventions.

Of course nobody there in the White House has taken the time to read the Annan Plan (and the same is true for European bureaucracies and governments). They would easily understand, if they read it, that it creates a Bosnia in the Mediterranean. But this is how the world is run. By small minority groups inside the system which write the laws and push the decision makers to act accordingly, thinking they are deciding.

 

Published in:  www.defenddemocracy.press

Obama in Athens and the question of Cyprus

by Dimitris Konstantakopoulos
One of the reasons, many observers believe, President Obama went to Greece this week, is to press Athens to be “helpful” for a “solution” to the Cyprus problem. On the other hand the European Commission is also pressing hard on both Nicosia and Athens to accept a solution, even worse than the one the Cypriot people had rejected back in 2004, by voting ‘NO’ by an overwhelming majority in a referendum held in both the territories controlled by the Republic of Cyprus and those under the control of the Turkish Army, which invaded Cyprus in 1974 and does not seem willing to leave the island, with or without an agreed solution.
It seems the United States of America and the European Union are so satisfied with their achievements in the Middle East and Ukraine, they want now to apply their tested diplomatic and other skills in Cyprus. But Cyprus is a member of the European Union and what will happen there will gravely affect all of Europe and its policies towards Greece, Turkey, and the Middle East. In the worst possible scenario, a bad solution in Cyprus has the potential of provoking a Bosnian-type conflict inside, not outside the EU. And it will make the Union hostage of the good will of Ankara.
This danger comes from the nature of the plan negotiated now in Cyprus and Switzerland, which is worse than the Annan plan, rejected back in 2004 by voters. But even before such a solution comes into effect, some observers do not exclude some sort of military or economic crisis, designed to provoke a shock to the people of the island, in order to push the frightened people to vote ‘Yes’ finally to a plan they don’t now seem to like.
Anybody analyzing the strategic landscape of the Eastern Mediterranean and especially of the Greece-Cyprus-Turkey triangle, should be advised to remember that the scenarios of all wars and crises between Greeks and Turks during the 20th century, without exception, were not drafted in Athens, Ankara or Nicosia, but in Washington and other capitals. But they found, there, willing executioners. We can easily discern a “hidden” geopolitical agenda behind the imposition by the USA and NATO of a dictatorship in Greece in 1967 (necessary in order to provoke the Cyprus crisis of 1974), but also behind the imposition of an extremely tough “bail-out” program to Greece (2010), which has already destroyed the economic foundations of the Greek nation-state. The same is true of the “bail-in experiment” in Cyprus (2013) which led to the foreign control of its banks and to the sharp diminishing of Russian economic presence.
The fundamental problem with the Annan plan is not so much that it is discriminating massively against the Greek majority (82%), thus installing an unjust regime which, instead of leading to reconciliation, it would lead to the permanence of conflict between Greek and Turkish Cypriots.
In fact this plan could easily have been written by Ionesco. If it is finally accepted, it will create a strange entity similar to no other state in the world (except probably to Bosnia or East Timor). The plan provides for the creation (in a relatively small island) of various chambers, parliaments and senates, with a system of continuous vetos, which will guarantee jobs for thousands of lawyers and the impossibility of this new “state” to work. The architects of the plan know it, this is why they gave the final right of decision to foreigners (or alternatively, they discuss now a system tantamount to taking decisions by lotto). The new state will not have an army of its own, but a kind of international police to discipline the locals. This project represents a major infringement of all major provisions of the UN Charter, European, international and constitutional law.
This legal monster has still its own logic and this logic is pretending to solve the conlfict between majority and minority in Cyprus to trasform a once independent, sovereign and democratic state into a sort of post-modern protectorate (or, alternatively, with its crisis potential, to a weapon which could be used inside the EU to hold permanently Greece itself and the foreign relations of the EU hostages of the forces which will have the objective capacity to provoke an internal crisis in Cyprus).
Behind the Greek-Turkish conflict is hidden a geopolitical agenda for control of the Eastern Mediterranean. As we probably approach another crisis there, we strongly suggest to readers not familiar with Greek and Turkish sources, the following article by a leading figure of Western Marxism and the New Left, Professor of History and Sociology in UCLA and former editor of the New Left Review. It was published in 2008 in the London Review of Books and it contains all the most fundamental elements to understand the Cyprus conflict (the only “omission” if we should say so, being the non reference to the role of Israel and Russia in the conflict).