Tag Archives: Engdahl

F. W. Engdahl: “Nu există defel «Independenţa Energetică a UE»” – interviu – part 2

Potrivit analistului german F. W. Engdahl: “Nu există defel «Independenţa Energetică a UE»”

– În contextul întrebării precedente, mutările Rusiei pot fi încadrate în registrul inteligenţei speculative sau al unui răspuns asimetric ? Am în considerare că pe fondul conflictului din Georgia, Rusia a semnat câteva contracte importante privind vânzările de armament către terţi (Siria, Venezuela, de exemplu), şi-a intensificat exerciţiile militare etc.
W.E.: – Rusia răspunde într-o manieră total asimetrică. Există colaborări la nivel înalt cu Venezuela şi cu alte state din America Latină care urmează aşa-numita “Doctrină Monroe”, forţând SUA să dea un răspuns; există relaţii diplomatice energetice ruseşti la nivel înalt în Asia Centrala şi, mai mult chiar, legături cu anumite ţări NATO din UE. Răspunde, de asemeni, cu exerciţii militare sporite menite a transmite un semnal, neutru sau nu, că pentru noii membri NATO din fosta URSS sau din Pactul de la Varşovia este posibil ca NATO să nu le poată oferi cea mai bună protecţie, având în vedere că SUA sunt mult prea puţin pregătite să poată interveni în caz de nevoie. Important: Rusia răspunde prin împrumutarea guvernului Islandei cu un credit în valoare de 5.4 miliarde dolari în timpul actualei crizei financiare, Islanda fiind un membru NATO neglijat, dar acum destul de strategic.
– Va exista o amânare a acordării MAP-ului Ucrainei ca urmare a instabilităţii politice si a actualei crize, în care se va ajunge la noi alegeri anticipate ? Vom avea o Ucraină ce va reintra sub aripa protectoare a Rusiei ?
W.E.: – În Ucraina orice este posibil, dar îmi imaginez că Moscova îşi va folosi influenţa economică şi persuasiunea (direct sau prin intermediari) în încercarea de a sprijini o rezoluţie non – NATO a crizei. Din punctul meu de vedere, colapsul guvernului de la Kiev este legat direct de evenimentele din Georgia.
– Analizând mutările premierului Putin în unele din ţările fost sovietice (ex. Kazahstan, Azerbaidjan, Armenia, Turkmenistan), dar şi în relaţia cu Iranul, precum şi contractele economice preconizate sau semnate deja, se poate observa că Rusia face tot ce este posibil pentru a realiza un control total al pieţei energetice din zonă. În aceste condiţii, mai au vreun sens proiectele gen Nabucco de a contribui la independenta energetică a Europei ?
– W.E.: Nabucco este un proiect mai mult politic care este susţinut de Washington ca o încercare de a elimina dependenţa regiunii şi a UE de gazul natural rusesc. Nabucco este conceput destul de prost şi prins momentan în răfuieli fără sfârşit. Nu există defel “Independenţa Energetică a UE”. UE realizează astfel de ce răspunsul lor la evenimentele din august din Georgia a fost atât de slab faţă de cel al Washington-ului. Politica Washington-ului este în mod sigur acea de a adânci prăpastia dintre ţările UE, în special Germania, şi Rusia. Până acum, n-a avut prea mari succese.
– Va reuşi Europa să găsească o cale de a dialoga pe o singură voce cu Rusia, în sensul unei atitudini unitare atât la nivelul declarativ cât şi la cel faptic ?
W.E.: – UE în sine este divizată iremediabil. Există guverne la nivelul Uniunii cum ar fi cel al lui Tusk în Polonia unde ministrul de externe Sikorsky este un neo-conservator, educat de Washington, şi există guverne naţionaliste care încearcă să-şi apere interesele naţionale cât mai bine posibil. Într-o astfel de mixtură de vederi politice şi interese economice diferite e greu de găsit un ton comun. Politica Washington-ului faţă de UE este şi va fi întotdeauna: Divide et empera – dezbină şi cucereşte.
– S-a tot speculat privitor la un nou război rece, o nouă cortină de fier, izolarea Rusiei. În ce măsură, la început de sec. XXI – în condiţiile actuale ale unei globalizări din ce în ce mai evidente – mai poate fi posibil aşa ceva ?
W.E.: – Vechiul Război Rece nu s-a încheiat, în realitate, niciodată. O parte – URSS, l-a încheiat, a dizolvat Pactul de la Varşovia şi URSS s-a dezintegrat. Cealaltă parte a refuzat să iniţieze paşii necesari pentru construirea încrederii, extinzând în schimb NATO foarte agresiv înspre est, încorporând toate statele posibile foste membre ale Pactului de la Varşovia. Încercarea Washington-ului de a împinge Georgia şi Ucraina înspre NATO şi de a plasa rachete şi scuturi de apărare controlate US în Polonia şi Republica Cehă arată farsa încheierii Războiului Rece. Declaraţia SUA din ianuarie 2007 potrivit căreia vor fi amplasate rachete US precum şi scutul de apărare anti-rachetă din Polonia şi Republica Cehă, poate fi interpretată ca instaurarea unui nou Război Rece.
– Preşedintele Medvedev a vorbit despre o nouă arhitectură de securitate, în cadrul unei lumi multipolare. În ce măsură e posibilă concretizarea unui astfel de proiect ?
W.E.: – Din ceea ce am văzut până acum din rezumatele de presă ruseşti, preşedintele Medvedev propune o relaţie mai apropiată între Rusia şi ţările UE, ceea ce e de înţeles şi benefic, din punctul meu de vedere. Avem nevoie de mai multe detalii asupra propunerilor concrete din partea Rusiei, dar UE ar acţiona inteligent, consider eu, dacă i-ar răspunde lui Medvedev în mod serios şi i-ar propune un dialog.
Gabriela Ioniţă
Publicat în Cadran Politic, nr. 61, nov. 2008
Advertisements

“Crisis of the US financial system will lead to an economic depression worse than that of the 1930’s” – interview W.F. Engdahl – part 1

“Crisis of the US financial system will lead to an economic depression worse than that of the 1930’s”

considers the writer and political analyst F. William Engdahl

F. William Engdahl, is a famous economist and writer, author of the best-selling book on oil and geopolitics, “A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order”, which has been translated into French, Arabic, Korean, German, Croatian and Turkish. In 2007, he completed “Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of GMO”. He has written on issues of political economy, geopolitics, energy, Worl Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), for more than 30 years, beginning with the first oil shock and world grain crisis in the early 1970s. After a degree in politics from Princeton University and graduate study in comparative economics at the University of Stockholm, he worked as an economist and free-lance journalist in New York and in Europe, covering subjects including the majority important economic and politic events. He has spoken at numerous international conferences on geopolitical, economic, GMO, economic and energy subjects, including a keynote address to the Montreaux Global Investors’ Forum, the Centre for Energy Policy Studies in London, the International Chamber of Commerce in Zagreb and the International Institute of Strategic Studies in Moscow. He currently lives in Germany and in addition to writing regularly on issues of economics, energy and international affairs, is active as a consulting geopolitical risk economist. In this fall is expected publication of the new book “Entire Dominate Spectru: Plans Geopolitice Backs Raising the Global Military Force to Washington”.

– Mr. Engdahl, you are among those who have clearly explained why the present day oil price is the result of some financial and engineering speculations and not at all the traditional result of demand and supply. Explain us how things are.

WE: – The Cheney-Bush regime is a project supported by Big Oil and the military industrial complex. Their agenda requires them to manipulate the oil price dramatically higher to control world economic growth among other things. In the past several years, the Bush Administration has taken steps to deregulate the trading of oil futures contracts. The responsible futures regulator, to protect market users and the public from fraud, manipulation, and abusive practices, the CFTC (U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission) has explicitly abdicated its oversight over the trading of oil futures on the Atlanta ICE futures exchange since 1966. My conservative calculation is that at least 60% of today’s $100 per barrel price of crude oil comes from unregulated futures speculation by hedge funds, banks and financial groups using the London ICE Futures and New York NYMEX futures exchanges and uncontrolled inter-bank or Over-The-Counter trading to avoid scrutiny. US margin rules of the government’s Commodity Futures Trading Commission allow speculators to buy a crude oil futures contract on the Nymex, by having to pay only 6% of the value of the contract. At today’s price of $128 per barrel, that means a futures trader only has to put up about $8 for every barrel. He borrows the other $120. This extreme “leverage” of 16 to 1 helps drive prices to wildly unrealistic levels and offset bank losses in sub-prime and other disasters at the expense of the overall population. The Government and the Congress know well what is going on but the power of the banks is so strong in Washington that they have done nothing to control the speculation, even as prices last summer hit $147 a barrel. In fact, it is a political decision by the US Government to allow Wall Street banks to control oil prices.

– As for cutting off the medusa head it is necessary to reach out the higher levels of the United States administration, which are the chances to end this kind of speculations?

WE: – As we have seen since the outrageous rise of oil futures prices in June and July to $135-147 a barrel, Congress lacks the political will especially in an election year, to alienate the powerful American Bankers Association and Wall Street. They have done nothing meaningful, even when prices jumped by $25 in a day last month, to control the destructive speculation. It goes to the highest levels of the White House and Congress. What happened in the last week on U.S. financial market is the new proof that they are overshadowed by the situation.

– Another area is the controversial arms sales. The US Defense Department announced they are going to sell GBU-39 bombs  to Israel, news that were further speculated as giving Israel the needed weapons to use against Iran. How do you comment?

WE: – I see little possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran in the near future. The Bush administration badly needs Iranian cooperation to control Iraq. It has been in secret back-channel talks with Teheran for months while sabre rattling and making public show of a possible US attack. In reality President Bush recently told Israel it would not condone an independent Israeli strike. In my view military attack on Iran is out of the question for both Israel and Washington, regardless of US weapons sales. It is far too dangerous. The US military is badly over-stretched, morale is at a severe low according to direct reports. The US financial system is in a systematic crisis that will lead to an economic depression worse in my estimation than that of the 1930’s.

– In the last two years, USA sold 32 billion dollars weapons. Most of the political analysts exclude a new military intervention in the USA as, despite the huge amount of funding invested, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have been a mistake. With the economical recession perspective as an argument, it was told that USA can’t afford a new war. In these conditions, don’t you think that we have to deal with an US aggressive rhetoric meant to start a psychosis of war and a new race towards weapons that would fill the pockets of some „smart guys”?

WE: – There is now a bitter behind the scenes factional split in the US establishment that runs right through the Bush Administration. There is strong evidence it was Dick Cheney who gave Georgia’s Saakashvili encouragement to retake South Ossetia and Abkhazia last August, likely knowing full well it would force some Russian reaction. Why? Cheney is the spokesperson for the war faction, the neo-conservative warhawks who are responsible for the Iraq debacle, Afghanistan. Cheney is doing all he can to get his friend, John McCain as next President. An international conflict with Russia over remote Georgia boosts McCain as the experienced war hero, or at least it seemed. In addition, Cheney and the military industry desperately wants to revive a new Cold War to justify its military existence and expand its power. The dangerous and provocative US missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic is coming from this Cheney neo-conservative faction. It is provocative in the extreme and risks pushing the world to the brink of nuclear war by miscalculation. It is not about money or fat guys lining their pockets, so much as an increasingly desperate American power elite trying to preserve its role as world empire without necessarily calling it that—world sole superpower. The financial disintegration now underway signals the end of the US as the postwar financial superpower. Iraq since 2003 marks the end of the US as military sole superpower. The Russian response in Georgia merely confirmed that fact for all the world to see. The US as a declining imperial power is in a state of denial and that is dangerous, both for the future of the United States and for the world.

(to be continued)

Published: http://arhiva.cadranpolitic.ro/view_article.asp?item=2658