Canadian Imam likens Trudeau to a king who helped Muslims and then converted to Islam

Jonathan D. HaleviRebel Blogger

(This article originally appeared in CIJNews.com
and is reprinted with permission.) Canadian Sheikh Shaban Sherif Mady
(شعبان شريف ماضي), was a scholar at al-Azhar theological school in Egypt
and served at the Ministry of Endowment and Ministry of Education of
the Egyptian government.

Today, he is the Imam of a Muslim
congregation in Edmonton, Alberta which holds its Friday prayers at
Glengarry Hall in Edmonton.

Shaban Sherif Mady dedicated his
Friday sermon on December 18, 2015 to Canada’s Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau, whom he sees as the greatest ally of the Muslims. Trudeau was
likened to “the Najashi”, the Christian King of Abyssinia in the 7th
century AD, who is honoured in the Islamic history for the support and
protection he provided to the Muslim emigrants who fled pagan Mecca and
his persistent refusal to expel them while fending off the pressure and
lure offered by Muhammad’s Meccan rival leadership. Later, according to
the Islamic tradition, the Najashi King accepted Muhammad’s invitation
to embrace Islam and became a Muslim.

The following is an excerpt of Shaban Sherif Mady’s sermon (originally in Arabic):

“Justin Trudeau – I call him today the Najashi of the current era. He
hosted Muslims, honoured them, visited their mosques, greeted them for
their holidays, and removed the suspicion that terrorism is related to
Islam, honoured the Muslims, hosted the refugees.

    “He is the
Najashi of the current era. This is the title of my sermon that will
appear on YouTube – Justin Trudeau Najashi of the current era…

   
“In Islam there are men, in the world there are men who helped the
world with their wisdom, such as [Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan [President of
Turkey] and Justin Trudeau.

    “Salute to Justin Trudeau, O the
Najashi of the current era. Thank you… This man is affable. This amiable
man we call him the Najashi of the current era.

    “Thank you
for hosting our Muslims on behalf of this Canadian country which you run
in the same way the Najashi ruled in ancient era our Muslims, who were
oppressed and tortured [in Mecca].

    “Thank you. Thanks you, O
the Najashi of the current era… The world is happy to see people like
Erdoğan and Trudeau. With people such as those the compassion is spread,
the friendship is spread, the love is spread…”

In his Friday sermons in Edmonton during the years 2013-14, Shaban Sherif Mady said the following:

“O the courageous Palestinian people! Al-Quds (Jerusalem) will become
the capital of the Islamic State, not of Palestine… Had it not been
betrayal, all the territory of Europe was almost conquered from Andalus
(Spain). This is the promise of the Prophet Mohammad. The victory will
come… Then the Rightly-Guided Caliphate (Islamic State) will be
established and it will follow the path of the Prophet (Mohammad). We
will welcome it.”

“Why (the Muslim Brotherhood movement was
designated as) a terrorist organization? Because it calls for the return
of the Caliphate (Islamic State). If so, I’m an operative of the Muslim
Brotherhood, I’m a terrorist… (O Allah) to those who want to harm Islam
and the Muslims, make their animosity annihilate themselves, make them
kill themselves, destroy them completely, annihilate them all, like you
did to the peoples of A’d and Thamoud… O Allah, support all mujahideen
in any place around the globe.”

“O Allah, support any mujaheed (jihadist) who raises the flag of Islam.”

“The secularism is always in a war against Islam and this conflict between the two still exists.”

“The
[unmarried] adulterer and the [unmarried] adulteress will be flogged
100 times and their testimony will never be accepted by court.”

America Future Military Secrets Weapons #Mind Blow Full Documentary

You get a welcome to work..Nice walk, Mr. Putin EAT your heart out Obama,Hollande.Cameron,Trudeau and all other leaders

Quantum Computers Explained – Limits of Human Technology

http://www.techopia.ca/]





Google has recently said to have a working quantum computer that is 100 million times faster than a traditional PC at solving math problems. Yikes. Believed to hold the key to a further technological revolution and even AI, quantum computing is no joke.

Inside the IMF’s Reserve Currency Matrix

Inside the IMF’s Reserve Currency Matrix

By Valentin Schmid, Epoch Times | December 3, 2015

Last Updated: December 4, 2015 9:44 pm

International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde speaks at the 40th anniversary of the IMFC meeting at the IMF headquarters in Washington, on April 20, 2013. (Stephen Jaffe/IMF via Getty Images)

Epoch Times has correctly predicted the IMF would include China in the basket for its international reserve currency. Now that the procedure is over, it’s time to have a look into what this basket is, how it works, and whether anybody actually uses it.
First off, the basket is called Special Drawing Right (SDR). It is the IMF’s money and unit of account. The IMF prepares its financial statements in units of SDRs.
As of Dec. 1, we know it’s made up of the U.S. dollar (41.73 percent weight), the euro (30.93 percent), the pound sterling (8.09 percent), the Japanese yen (8.33 percent), and finally the Chinese renminbi (10.92 percent weight). Although, the renminbi will only be effectively included Oct. 1, 2016. 

Nothing in It

Here is the most important misunderstanding: Many people believe the SDR actually contains these currencies, just like a real basket has eggs in it. The SDR basket doesn’t have any notes or coins in it. 
Although the IMF created 204.1 billion SDRs (worth around $285 billion) and allocated it to its member countries, the money behind the SDRs actually doesn’t exist—hence the name Special Drawing Right.

By holding one SDR, a member has the “right” to “draw” upon the IMF to be paid the equivalent value in one or all of the currencies that make up the basket.

Ok, there is one use of it. If you are Greece and owe the IMF a lot of money, you could pay the IMF in SDRs. 

This is different from holding dollars, for example, because dollars can actually be used to pay debt, taxes, or buy nice things. The IMF also uses SDRs for transactions with members.

Also, the IMF itself doesn’t pay up for the SDRs. It can designate one of the five countries to pay up and accept the SDR in exchange for cash.

Special

Now why is this “special.” Here is the official version from the IMF:
“The United States, concerned that such a unit would compete with the dollar, preferred to build on the existing automatic drawing rights (the gold tranche) in the IMF. [There was] a plan to create ‘reserve drawing rights’ in the IMF. Some European countries feared this mechanism could be interpreted as a replacement for gold and suggested instead the creation of ‘special’ drawing rights.” 
The SDR is certainly special because it is so far removed from any real use of money that it is not normal.
Also the SDR has value only because the IMF says so and can force its members to exchange it for real currency.
This is similar to other fiat currencies, like the U.S. dollar. It only has value because the government says so, but at least you can pay your taxes, debt, and other things with it.

MORE:

• China Uses IMF to Create a New Global Reserve Currency
• Euro Biggest Loser in IMF China Rebalancing

The IMF can also just print up SDRs and give them to members, again very similar to the fiat money creation process, with the very important difference that SDRs don’t show up as a liability on the IMF’s balance sheet.
Theoretically, the SDRs could also be used to settle scores between member countries, but that rarely happens because the amount available is so small.

There are only $285 billion worth of SDRs around, but central banks and governments around the world hold around $11.5 trillion in exchange reserves. 

So far so good. The SDRs are the IMF’s fiat money, do not actually represent real money, and have very little use in the real world. 

Complicated Calculation

Now, how does the IMF arrive at calculating the value of one SDR?
Here is gets even more complicated. 
First, it has to determine which currencies to include in the basket and what weight to give them.

To make a complicated story short: The countries that have the highest exports, make up the largest holdings of other central banks’ foreign exchange reserves, and have the highest share of foreign exchange trading, international bank liabilities, as well as debt securities.
All these factors are blended together and result in percentage weights named above.

MORE:

• Why China’s Bid to Join the Elite of Global Finance Will Almost Certainly Be Successful This Year
• Experts on IMF Accepting China Into Reserve Currency Basket [PODCAST]

To understand how the IMF actually calculates the value of the SDR, it is best to start from the end product. As of Dec. 3, 2015, one SDR is worth $1.37.
This is the sum of the cross-exchange rates of the different currencies in the basket (euro vs. U.S. dollar for example at 1.05) multiplied by a so-called currency amount.

(IMF)

The currency amount itself is calculated once every five years after the IMF reviews the weightings of the basket.
It is the product of the percentage weights and the average exchange rate of the individual currency versus the SDR over the 90 days prior to the calculation of the currency amounts.
On Jan. 1, 2011, the last time new weights came into effect, it was the average exchange rate from December, November, and October of 2010 multiplied by the new weight of 41.9 percent. The result: 0.66 for the dollar.

The old weightings without the renminbi, effective December 30, 2010. (IMF)

Think about it like this: The dollar contributes 41.9 percent to the total value of the SDR. So the currency amount is the absolute contribution of the dollar as expressed in dollars. In other words, the dollar contributes 66 cents to the SDR’s value expressed in dollars.
The contribution of the euro expressed in euros is 0.42 euro cents and so forth. 
To get the SDR value in U.S. dollars, you then adjust each currency’s absolute contribution (0.423 for the euro) with the exchange rate of the U.S. dollar (1.05) and sum up the components.  
To reflect international exchange rate movements, it is actually the currency amounts that are fixed for five years until the next review by the IMF, not the percentage weights.

MORE:

• Interview With James Rickards: China Planning to Displace Dollar

The percentage weights rise and fall with the exchange rate value of the currency compared to other currencies in the basket. So if the dollar appreciates against the euro and the yen, its weight should increase and the other two’s weight should fall. 
There is only one problem with the calculation. It’s profoundly circular. In order to arrive at the exchange rate of the SDR in dollars, you have to use the average exchange rate of the SDR against the dollar. This is okay if you already have three month’s worth of past rates, but the IMF didn’t have this in 1969, when the SDR was first created.
But back then, the dollar was backed by gold at $35 an ounce or $1 for 0.89 grams of fine gold. So one SDR was worth one dollar. 
When the gold standard collapsed in 1973, the IMF redefined the SDR as a basket of currencies and has evolved its methodology ever since.

Why Does It Exist?

So why does the SDR exist? The IMF says it created it in 1969 to promote world trade.
“The international supply of two key reserve assets—gold and the U.S. dollar—proved inadequate for supporting the expansion of world trade and financial flows that was taking place. Therefore, the international community decided to create a new international reserve asset under the auspices of the IMF.”
This explanation doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, though, because the majority of the SDRs in circulation (182.6 million) were created in 2009, not in 1969. 
Maybe the IMF knew about the Chinese central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan’s plans before he himself knew about it. He wrote in 2009 that the SDR should become the next world reserve currency.

China Joins IMF Currency Basket: Why It Matters

China Joins IMF Currency Basket: Why It Matters

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/china-joins-imf-currency-basket-matters-35492030

SEE Also previous post  http://myglobalunderstandingfiles.blogspot.ca/2015/08/imf-signals-delay-on-adding-china-to.html
 

• By joe mcdonald, ap business writer

BEIJING — Nov 30, 2015, 2:50 PM

The Associated Press

International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director Christine Lagarde speaks during a news conference at the IMF in Washington, Monday, Nov. 30, 2015, to announce the Chinese yuan will join a basket of the world's leading currencies. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)more +

The addition of China's yuan to the select basket of currencies used as a yardstick by the International Monetary Fund is a sign, experts say, that the yuan may one day become as recognizable as the dollar or euro.

 

Adding the yuan alongside the dollar, euro, pound and yen is a symbolic victory for Beijing. It reflects the rising importance of the world's second-largest economy and is an endorsement of gradual Chinese moves toward making the currency freely traded.

Currency traders and economists see the change as encouragement to Beijing to make faster progress on promises to make the yuan "freely tradable" and open its financial system.

———

WHAT HAPPENED

The IMF added the yuan to the basket of currencies used to calculate the value of Special Drawing Rights, a notional currency used as the standard for dealing with its member governments. That came after IMF staff concluded in a Nov. 13 report that the yuan was "freely usable," meaning widely used for international transactions and widely traded in foreign exchange markets. The IMF created SDRs in the 1960s as a possible international currency, but they failed to gain wider acceptance. Until 1980, the basket was 16 currencies including Iran and South Africa but that was reduced. Following the global financial crisis, Beijing called in March 2009 for creation of a new currency, possibly based on the SDR, to reduce reliance on dollars but failed to attract support.

———

WHY ADD THE YUAN?

China is the second-biggest economy after the United States and the biggest trader. The yuan is the No. 4 currency for global trade, accounting for about 2.5 percent of the total, according to SWIFT, the organization for interbank financial transfers. Beijing controls the flow of money into and out of its economy but has encouraged the use of the yuan abroad, especially for trade, which helps Chinese exporters by eliminating the cost and risk of volatile exchange rates. Since 2009, China has signed currency swap agreements with central banks in Britain, Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, South Korea and other countries. Branches of Chinese state-owned banks in Britain, Australia, Germany, Switzerland, Russia, France and Singapore have received authorization to take deposits or settle trade-related transactions in yuan.

———

IMPACT ON GLOBAL FINANCE

The SDR has no direct link to financial markets or private business. Over time, the IMF decision might prompt central banks to hold more reserves in yuan. JP Morgan economist Haibin Zhu said yuan holdings might rise to 5 percent of global reserves, or about $350 billion, over five years. That might encourage more use of yuan for trade and investment. "Longer term, this is a huge step," said Stephen Innes, chief trader for the currency firm OANDA in Singapore. "Once investors become more comfortable with Chinese markets, especially if they continue to progress with opening policies and make the same strides they did over the past year, international markets will really embrace Chinese capital markets."

———

IMPACT ON CHINA

Economists say the IMF decision could encourage Chinese leaders to further relax controls on the yuan. The ruling Communist Party's latest five-year development plan says the yuan will be "freely tradable and freely usable" by 2020. The surprise August introduction of a new mechanism for setting the government-controlled exchange rate led to a 3.5 percent devaluation. But the country's top economic official, Premier Li Keqiang, said in September that there were no plans for further declines. Some traders worry Beijing might devalue once it achieved its goal of being added to the IMF basket. But others say Chinese leaders want to be seen as reliable. The yuan's addition is "an endorsement as an international currency," said Chen Kang, chief bond analyst for SWS Research Co. in Shanghai. "That will encourage China to adopt more measures toward accelerating the process of the opening of its foreign exchange markets and capital markets."

———

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

The yuan's government-set exchange rate still follows the dollar despite the new mechanism for setting its value. For now, that makes the yuan a dollar in disguise, according to Derek Scissors of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. Until the yuan is allowed to trade freely, the IMF decision will "increase the dollar's importance," said Scissors in an email. "Those governments or investors hoping for a dilution of dollar dominance for portfolio diversification or political reasons are getting exactly the opposite."

REPLAY - Watch German Chancellor Angela Merkel full address to European ...

EU Crisis prof Legutko to Merkel and Hollande

11314

0:00

present along many have set today that
your joint appearance is historic

0:18

because it shows that the Frankel German
engine bureau you still partying on and

0:27

we have betrayed your future from the
verse but don't you think that this is

0:34

at least the part of the problem that
one or two countries decide for the rest

0:44

and we all together

0:46

2828 is far more than 20 years to you of
course involved but my feeling is that

1:00

its leadership has not just some of the
events have placed a burden of

1:09

leadership on your shoulders your
critics your critics say however they

1:17

may have a polling booths that you
sometimes forget about the difference

1:22

between leadership and dominance and I
get the impression that across the

1:28

European Union people are concerns about
that distinction because it's become

1:35

more and more vital question and that's
part of the reason why we face this

1:42

crisis over Europe's future people are
concerns that viewpoint does not matter

1:49

so much ignored others are bullets
others are vilified people are concerned

1:56

because they hear this deafening
federalist rhetoric not rooted in

2:02

reality through that in vain of rhetoric

2:07

the AC power play with president along
then so so make his major actors more

2:16

powerful than those who hold former
positions allegedly higher in the

2:23

political hierarchy chance to communist
country so did I i remember is saying

2:33

from the pedal their heads that
communist system which courageously

2:41

solves the problem itself created
problems I think that he'd also be sad

2:55

about the European Union we created the
Eurosystem and since they won we have

3:02

been wrestling with the problems that
generated and solving those problems

3:07

that two more dominance and the more
disregard for elementary rules of

3:13

cooperation and turning to the migration
of refugees again a similar story of

3:23

course you did not create a problem but
failed to identify it soon enough to let

3:30

me add has not yet entirely succeeded in
identifying its by inviting just

3:36

wondering why inviting the immigrants
and then conciliation while playing the

3:42

cat-and-mouse game with the Schengen
procedures why

3:48

while this was absolutely unbearable
confusion of humanitarian humanitarian

3:56

morrow and political arguments that
obscure the gravity of the crisis we're

4:02

faced with this is not the language of
dialogue this is which obscure things we

4:10

cannot really talk to one another using
that kind of language it's reaching its

4:17

not a dialog it's preaching and there
has been a lot of preaching this

4:21

afternoon industry as a matter of fact
every day so it was your decision to

4:30

suspend the Schengen rules had to open
the German border force your decision to

4:35

close the border again as far as I know
you did not consult any government or

4:40

any European institution for that matter
if this is not approve of donning

4:46

diamonds what is if one wants to have
another proof look at what happened last

4:52

month the first so this is not right way
of doing things

4:59

president all are just let me finish by
the following pretty you will need you

5:08

to be more responsive to reality the
mall European hubris is riding high

5:17

the more people are being left behind
not listen to pushed outside the

5:23

territory of respectability this has
lasted long enough and cannot go forever

5:30

the European politics needs less so
Federation of which Brandon some people

5:38

you met today but need small fresh
credit and thermals otherwise you will

5:46

be more and more looked at with
reluctance disdain if not outright

5:52

hostility and we do not want it

Truth in Media: Origin of ISIS

This Is The Most Disturbing Muslim 'Refugee' Video You Will Ever See

    This Is The Most Disturbing Muslim 'Refugee' Video You Will Ever See    www.buzzpo.com/this-is-the-most-disturbing-muslim-refugee-video-you-will-ever-see/?utm_content=bufferb71f1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=positivelyrepublican

*** This Is The Most Disturbing Muslim 'Refugee' Video You Will Ever See***

    This Is The Most Disturbing Muslim 'Refugee' Video You Will Ever See   


 www.buzzpo.com/this-is-the-most-disturbing-muslim-refugee-video-you-will-ever-see/?utm_content=bufferb71f1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=positivelyrepublican

You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia

You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia

Posted: 08/27/2014 11:56 am EDT Updated: 10/27/2014 5:59 am EDT

se video here  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html                           

           

BEIRUT -- The dramatic arrival of Da'ish (ISIS) on the stage of Iraq has shocked many in the West. Many have been perplexed -- and horrified -- by its violence and its evident magnetism for Sunni youth. But more than this, they find Saudi Arabia's ambivalence in the face of this manifestation both troubling and inexplicable, wondering, "Don't the Saudis understand that ISIS threatens them, too?"

 

It appears -- even now -- that Saudi Arabia's ruling elite is divided. Some applaud that ISIS is fighting Iranian Shiite "fire" with Sunni "fire"; that a new Sunni state is taking shape at the very heart of what they regard as a historical Sunni patrimony; and they are drawn by Da'ish's strict Salafist ideology. 

 

Other Saudis are more fearful, and recall the history of the revolt against Abd-al Aziz by the Wahhabist Ikhwan (Disclaimer: this Ikhwan has nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood Ikhwan -- please note, all further references hereafter are to the Wahhabist Ikhwan, and not to the Muslim Brotherhood Ikhwan), but which nearly imploded Wahhabism and the al-Saud in the late 1920s.

Many Saudis are deeply disturbed by the radical doctrines of Da'ish (ISIS) -- and are beginning to question some aspects of Saudi Arabia's direction and discourse.

 

THE SAUDI DUALITY

 

Saudi Arabia's internal discord and tensions over ISIS can only be understood by grasping the inherent (and persisting) duality that lies at the core of the Kingdom's doctrinal makeup and its historical origins.

 

One dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader -- amongst many -- of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)

 

The second strand to this perplexing duality, relates precisely to King Abd-al Aziz's subsequent shift towards statehood in the 1920s: his curbing of Ikhwani violence (in order to have diplomatic standing as a nation-state with Britain and America); his institutionalization of the original Wahhabist impulse -- and the subsequent seizing of the opportunely surging petrodollar spigot in the 1970s, to channel the volatile Ikhwani current away from home towards export -- by diffusing a cultural revolution, rather than violent revolution throughout the Muslim world.

 

But this "cultural revolution" was no docile reformism. It was a revolution based on Abd al-Wahhab's Jacobin-like hatred for the putrescence and deviationism that he perceived all about him -- hence his call to purge Islam of all its heresies and idolatries.

 

MUSLIM IMPOSTORS

 

The American author and journalist, Steven Coll, has written how this austere and censorious disciple of the 14th century scholar Ibn Taymiyyah, Abd al-Wahhab, despised "the decorous, arty, tobacco smoking, hashish imbibing, drum pounding Egyptian and Ottoman nobility who travelled across Arabia to pray at Mecca."

 

In Abd al-Wahhab's view, these were not Muslims; they were imposters masquerading as Muslims. Nor, indeed, did he find the behavior of local Bedouin Arabs much better. They aggravated Abd al-Wahhab by their honoring of saints, by their erecting of tombstones, and their "superstition" (e.g. revering graves or places that were deemed particularly imbued with the divine).

 

All this behavior, Abd al-Wahhab denounced as bida -- forbidden by God.

 

Like Taymiyyah before him, Abd al-Wahhab believed that the period of the Prophet Muhammad's stay in Medina was the ideal of Muslim society (the "best of times"), to which all Muslims should aspire to emulate (this, essentially, is Salafism). 

 

Taymiyyah had declared war on Shi'ism, Sufism and Greek philosophy. He spoke out, too against visiting the grave of the prophet and the celebration of his birthday, declaring that all such behavior represented mere imitation of the Christian worship of Jesus as God (i.e. idolatry). Abd al-Wahhab assimilated all this earlier teaching, stating that "any doubt or hesitation" on the part of a believer in respect to his or her acknowledging this particular interpretation of Islam should "deprive a man of immunity of his property and his life."

 

One of the main tenets of Abd al-Wahhab's doctrine has become the key idea of takfir. Under the takfiri doctrine, Abd al-Wahhab and his followers could deem fellow Muslims infidels should they engage in activities that in any way could be said to encroach on the sovereignty of the absolute Authority (that is, the King).

 

Abd al-Wahhab denounced all Muslims who honored the dead, saints, or angels. He held that such sentiments detracted from the complete subservience one must feel towards God, and only God. Wahhabi Islam thus bans any prayer to saints and dead loved ones, pilgrimages to tombs and special mosques, religious festivals celebrating saints, the honoring of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad's birthday, and even prohibits the use of gravestones when burying the dead.

"Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. "

Abd al-Wahhab demanded conformity -- a conformity that was to be demonstrated in physical and tangible ways. He argued that all Muslims must individually pledge their allegiance to a single Muslim leader (a Caliph, if there were one).

 

Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. The list of apostates meriting death included the Shiite, Sufis and other Muslim denominations, whom Abd al-Wahhab did not consider to be Muslim at all.

There is nothing here that separates Wahhabism from ISIS. The rift would emerge only later: from the subsequent institutionalization of Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab's doctrine of "One Ruler, One Authority, One Mosque" -- these three pillars being taken respectively to refer to the Saudi king, the absolute authority of official Wahhabism, and its control of "the word" (i.e. the mosque).

It is this rift -- the ISIS denial of these three pillars on which the whole of Sunni authority presently rests -- makes ISIS, which in all other respects conforms to Wahhabism, a deep threat to Saudi Arabia.

BRIEF HISTORY 1741- 1818

Abd al-Wahhab's advocacy of these ultra radical views inevitably led to his expulsion from his own town -- and in 1741, after some wanderings, he found refuge under the protection of Ibn Saud and his tribe. What Ibn Saud perceived in Abd al-Wahhab's novel teaching was the means to overturn Arab tradition and convention. It was a path to seizing power.

"Their strategy -- like that of ISIS today -- was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. "

Ibn Saud's clan, seizing on Abd al-Wahhab's doctrine, now could do what they always did, which was raiding neighboring villages and robbing them of their possessions. Only now they were doing it not within the ambit of Arab tradition, but rather under the banner of jihad. Ibn Saud and Abd al-Wahhab also reintroduced the idea of martyrdom in the name of jihad, as it granted those martyred immediate entry into paradise.

In the beginning, they conquered a few local communities and imposed their rule over them. (The conquered inhabitants were given a limited choice: conversion to Wahhabism or death.) By 1790, the Alliance controlled most of the Arabian Peninsula and repeatedly raided Medina, Syria and Iraq.

Their strategy -- like that of ISIS today -- was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. In 1801, the Allies attacked the Holy City of Karbala in Iraq. They massacred thousands of Shiites, including women and children. Many Shiite shrines were destroyed, including the shrine of Imam Hussein, the murdered grandson of Prophet Muhammad.

A British official, Lieutenant Francis Warden, observing the situation at the time, wrote: "They pillaged the whole of it [Karbala], and plundered the Tomb of Hussein... slaying in the course of the day, with circumstances of peculiar cruelty, above five thousand of the inhabitants ..."

Osman Ibn Bishr Najdi, the historian of the first Saudi state, wrote that Ibn Saud committed a massacre in Karbala in 1801. He proudly documented that massacre saying, "we took Karbala and slaughtered and took its people (as slaves), then praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and we do not apologize for that and say: 'And to the unbelievers: the same treatment.'"

In 1803, Abdul Aziz then entered the Holy City of Mecca, which surrendered under the impact of terror and panic (the same fate was to befall Medina, too). Abd al-Wahhab's followers demolished historical monuments and all the tombs and shrines in their midst. By the end, they had destroyed centuries of Islamic architecture near the Grand Mosque.

But in November of 1803, a Shiite assassin killed King Abdul Aziz (taking revenge for the massacre at Karbala). His son, Saud bin Abd al Aziz, succeeded him and continued the conquest of Arabia. Ottoman rulers, however, could no longer just sit back and watch as their empire was devoured piece by piece. In 1812, the Ottoman army, composed of Egyptians, pushed the Alliance out from Medina, Jeddah and Mecca. In 1814, Saud bin Abd al Aziz died of fever.

 

His unfortunate son Abdullah bin Saud, however, was taken by the Ottomans to Istanbul, where he was gruesomely executed (a visitor to Istanbul reported seeing him having been humiliated in the streets of Istanbul for three days, then hanged and beheaded, his severed head fired from a canon, and his heart cut out and impaled on his body).

In 1815, Wahhabi forces were crushed by the Egyptians (acting on the Ottoman's behalf) in a decisive battle. In 1818, the Ottomans captured and destroyed the Wahhabi capital of Dariyah. The first Saudi state was no more. The few remaining Wahhabis withdrew into the desert to regroup, and there they remained, quiescent for most of the 19th century.

HISTORY RETURNS WITH ISIS

It is not hard to understand how the founding of the Islamic State by ISIS in contemporary Iraq might resonate amongst those who recall this history. Indeed, the ethos of 18th century Wahhabism did not just wither in Nejd, but it roared back into life when the Ottoman Empire collapsed amongst the chaos of World War I.

The Al Saud -- in this 20th century renaissance -- were led by the laconic and politically astute Abd-al Aziz, who, on uniting the fractious Bedouin tribes, launched the Saudi "Ikhwan" in the spirit of Abd-al Wahhab's and Ibn Saud's earlier fighting proselytisers.

The Ikhwan was a reincarnation of the early, fierce, semi-independent vanguard movement of committed armed Wahhabist "moralists" who almost had succeeded in seizing Arabia by the early 1800s.

 

In the same manner as earlier, the Ikhwan again succeeded in capturing Mecca, Medina and Jeddah between 1914 and 1926. Abd-al Aziz, however, began to feel his wider interests to be threatened by the revolutionary "Jacobinism" exhibited by the Ikhwan. The Ikhwan revolted -- leading to a civil war that lasted until the 1930s, when the King had them put down: he machine-gunned them.

For this king, (Abd-al Aziz), the simple verities of previous decades were eroding. Oil was being discovered in the peninsular. Britain and America were courting Abd-al Aziz, but still were inclined to support Sharif Husain as the only legitimate ruler of Arabia. The Saudis needed to develop a more sophisticated diplomatic posture.

So Wahhabism was forcefully changed from a movement of revolutionary jihad and theological takfiri purification, to a movement of conservative social, political, theological, and religious da'wa (Islamic call) and to justifying the institution that upholds loyalty to the royal Saudi family and the King's absolute power.

OIL WEALTH SPREAD WAHHABISM

With the advent of the oil bonanza -- as the French scholar, Giles Kepel writes, Saudi goals were to "reach out and spread Wahhabism across the Muslim world ... to "Wahhabise" Islam, thereby reducing the "multitude of voices within the religion" to a "single creed" -- a movement which would transcend national divisions. Billions of dollars were -- and continue to be -- invested in this manifestation of soft power.

It was this heady mix of billion dollar soft power projection -- and the Saudi willingness to manage Sunni Islam both to further America's interests, as it concomitantly embedded Wahhabism educationally, socially and culturally throughout the lands of Islam -- that brought into being a western policy dependency on Saudi Arabia, a dependency that has endured since Abd-al Aziz's meeting with Roosevelt on a U.S. warship (returning the president from the Yalta Conference) until today.

Westerners looked at the Kingdom and their gaze was taken by the wealth; by the apparent modernization; by the professed leadership of the Islamic world. They chose to presume that the Kingdom was bending to the imperatives of modern life -- and that the management of Sunni Islam would bend the Kingdom, too, to modern life.

"On the one hand, ISIS is deeply Wahhabist. On the other hand, it is ultra radical in a different way. It could be seen essentially as a corrective movement to contemporary Wahhabism."

But the Saudi Ikhwan approach to Islam did not die in the 1930s. It retreated, but it maintained its hold over parts of the system -- hence the duality that we observe today in the Saudi attitude towards ISIS.

On the one hand, ISIS is deeply Wahhabist. On the other hand, it is ultra radical in a different way. It could be seen essentially as a corrective movement to contemporary Wahhabism.

 

ISIS is a "post-Medina" movement: it looks to the actions of the first two Caliphs, rather than the Prophet Muhammad himself, as a source of emulation, and it forcefully denies the Saudis' claim of authority to rule.

 

As the Saudi monarchy blossomed in the oil age into an ever more inflated institution, the appeal of the Ikhwan message gained ground (despite King Faisal's modernization campaign).

 

The "Ikhwan approach" enjoyed -- and still enjoys -- the support of many prominent men and women and sheikhs. In a sense, Osama bin Laden was precisely the representative of a late flowering of this Ikhwani approach.

 

Today, ISIS' undermining of the legitimacy of the King's legitimacy is not seen to be problematic, but rather a return to the true origins of the Saudi-Wahhab project.

 

In the collaborative management of the region by the Saudis and the West in pursuit of the many western projects (countering socialism, Ba'athism, Nasserism, Soviet and Iranian influence), western politicians have highlighted their chosen reading of Saudi Arabia (wealth, modernization and influence), but they chose to ignore the Wahhabist impulse.

 

After all, the more radical Islamist movements were perceived by Western intelligence services as being more effective in toppling the USSR in Afghanistan -- and in combatting out-of-favor Middle Eastern leaders and states.

 

Why should we be surprised then, that from Prince Bandar's Saudi-Western mandate to manage the insurgency in Syria against President Assad should have emerged a neo-Ikhwan type of violent, fear-inducing vanguard movement: ISIS? And why should we be surprised -- knowing a little about Wahhabism -- that "moderate" insurgents in Syria would become rarer than a mythical unicorn? Why should we have imagined that radical Wahhabism would create moderates? Or why could we imagine that a doctrine of "One leader, One authority, One mosque: submit to it, or be killed" could ever ultimately lead to moderation or tolerance?

Or, perhaps, we never imagined.

 

This article is Part I of Alastair Crooke's historical analysis of the roots of ISIS and its impact on the future of the Middle East. Read Part II here.

Towards an EU global strategy – Background, process, references

- 25 September 2015

edited by Antonio Missiroli

Download document

Against the background of the ongoing consultation exercise on developing an EU global strategy, this book presents and contextualises the landmark documents that have successively codified the Union’s external action objectives, and includes a preface by HR/VP Federica Mogherini.
 
The volume explores the evolution of the European Security Strategy (or Strategies, considering the two successive versions of June and December 2003). It then dwells upon the 2008 report on the implementation of the strategy and, finally, briefly illustrates the basis on which the current HR/VP released her report on the ‘The European Union in a changing global environment’ in June 2015 and is now preparing for the new strategy, due out next year.
 
Along with the relevant EU documents, the book also presents the two texts that are most likely to represent a key point of reference for the forthcoming ‘global’ strategy, namely NATO’s current Strategic Concept, dating back to 2010, and the latest US National Security Strategy, released earlier this year by the Obama administration.    

   

 

Related content

• T
• 

  A changing global environment

  A collaborative project by the entire EUISS research team, this Chaillot Paper analyses changes in the contemporary global environment according to eight distinct but interconnected perspectives. The publication aims to offer a comprehensive background analysis to the policy debates that will inform the drafting of the Report on the international geopolitical environment that the High Representative is due to present in 2015.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-pacific-arctic-brian-stewart-1.3297267

Analysis

Forget Syria, Russia's muscle is moving closer to Canada's doorstep

Putin's military buildup in Arctic, Pacific could set new Canadian defence priorities

By Brian Stewart, CBC News Posted: Nov 02, 2015 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Nov 02, 2015 5:04 AM ET

Russian Pacific Navy ships sail near the Sakhalin Island during military exercises two years ago. Moscow has spent almost $600 billion over the past decade upgrading its military. (Alexei Nikolsky/RIA Novosti/AP Photo)

An oddity of Canada's foreign policy of late is how gravely we viewed Russia's expanding power in distant Eastern Europe and Syria, yet took scarce note of Moscow's actions closer to our own Arctic and Asia-Pacific interests.

Even allowing for the vast distances involved, Vladimir Putin's strategic thrusts are almost on our doorstep and may well require far more serious attention from the incoming Liberal government.
For Russia is militarizing its section of the Arctic and expanding its naval operations through the already tense Asian rim of the Pacific at a time when more than half dozen nations there — including, in particular, the U.S., China and Japan — are struggling to redefine a new balance of power in the region.

Granted, Russia is not Canada's only concern, but Russia is special.
It's our feisty northern neighbour and our relations are in the pits. Canada was reportedly even seen in Moscow as the most anti-Russian nation on Earth in the more recent Stephen Harper years.

• Syria missile attack kills 45 in Damascus as peace talks begin in Vienna 
• U.S. destroyer tests China's claim to disputed islands  
• Russia launches massive Arctic military drills 

It is a special case, as well, because President Putin seems determined to expand Russia's muscle and influence wherever he can, and after having boosted military spending by $600 billion over the past decade, he has lots of options.

Arctic war games

For one, he has made a priority of the Arctic, where huge amounts of untapped oil and gas reserves are expected to become extractable as ice caps melt, and where strategically advantageous shipping lanes could yet open to fleets of Russian and Chinese icebreakers.
Militarization of the Arctic is always worrisome because of the quaint vagueness surrounding who owns what.

This sovereignty holdover from the colonial era still hasn't been settled, which means disputed expansions and future intimidation can be expected, not unlike what's going on now in the South China Sea.

The U.S. has significant Arctic-ready forces already stationed in Alaska. To match this, Putin recently set up Russia's grandly titled "Arctic Joint Strategic Command North," consisting of two motorized brigades and Pantsir-S1 anti-air missiles.
Moscow is also constructing four Arctic outpost bases as well as airfields and new radar stations.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper walks past Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G20 Summit in St. Petersburg. Even before Ukraine, the two leaders didn't have much in the way of a relationship. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

Russia is also far more active in the Arctic than the U.S. and Canada.  

Last March, for example, Putin oversaw the largest Arctic war games ever: 35,000 Russian troops, 50 surface ships and submarines along with 110 aircraft.

It's been reported that Russia has developed plans to deploy 80,000 troops to the Far North in a crisis.

Russia's Arctic buildup sent shockwaves through the Pentagon, and helps explain President Barack Obama's three-day trip to Alaska in September to highlight America's need to take the Arctic more seriously.
As for Canada, our Arctic surveillance remains gossamer thin and our navy is still waiting for the first Arctic/offshore patrol ships, which were initially promised eight years ago and whose numbers have been slashed back to help slay the Conservative's deficit dragon.

As they say in diplomacy, "power is in perception," which in this case doesn't work in our favour.

"Unfortunately there are not a lot of voters up there" former senior Canadian diplomat Derek Burney lamented recently, so investing in the Arctic "is not an issue that turns the crank of our politicians regardless of the region's importance."

Pacific 'pivot'

Meanwhile, Russia's military has been even more expansive in the Pacific, with 50 warships and 23 subs participating in what is becoming an increasingly close relationship with China's fast expanding navy.

Their elaborate joint exercises are being watched with growing unease throughout the region.  

Last month saw the latest Putin surprise when he brushed aside Japanese protests and set up a new military base on the disputed Kuril islands, which were seized from Japan following the Second World War.

Japan still claims the islands, but its furious complaints were ignored in that special way Putin has.
None of this is to suggest that a new Cold War is upon us. In a multipolar world, relations are more complex than in that rigid superpower era.
Still, tensions across the Asia-Pacific are increasingly maritime conflicts and often in the news.

Flare-ups between the U.S. and China, Japan and China, Russia and Japan, China and Taiwan, Vietnam and China, and a dozen other potential flashpoints are constantly simmering.

The U.S. Navy's guided missile destroyer USS Lassen, shown here in less tense times about to dock in Shanghai for a scheduled port visit. The USS Lassen sailed past one of China's artificial islands in the South China Sea on Tuesday, in a challenge to Chinese sovereignty claims. (Associated Press)

This is the world's richest trading area where crucial routes and choke points need protection.

At the moment, an unprecedented surge in naval construction is underway across the region, and Canada is clearly expected by the U.S. and other key allies, such as Japan and South Korea, to provide more help on the security front.  

For historical reasons the Canadian navy has kept most of its fleet on the East Coast, and the Harper government rejected numerous suggestions that it was time to pivot westward, as the U.S. was doing.

This inaction leaves our Pacific fleet facing the largest ocean of all with just five modest-sized frigates, only two of which are operational at any one time due to refits, as well as three submarines in varying states of readiness and no Canadian-owned supply ships yet to escort them to sea.

Still, with international tensions rising weekly off Canada's Pacific shore, the new Trudeau cabinet should expect to face its own tough call on whether to make its own historic "pivot" to permanently reinforce its Western fleet.

Atlantic Canada, which massively supported the Liberals in the recent election,  will not be pleased at the loss of even one frigate — hosting a navy is big business — but new Pacific trade deals will argue the case, as will the expectations of our allies.

If it's any consolation, the choice may be easier now because of Vladimir Putin's continuing strategic surge into those parts of the world that really concern our national interests.

L’Alliance occidentale s’effrite: l’Union Européenne abandonne les Etats-Unis dans leur tentative de renversement d’Assa

10-714

L’Alliance occidentale s’effrite: l’Union Européenne abandonne les Etats-Unis dans leur tentative de renversement d’Assad

10837 vues 10 octobre 2015 22 commentaires Union Européenne Réseau International

Dans cet éditorial, Eric Zuesse nous informe que l’exploitation du monde par Washington rencontre de l’opposition. Un parlementaire irakien demande à Washington « de laisser tomber son hypocrisie ». Le Secrétaire d’Etat français aux Affaires Européennes rejette le Partenariat Transatlantique de Commerce et d’Investissement (PTCI ou en anglais TTIP) pour tenter de placer les multinationales américaines aux commandes de la France et les mettre hors d’atteinte du droit français. Le PTCI, comme le ministre l’affirme avec raison, élimine la souveraineté des pays signataires. 

Obama ne peut vaincre Assad (Syrie) sans l’aide de l’UE. L’UE rejette également les exigences d’Obama concernant le PTCI et l’ACS (Accord sur le commerce des Services – en anglais TISA). L’héritage de la présidence d’Obama semble voué à l’échec. 

L’Europe est envahie de réfugiés provenant des campagnes de bombardement en Libye et en Syrie, qui ont créé un état fantoche en Libye, et qui menacent de provoquer la même chose en Syrie. L’Europe est de ce fait obligée de se désolidariser de la campagne de bombardement américaine qui vise les forces gouvernementales syriennes du président chiite Bachar el-Assad, au lieu de ses opposants sunnites des groupes djihadistes (tous sunnites) de l’EIIL (Etat Islamique) et d’Al Qaida en Syrie (al Nusra).

Un membre du parlement irakien a déclaré :

« La pression exercée sur le régime syrien qui combat l’Etat Islamique doit être éliminée. Ils ne devraient pas essayer de renforcer la petite Armée syrienne libre (ASL). Il n’y a pas d’ASL.

Il y a un Etat Islamique en Syrie et en Irak. Vous ne pouvez pas combattre l’EI en Irak, et le soutenir en Syrie. Il n’y a qu’une seule guerre et un seul ennemi. Les Etats-Unis devraient abandonner leur position hypocrite. Les gens ne sont pas bêtes ».

Le public européen est opposé aux frappes américaines, qui ont provoqué l’exode de réfugiés vers l’Europe. Les dirigeants européens commencent à se désolidariser de leur alliance avec les Etats-Unis. 

Le Sénateur américain John McCain, qui, depuis qu’il était pilote de bombardier au Vietnam, a toujours détesté la Russie bien plus que le Président américain Barack Obama (qui les déteste pour d’autres raisons), pousse Obama à une guerre contre la Russie en Syrie ; il déclare : « Nous devons créer une zone d’interdiction aérienne », où nous empêcherons les avions russes de bombarder des zones qui sont contrôlées par des djihadistes soutenus par les Américains (que le gouvernement américain appelle par euphémisme « l’Armée syrienne libre »).

En fait, comme l’a annoncé l’Agence France Presse le 12 septembre 2014, « les rebelles syriens et les djihadistes de l’Etat Islamique ont conclu pour la première fois un pacte de non-agression dans une  banlieue de la capitale Damas, a déclaré un groupe de surveillance vendredi dernier. « L’Etat Islamique et l’ASL ont toujours été proches ; mais maintenant ils sont essentiellement une seule et même entité ; c’est juste que ce n’est pas relayé par la presse américaine. 

Les distinctions subtiles du gouvernement américain sont de ce fait trompeuses ; le but essentiel d’Obama en Syrie est évidemment de remplacer l’allié de la Russie, Assad, et non de vaincre l’Etat Islamique (avec les vestiges de l’Armée syrienne libre). McCain veut juste qu’Obama aille jusqu’au bout de la logique de guerre nucléaire avec la Russie, pour renverser Assad.

 (Peut-être pense-t-il qu’Obama va « reculer » pour ensuite l’accuser d’abandonner à son sort le peuple syrien, qui a tellement bénéficié des bombardements américains qu’il a fui la Syrie par millions. McCain et d’autres Républicains sont tellement « pro pour la vie» –  des zygotes de toute façon. Lorsque le parlementaire irakien a déclaré que les gens n’étaient pas bêtes il ne pensait pas à des gens comme eux).

Le 1^er octobre, NPR (National Public Radio) présentait McCain disant : « Je peux vous confirmer avec une absolue certitude qu’ils (les bombardements aériens russes) ont visé Notre Armée Syrienne libre ou des groupes qui ont été armés et entraînés par la CIA parce que nous sommes en communication avec ces gens-là. » (Oh, donc il en reste même après qu’ils aient été absorbés par le mouvement de la Guerre Sainte ? Et la CIA continue à les financer ? Vraiment ? Ouah !)

La Russie a annoncé le 2 octobre que leur série de bombardements contre les alliés de l’Amérique en Syrie visant l’Etat Islamique et Al Nusra (ce dernier étant Al Qaïda en Syrie) – allait s’intensifier et durera « trois ou quatre mois ».

 Le Président américain Barack Obama insiste pour exclure la Russie de toutes les négociations de paix sur la Syrie ; les Etats-Unis n’avanceront pas sur les pourparlers de paix avant que le Président syrien Bachar el-Assad ne démissionne. Mais la Russie est la seule puissance militaire qui s’oppose aux djihadistes qui tentent de vaincre Assad, et la Russie se propose également de fournir au Liban des armes pour lutter contre les djihadistes, qui sont également les alliés de l’Amérique au Liban.

Les Etats-Unis prétendent que le renversement d’Assad profiterait à la « démocratie ». Mais lorsque le régime du Qatar, qui finance al Nusra, a demandé une étude à un institut de sondage pour interroger les Syriens en 2012, le résultat a indiqué que 55% des Syriens voulaient qu’il reste Président.

Puis, comme je l’ai mentionné le 18 septembre 2015, « les sondages montrent que les Syriens tiennent en majorité les Américains pour responsables pour leur soutien de l’Etat Islamique », et ces récents sondages émanent d’un Institut Britannique qui est liée à Gallup.

 Il n’y a pas eu de question à propos du maintien au pouvoir d’Assad ; mais il est clair qu’il bénéficie d’un soutien qui s’est renforcé entre 2012 et 2015, car le peuple Syrien perçoit maintenant avec plus de clarté qu’auparavant que le régime des Etats-Unis est pour lui un ennemi, non un ami. Les prétentions d’apparences d’Obama et des Républicains, souhaitant favoriser la démocratie sont un mensonge flagrant.

Ce n’est pas le seul problème de succession de la politique Obama : sa guerre contre la Russie, en renversant Kadhafi, puis Ianoukovytch, puis sa tentative de renversement d’Assad – provoque maintenant la rupture de l’Alliance Occidentale, à propos de la crise des réfugiés qui en découle. Un conflit plus important au sein de l’Alliance s’annonce avec la proposition du traité soumis aux pays européens par Obama : le PTCI, qui donnerait aux sociétés multinationales le droit de poursuivre en justice des gouvernements nationaux devant des tribunaux arbitraux privés non susceptibles de recours en appel, et dont les décisions superviseraient des lois de tous les états signataires. 

Les dirigeants des gouvernements élus n’auraient aucun contrôle sur elles. Cette tentative de créer une entité multinationale privée supranationale fait partie d’un plan similaire à celui proposé aux nations asiatiques avec le traité du PTP en Asie (Partenariat Trans-Pacifique), tous deux étant accessoirement destinés à isoler du commerce international non seulement la Russie, mais également la Chine, ce qui permettrait aux grandes multinationales américaines de contrôler potentiellement le monde entier.

Telles que les choses se présentent actuellement concernant ces « accords » commerciaux, Obama devra soit renoncer à certaines de ses exigences, ou la Commission européenne sera dans l’incapacité d’obtenir l’accord de suffisamment de membres pour soutenir le traité qu’Obama propose à l’UE, le PTCI (Partenariat Transatlantique de Commerce et d’Investissement). Certaines nations européennes importantes, pourraient également rejeter le traité proposé par Obama sur la réglementation des services financiers et divers : l’ACS (Accord sur le Commerce des Services). 

Les trois accords « commerciaux » proposés par Obama, y compris le PTP (Partenariat Trans-Pacifique) entre les Etats-Unis et les pays asiatiques sont l’apothéose de la présidence d’Obama, et leurs prérogatives vont tous bien au-delà du commerce et de l’économie. Le principal accord proposé à l’Europe pourrait bien être mort et enterré à présent.

Le 27 septembre, le journal français Sud-Ouest publiait une interview exclusive avec Matthias Fekl, Secrétaire d’état français chargé du commerce, dans laquelle il déclarait que « la France examinait toutes les options, y compris la rupture définitive des négociations » à propos du PTCI. Il expliquait que, depuis le début des négociations en 2013, « ces pourparlers ont été menés dans un manque de transparence total » et que la France n’avait, à ce jour, reçu « aucune proposition sérieuse des Américains ».

Les raisons de cet étonnant rejet public avaient probablement déjà été définies avec précision il y a plus d’un an. Après tout, la France n’a, au cours de toutes ces négociations, reçu « aucune proposition sérieuse des Américains » ; ni maintenant, ni depuis le début des négociations en 2013.

Les Etats-Unis sont restés fermes. Jean Arthuis, un membre du Parlement Européen, et ancien Ministre français de l’Economie et des Finances, annonçait à la une du Figaro le 10 avril 2014 : « 7 bonnes raisons pour s’opposer au traité transatlantique ».

Il n’y a rien qui laisse à penser que la situation pourrait avoir changé depuis, sur les exigences fondamentales exprimées par le Président Obama. Arthuis déclarait à l’époque :

Premièrement, je m’oppose à un arbitrage privé des litiges entre les Etats et les entreprises. (Cela instaurerait une cour d’arbitrage indépendante bien établie au dessus du droit national ne permettant pas de recourir à une cour d’appel dans le cas où une grande entreprise lésée poursuivrait une nation où des dommages et intérêts devraient être versés à une entreprise multinationale et, dans le cadre d’une violation de ses droits nationaux, reliant ce traité au commerce). Ce genre de procédure est rigoureusement contraire à l’idée que je me fais de la souveraineté des Etats.

Deuxièmement, je m’oppose à toute remise en cause du système européen des appellations d’origine contrôlée. Demain, suivant la proposition des Etats-Unis, il n’y aurait plus qu’un registre non contraignant, et uniquement pour les vins et spiritueux. Une telle réforme tuerait nombre de productions locales européennes dont la valeur repose sur leur authenticité d’origine contrôlée.

Troisièmement, je m’oppose à la signature d’un accord avec une puissance (étrangère) qui espionne massivement et systématiquement mes concitoyens européens, ainsi que les entreprises européennes. Les révélations d’Edward Snowden sont à cet égard édifiantes. Aussi longtemps que l’accord ne protège pas les données personnelles des citoyens européens et américains, il ne saurait être signé.

Quatrièmement, les Etats-Unis proposent un espace financier commun transatlantique, mais ils refusent catégoriquement une réglementation commune de la finance, de même qu’ils refusent d’abolir les discriminations systématiques par les places financières américaines à l’encontre des services financiers européens. C’est vouloir le beurre et l’argent du beurre: je m’oppose à cette idée d’un espace commun sans règles communes et qui maintiendrait des discriminations commerciales.

Cinquièmement, je m’oppose à la remise en cause de la protection de la santé sanitaire européenne. Washington doit comprendre une fois pour toutes que nonobstant son insistance, nous ne voulons dans nos assiettes ni des animaux traités aux hormones de croissance, ni de produits dérivées d’OGM, ni de la viande décontaminée chimiquement, ni de semences génétiquement modifiées, ni d’antibiotiques non thérapeutiques contenus dans l’alimentation animale.

Sixièmement, je m’oppose à la signature d’un accord s’il n’inclut pas la fin du dumping monétaire américain. Depuis la suppression de la convertibilité-or sur le dollar US et le passage au système des changes flottants, le dollar est à la fois monnaie nationale étasunienne, et l’unité principale de réserve et d’échanges dans le monde.

La Banque de la Réserve Fédérale pratique donc sans cesse le dumping monétaire, en agissant sur l’émission de dollars disponible pour favoriser ses exportations. La suppression de cet avantage déloyal suppose, comme l’a indiqué la Chine, de faire des «Droits de Tirage Spéciaux» du FMI, une nouvelle monnaie mondiale de référence plus représentative. En termes de compétitivité, l’arme monétaire (la devise) a le même impact que les droits de douane contre toutes les autres nations. (Et nous ne le signerons pas tant que cette disposition ne sera pas supprimée).

Septièmement, au-delà du seul secteur audiovisuel, étendard de l’actuel gouvernement qui sert de cache-sexe à sa lâcheté sur tous les autres intérêts européens dans le cadre de la négociation, je veux que toute l’exception culturelle soit défendue. Notamment, il est inacceptable de laisser les services numériques naissants d’Europe se faire balayer par les géants américains tels que Google, Amazon ou Netflix. Des géants, et maîtres absolus de l’optimisation fiscale, (et de l’évasion fiscale pour certains) qui font de l’Europe une «colonie numérique».

Le négociateur du Président Obama est son ami personnel, Michael Froman, un homme qui tente même de forcer l’Europe à abaisser ses normes écologiques de carburant contre le réchauffement climatique mondial et dont les agissements en arrière plan, vont exactement à l’encontre de la rhétorique publique d’Obama. 

 Froman et Obama sont copains depuis qu’ils ont collaboré tous deux comme rédacteurs à la Harvard Law Review. Il connaît les objectifs réels d’Obama. « Froman a également présenté M. Obama à Robert E. Rubin, l’ancien Secrétaire d’Etat au Trésor » qui avait fait entrer dans l’Administration Clinton Timothy Geithner et Larry Summers, et s’était fait le champion (avec eux) de la fin de la réglementation des banques (Glass Steagall Act voté en 1933) que l’ancien Président Démocrate Franklin D. Roosevelt, avait mise en place.

 (Le Président Clinton a signé une loi juste avant de quitter ses fonctions le 12/11/1999, et cela a permis de commencer le long processus menant aux Titres adossés à des créances hypothécaires et aux produits dérivés spéculatifs CDS SWAP) dont le point culminant a été le crack des marchés en 2008, et cette même législation a également permis aux méga-banques d’être sauvées de la faillite par les contribuables américains via TAARP– exactement sur le fondement que la loi de Roosevelt avait rendue illégale. (pour séparer la banque de dépôt, et la banque d’investissement Ndt).

Froman a toujours été un partisan des grosses multinationales, un champion des méga-banques, qui ne favorise que la réglementation qui bénéficie aux très riches américains, pas celle qui profite au grand public. 

La présentation du roi de Wall Street Robert Rubin au Sénateur (à l’époque) Obama, a été cruciale pour permettre à Obama d’être en position de gagner la course à la Présidence des Etats-Unis ; les contacts de Robert Rubin parmi les très riches étaient essentiels pour que Obama ait une réelle chance de remporter les présidentielles.

Cela a permis à Obama de gagner la compétition contre la candidate Hillary Clinton. Autrement, il n’aurait pas pu y arriver. Le fait qu’il ait bénéficié du soutien de Robert Rubin était crucial pour devenir Président.

Les chances que le Président Obama soit maintenant apte à obtenir le soutien d’une quelconque entité politique, hormis le Congrès américain, pour sa proposition de traité PTCI, se réduisent de jour en jour. Après tout, l’Europe semble être moins corrompue que les Etats-Unis.

La seule analyse économique indépendante qui ait été faite sur la proposition du PTCI conclut que les seuls bénéficiaires seraient les grandes entreprises multinationales, particulièrement celles qui sont basées aux Etats-Unis. Les employés, les consommateurs, et tous les autres, seraient les perdants, s’il était signé.

Apparemment, il y a suffisamment de dirigeants européens qui s’en préoccupent, pour être capables de le bloquer. Ou alors, Obama va céder sur le fond, à tous les sept points qui font que l’Europe dit non. A ce stade, cela semble extrêmement improbable.

A propos de l’auteur :

L’historien-chercheur Eric Zuesse est l’auteur, récemment, de They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 (Elles sont loin d’être proches: les annales économiques des Démocrates et des Républicains, 1910-2010) et de CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity (LES VENTRILOQUES DU CHRIST: L’Evènement qui a créé la Chrétienté)..

Par Eric Zuesse

Source: Paul Graig Roberts Translations

Original: Global Research

Traduction: Patrick Trev Isabelle

http://infosdany.com/?p=3777#sthash.iFPiso4E.dpuf