Polonia sau Romania?

Europa are de ales intre doi „Nebuni”; Kaczinski sau Dragnea.

Kaczinski provine din „Solidarnosc”, partidul sau este foarte popular, in sondaje formatiunea „Dreptate si Justitie” PIS depaseste 60%, avearea personala detinuta de Kaczinski se rezuma la un apartamente de trei camere in centrul Varsoviei.

Polonia este o tara majora in Uniunea Europeana. principalul aliat european al Poloniei este Marea Britanie. Chiar daca Marea Britanie va parasi Uniunea Europeana. va avea un cuvant de spus in deciziile geostrategice. Un alt aliat geopolitic al Poloniei este Ungaria. Executivul Orban nu are o problema sa contreze Comisia Europeana. Un alt aspect, este religia. Polonia este stindardul catolicismului. Sfantul Scaun este un factor de influenta, un vector de imagine foarte discret, inzibil dr eficace din punct de vedere geopolitic.

Dragnea este un fiu de militian, ultracorupt, conducator al unui partid izolat in intreaga Europa. PSD apartine de facto fractiunii socialiste din Parlamentul European, dar in realitate PSD este un fel de paria al Europei. Demnitarii socialisti din UE au inceput sa isi critice in mod deschis colegii socialdemocratii romani. Romania nu detine din punct de vedere geopolitic o tara-pivot. Romania nu detine un lobby in cancelariile europene. Un alt aspect este religia. Ortodoxia nu este un factor geopolitic, cum este Vaticanul.

Intre cine va alege Europa: Polonia si Romania? Prin activarea art 7 TUE Comisia Europeana a creat un precedent. Dar la nivelul tarilor membre exista o serie de reticente. Decizia suspendarii Poloniei trebuie luata in unanimitate. Si in cadrul Consiliului European, nimeni nu doreste sa se ajunga la o asemenea decizie. Din aceste motive Comisia Europeana favorizeaza calea dialogului institutional si rezolvarea problemei prin negocieri subtile si fara prea mult zgomot. In favoarea Poloniei a intervenit insa admonestarea aplicata Romaniei . Din nefericire Romania nu este membra in Grupul de la Visegrad. Totul este un joc de a scapa de cartoful fierbinte polonez. Imi este tare teama ca verdictul a fost dat deja. Polonia va scapa cu o mustrare verbala, iar Romania va ramine pedepsita si trimisa la periferia Europei.

EUROPA DE LUX

Articol publicat pe blogul stelian-tanase.ro

Criza europeana si sansa Romaniei – o viziune neoconservatoare

Criza europeana si sansa Romaniei – o viziune neoconservatoare

Razvan Timofciuc:  „Europa liberală, la care părinţii fondatori visau, se transformă în Europa imperială, la care visau Hitler şi Joachim von Ribbentrop”.

„Europa Unita” este o utopie. Europa a fost din punct de vedere cultural si religios intotdeauna divizata.  Incepand din 1054 Europa sa impartit in doua entitati, spatiul catolic-prostestant si spatiul bizantin. Ambele entitati cultural-religioase sau dezvoltat separat. Decalajele de dezvoltare, mentalitatiile diferite sunt vizibile, iar criza capitalismului neokeyniasan va duce la renationalizarea Uniunii Europene.

Motorul renationalizarii este produsul Sfantei Aliante Merkoziene. Cine vorbeste astazi de „Europa Unita”, vorbeste de fapt de interesele franco-germane camunflate in drapelul european.

Cine profita de „Europa Unita”? Holdingurile de stat franceze si capitalul german.

Renationalizarea europeana nu se va termina aici. Implozia monedei euro va duce la nasterea unor noi sfere economice si politice. Franta nu va renunta niciodata la Francul Francez (moneda care astazi se numeste Euro), iar Germania va reintroduce Noua Marca Germana si va forma alaturi de alte state europene, zona economica cu acelasi nume.

Schimbariile din spatiul cultural catolic-protestant vor afecta intregul continent.

Spatiul bizantin nu a avut niciodata ritmul de progres impus de Renastere si Iluminism. Elitele bizantine au preferat pasalicul otoman, cultura peschesului, baksishului, economia de taraba, si alte schmeckerii si improvizatii fanariote.

Capitalismul, monarhia parlamentara, republica prezidentiala si curentele politice moderne au fost rezultatul unor procese si revolutii politice dezvoltate si amplificate politic in Occidentul catolic-protestant.

Spatiul neobizantin nu a avut o asemenea evolutie. Cand la Paris se discuta in saloane luminate principiile doctrinare ale constitutionalismului, pe dealurile si campiile balcanice ciobanasul neobizantin fluiera liber-cugetator o doina.

Spatiul neobizantin sa afirmat ca entitate sociala in perioada decaderii Imperiului Otoman, Reformele institutionale au fost aplicate in urma unor matritze copiate ale unor modele occidentale. Sa nu uitam ca intreg spatiul bizantin a fost rezultatul unor razboaie regionale si ale unor conferinte de pace sustinute si parafate in Occident: Paris (1856), Berlin (1878), Versailles (1919), Trianon (1920).

Cand elitele neobizantine iluminate in Occident au apus, au aparut elite national-religioase care au impus modele politice autoritare. Bizantul urma sa fie ocupat mai intii de Germania nazista si ulterior a apartinut hegemonului sovietic. Din nou Bizantul a fost impartit si adjudecat in urma unor tratate si conventii internationale:  Pactul Ribentropp-Molotow (1939), Conferinta de la Teheran (1943), Planul Morgenthau (1944). Prin Tratatele de la Jalta si Potsdam (1945) soarta Bizantului a fost pecetluita pentru cinci decenii.

Dupa 1989 Bizantul sa adaptat cu greu la normele culturale si institutional-politice catolic-protestante. Euforia „Europei Unite” a sfarsit in genocidul de la Srebenitza. Astazi Bizantul a ajuns o anexa costisitoare si complicata a Uniunii Europene.

Tarile balcanice catolice si protestante Slovenia si Croatia apartin UE. Bosnia si Kosovo sunt protectorate UE. Serbia, Macedonia, Albania, Republica Moldova sunt tinute in anti-camera UE. Romania si Bulgaria, tari profund bizantine, sunt stigmatizate si tinute departe de catre pozitiile cheie ale institutelor europene.

Grecia, tara-mama al Bizantului, este supusa unui regim de guvernare care se aseamana unui directorat. Ceea ce vedem in acest moment este pe departe „Europa Unita”, ci un puzzle neterminat, un caleisdoscop ale contrastelor europene.

Cum va arata viitorul Uniunii Europene? Sansa Europei este sa ramina unita, dar totodata diversificata.

Cu siguranta un spatiu juridic comun ale tariilor membre UE este un proiect consensual.

Pe plan economic Uniunea Europeana se va diviza in patru sectoare: 1). flancul tarilor PIIGS, 2). zona economica Noua Marca Germana formata din Germania, Austria, Finlanda, Olanda, Luxemburg, 3). restul zonei Euro si 4) tariile membre UE care isi vor pastra moneda nationala.

In paralel cu sedimentarea si separarea economica, institutiile politice se vor reseta conform noi geometrii europene.

Secesiunea economica este insa si o sansa pentru Romania. Tara noastra, de jure integrata in UE, de facto neintegrata si tinuta departe de institutiile cheie, se poate afirma din punct de vedere economic alaturi de tari mediane precum Slovacia, Polonia si Suedia.

Politic, Romania este nevoita sa iasa din menghina institutionala franco-germana si sa se alature plutonului britanic. Marea Britanie poseda cel mai liberal sistem politic din Europa: monarhia parlamentara.

Inca din 1688 parlamentul britanic sa emancipat in fata regelui si conflictul institutional parlament-rege sa soldat cu detronarea regelui autoritar. In nicio tara europeana, separarea puterilor in stat nu este mai vizibila decat in sistemul parlamentar britanic. In Franta si Germania centrul de putere sa mutat in administratia prezidentiala, respectiv in cancelaria federala.

Criza europeana este insusi o sansa de dezvoltare si modernizare a Romaniei conform propriilor parametri culturali si politici. Probleme societatii romane pot fi solutionate numai de catre elitele romane. Suveranitatea nationala poate fi conservata numai alaturi de tari care doresc sa isi pastreze suveranitatea: Slovacia, Suedia, Polonia si Marea Britanie.

Stratfor.com: „Russia’s Plan to Disrupt U.S.-European Relations”

Sursa informationala: Stratfor.com
Autor: Lauren Goodrich

Tensions between the United States and Russia have risen in the past month over several long-standing problems, including ballistic missile defense (BMD) and supply lines into Afghanistan. Moscow and Washington also appear to be nearing another crisis involving Russian accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The crises come as Washington struggles over its many commitments in the world and over whether to focus on present events in Afghanistan or future events in Central Europe. Russia has exploited the U.S. dilemma, using its leverage in both arenas. However, if Moscow takes its aggressive moves too far, it could spark a backlash from the United States and Central Europe.

The Persisting Disagreement over BMD

The U.S. BMD scheme for Europe has long been a source of U.S.-Russian tensions. Washington argues that its European BMD program aims to counter threats emerging from the Middle East, namely Iran, but its missile defense installations in Romania and Poland are not slated to become operational until 2015 and 2018, respectively, by which time Russia believes the United States will have resolved its issues with Iran. Moscow thus sees U.S. missile defense strategy as more about the United States seeking to contain Russia than about Iran. Moscow does not fear that the United States is seeking to neutralize or erode Russia’s nuclear deterrent, however; the issue is the establishment of a physical U.S. military footprint in those two states — which in turn means a U.S. commitment there. Romania and Poland border the former Soviet Union, a region where Russia is regaining influence.

Russia previously pressured key states in the Bush-era BMD scheme, such as Poland and the Czech Republic, to reconsider acceding to such plans. This assertiveness peaked with its 2008 invasion of Georgia, which both proved that Moscow was willing to take military action and exposed the limits of U.S. security guarantees in the region. The Russian move in Georgia gave the Central Europeans much to think about, prompting some attempts to appease the Kremlin. Still, these states did not abandon all faith in the United States as a strategic counter to Russia.

Russia has since shifted its BMD strategy. Instead of categorically opposing the plan, Moscow proposed a cooperative, integrated scheme. The Kremlin reasoned that if Iran and other non-Russian threats were the real reason for expanding missile defense, then Russian involvement — which would strengthen the West’s defenses — would be welcomed. Russia’s BMD capabilities span the Eurasian continent, though their practical utility to and compatibility with U.S. systems is questionable. This plan was seen as a way to take a more conciliatory approach with the same end goal: blocking the placement of U.S. troops in Eastern Europe.

The United States and most of NATO refused Russia’s proposals, however, leaving the door open for the Kremlin to introduce a new defense strategy, which Russian President Dmitri Medvedev outlined Nov. 23. Medvedev emphasized that Russia had exercised the “political will” to open a fundamentally new chapter in relations with the United States and NATO, only to have the United States spurn the offer. U.S. resistance to Russian inclusion in the BMD system forced Moscow to make other arrangements to counter U.S. plans in Central Europe — precisely the outcome it had hoped for.

Medvedev also said that if the United States continues to refuse BMD cooperation with Russia, Moscow would carry out plans for the deployment of the Iskander mobile short-range ballistic missiles and the activation of an early-warning radar system in Kaliningrad, a Russian exclave on the Baltic Sea that borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania. He said Russia also would consider the deployment of other Iskander systems, particularly along his country’s western and southern borders, and would hasten to fit its ballistic missiles with advanced maneuverable re-entry vehicles and penetration aids, a process that has long been under way. The prospect of Russian strategic weapons targeting BMD facilities was also raised. Medvedev added that more measures could be implemented to “neutralize the European component of the U.S. missile defense system,” concluding that all these steps could be avoided in favor of a new era of partnership between the United States and Russia if Washington so desired.

The U.S. Dilemma

The United States was expected to respond to Russia’s renewed strategy during the Dec. 8 meeting between NATO and Russian foreign ministers in Brussels. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton avoided doing so, however, reiterating that the BMD scheme was about Iran, not Russia. Clinton’s move highlights the dangerous U.S. position with regard to Russia. Washington has no intention of abandoning its commitment to Central Europe in the face of a resurging Russia, but commitments elsewhere in the world may prevent the United States from resisting Russia in the short term.

At present, Washington is struggling to halt the deterioration of relations with Pakistan, which have reached a new low after a U.S. helicopter strike on the Afghan-Pakistani border killed some two dozen Pakistani servicemen. After the strike, the Pakistanis forbade the shipment of fuel and supplies for the NATO-led war effort in Afghanistan across the Pakistani border, leaving the United States and its allies wholly dependent on the Northern Distribution Network, at least temporarily. Moscow used this as an opportunity to remind Washington that it could cut this alternative route, leaving NATO and the United States in a catastrophic position in Afghanistan — a move tied directly to Russia’s negotiations over missile defense.

While Russia has used previous threats against U.S. interests, such as increased support for Iran, as leverage in its BMD negotiations, its present threat marks a new dynamic. Washington called Moscow’s bluff on its threatened support for Iran, knowing Russia also did not want a strong Iran. But it cannot so easily dismiss the specter of interrupted supplies into Afghanistan, as this puts more than 130,000 U.S. and allied troops in a vulnerable position. Consequently, the United States must work to mitigate the BMD situation.

American Olive Branch or New Crisis?

In recent months, the United States has cultivated one potential olive branch to defuse short-term tensions. Previously, there was little the United States could offer Russia short of abandoning U.S. strategy in Central Europe. When tensions escalated in 2009 and 2010, the United States offered to facilitate large economic deals with Russia that included modernization and investment in strategic sectors, mainly information technology, space and energy. Since Russia had just launched its sister programs of modernization and privatization, it jumped on the proposal, reducing tensions and eventually joining U.S. initiatives such as sanctions against Iran. Now, the United States is extending another carrot: WTO membership.

Russia has sought WTO membership for 18 years. Even though it has the 10th largest economy in the world, it has failed to win accession to the 153-member body. Though the country’s extreme economic policies have given members plenty of reason to exclude Russia, the main barriers of late have been political. For its part, Moscow cares little about the actual economic benefits of WTO membership. The benefits it seeks are political, as being excluded from the WTO made it look like an economically backward country (though its exclusion has given it a convenient excuse to rail against the United States and Georgia).

As Russia sorted through its economic disputes with most WTO members, Georgia alone continued to block its bid because of the Russian occupation of the disputed Georgian territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In recent months, Georgia has dropped its opposition under U.S. pressure — pressure that originated from Washington’s need for something to offer the Russians. With all obstacles cleared, the WTO should approve Russia’s candidacy Dec. 15-16, apparently giving the United States the olive branch it sought.

Unfortunately for the United States, however, once Russia is voted in, each member-state must “recognize” Russia as a member. No WTO members, not even Georgia, have indicated that they intend to deny Russia recognition. But there is one country that cannot legally recognize Russian membership: the United States.

The United States still has a Soviet-era provision in federal law called the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which bars trade relations with certain countries guilty of human rights violations (namely, the Soviet Union). The measure continued to apply to Russia after the Soviet collapse, though every U.S. president has waived its provisions by decree since 1992. Only Congress can overturn it, however, and until it does so, the United States cannot recognize Russia as a WTO member.

The White House has called for the provision’s immediate repeal, but with Congress and the White House divided over so many issues, it seems unlikely the issue will be resolved swiftly — if at all — under the current Congress and presidency. This gives Russia another opportunity to increase U.S.-Russian tensions. Indeed, Moscow could noisily decry the insult of the United States making Russian WTO accession possible only to derail it.

Balancing Crisis and Strategy

Just how many crises in U.S.-Russian relations does Moscow want, and what is its goal? Moscow’s strategy involves using these crises with the United States to create uncertainty in Central Europe and to make the Europeans uncomfortable over perceptions that the United States has forced Russia to act the way it is acting. Thus, it is not a break between Russia and the United States that Moscow seeks but a break between Europe and the United States.

Indications are emerging that the Central Europeans are in fact growing nervous, particularly following Medvedev’s new defense strategy announcement. With the United States not responding to the renewed Russian aggression, many Europeans may be forgiven for wondering if the United States is planning to trade its relationship with Central Europe in the short term to ensure the supply lines via Russia into Afghanistan remain open. It is not that the Central Europeans want a warmer relationship with Russia, only that they may feel a need to hedge their relationship with the United States. This was seen this past week with Poland announcing it would be open to discussions with Russia over missile defense (albeit within the paradigm of separate BMD systems), and with the Czech Republic, a previous American missile defense partner, signing multibillion-dollar economic deals with Russia.

But with more opportunities arising for Russia to escalate tensions with the United States, Moscow must avoid triggering a massive crisis and rupture in relations. Should Russia go too far in its bid to create an uncomfortable situation for the Europeans, it could cause a strong European backlash against Russia and a unilateral unification with the United States on regional security issues. And it is in Russia’s interest to refrain from actually disrupting the Northern Distribution Network; Moscow is seeking to avoid both complications in the Afghan theater that could hurt Russian interests (one of which is keeping the United States tied down in Afghanistan) and a strong U.S. response in a number of other areas. Moscow must execute its strategy with precision to keep the United States caught between many commitments and Europe off balance — a complex balancing act for the Kremlin.

In Memoriam: Otto von Habsburg 1912-2011

Press-Release Fundatia Konrad-Adenauer

Berlin (ots) – Zum Tode von Otto von Habsburg erklärt der Vorsitzende der Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung und ehemalige Präsident des Europäischen Parlaments, Hans-Gert Pöttering MdEP:

„Otto von Habsburg gehörte zu den außergewöhnlichsten Personen unserer Zeit. Sein unerschütterlicher Glaube an die Notwendigkeit der europäischen Einigung bleibt uns gerade heute, bei den großen Herausforderungen vor denen die Europäische Union steht, Mahnung und Verpflichtung.

Otto von Habsburg war politischer Visionär und Realist zugleich. Die Sowjetunion bezeichnete er als „die letzte Kolonialmacht der Erde”, die nicht Bestand haben werde. Er war ein unermüdlicher Kämpfer für die Freiheit der Menschen in der Mitte und im Osten Europas. Für Otto von Habsburg war es ein großes Glück, die Überwindung der Teilung Deutschlands und unseres europäischen Kontinents erleben und mitgestalten zu können.

Dieser große Europäer, dessen Kollege im Europäischen Parlament ich von 1979 bis zu seinem Ausscheiden 1999 sein durfte, wird uns immer ein Vorbild für die Einheit unseres Kontinents bleiben.”

Sursa informationala: Fundatia Konrad Adenauer

Guvernul francez violeaza in mod abuziv drepturile universale ale omului

Deportatile cetatenilor romani de etnie roma operate de fortele de ordine franceze violeaza sistematic atat legislativa universala a drepturilor omului cat si prevederile Tratatului de la Lissabona, constitutia franceza. Europarlamentarul olandez Sophie In’t Veld (D66/ALDE) condamna in mod categoric abuzul cabinetului Sarkozy.

ALDE calls for a full Commission inquiry into Roma deportations

ALDE is scandalised by news of a memo from the office of the French Interior ministry which quotes the Roma specifically in actions to close camps on the grounds of public order.  This is a clear confirmation of the fears of the European Parliament expressed last week by a resolution and a blatant denial of the statements from the Immigration Minister who dared to suggest that „France has not taken any specific measure against the Roma”.

„The arrogance with which the French authorities replied to the Parliamentary resolution is bluntly contradicted by reality.  France has deliberately  adopted a policy of discrimination”, declared Sophie IN’T VELD (D66, Netherlands) vice President of the Civil Liberties Committee.  „Faced with such behaviour the European Commission can no longer continue to say that it is taking its time, without any deadline, in analysing the situation  and content itself with an amicable exchange of letters with Ministers who are clearly not cooperating honestly”, she continued.  „It is now its responsibility as guardian of the treaties to carry out its own inquiry to urgently send officials to the French administration concerned and if necessary to open an infringement procedure”.

„Liberals and Democrats too attached to the universal values espoused by France for over 200  years and which constitutes the foundation of the EU, to let such an affront to fundamental rights and Community law pass without comment”, continued Ms In’t Veld.  „France was behind the Lisbon Treaty which enshrines the Charter of Fundamental Rights, an integral part of all European legislation concerning free circulation and non-discrimination which are Community competences.  If the EU institutions are not able to react to such a violation of our law and of our principles by one of the founding Member States then our credibility itself is at stake”, she concluded.

Sursa: ALDE


Citeste la Dreapta!

Citeste http://AliantaDreptei.wordpress.com

Daurel's Blog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Florin Citu

A look at financial markets and government policies through the eye of a skeptic

La Stegaru'

"Aveţi de apărat onoarea de a fi stegari!", Nicolae Pescaru

ADRIAN NĂSTASE

Pune întrebarea și, împreună, vom găsi răspunsul!

Sociollogica

"Istoria ne legitimeaza ca singurele partide autentice de centru-dreapta", Crin Antonescu

Carl Schmitt Studien

"Istoria ne legitimeaza ca singurele partide autentice de centru-dreapta", Crin Antonescu

%d blogeri au apreciat asta: