Affichage des articles dont le libellé est courage. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est courage. Afficher tous les articles

2014/03/06

Russia, the Budapest memorandum, and the crisis of representativeness


Steven Blockmans published today a short commentary on Russia and the Budapest Memorandum. It is an assault against Russia foreign politics, and he wrote in his conclusion:
"So far, the Kremlin has not bothered to seriously rebut allegations by the US and the EU that it has violated the terms of the Budapest memorandum.

More worryingly, the Moscow allows itself to be inconsistent with its own commitments and is reneging its own words.

This has all the trappings of a panicking dictatorship, which crushes dissent at home and portrays confidence in winning a great battle with the enemy abroad. How can anybody trust what Putin’s Russia says or commits to in the future?"
My comments:

1) As a Professor of Law, he started with the Budapest Memorandum, but he failed to discuss the Helsinki CONFERENCE ON SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION IN EUROPE (CSCE) Final Act mentioned in Article 1. This one states:
The participating States [...] Have adopted the following:
I Prior notification of major military manoeuvres They will notify their major military manoeuvres to all other participating States through usual diplomatic channels in accordance with the following provisions:
Notification will be given of major military manoeuvres exceeding a total of 25,000 troops, independently or combined with any possible air or naval components (in this context the word "troops" includes amphibious and airborne troops). In the case of independent manoeuvres of amphibious or airborne troops, or of combined manoeuvres involving them, these troops will be included in this total. Furthermore, in the case of combined manoeuvres which do not reach the above total but which involve land forces together with significant numbers of either amphibious or airborne troops, or both, notification can also be given.
Notification will be given of major military manoeuvres which take place on the territory, in Europe, of any participating State as well as, if applicable, in the adjoining sea area and air space.
You read correctly: no notification are required below 25,000 troops. 16,000 is lower.

More: Because of the agreement signed on 21 April 2010 between the Russian and Ukrainian presidents, Russia is allowed to maintain thousands of troops in Crimea, without mentioning others in surrounding coasts (Gudauta, Krasnodar Kra).

2) Professor of Law Steven Blockmans failed to mention that M. Yanukovich has not resigned, is still alive and is still constitutionally the current legitimately elected Ukraine President, whatever Kiev may claim. No current power in Kiev is legitimate. Thus, they cannot claim themselves to be "the Ukraine government" and claim from this position that Russia has invaded Crimea. Moreover, Crimea is an autonomous republic within Ukraine, electing its own parliament. Crimea political representatives have not claimed to be invaded by Russia.

There was an armed seizure of power in Kiev and a legitimately elected president was overthrown. This was a violation of Ukraine’s constitution. Who cannot agree with this fact? 

3) Steven Blockmans failed to mention that Leaked EU Phone Call Suggests Kiev Snipers Were Hired by Opposition Coalition not former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich (read this news thread in the comments section of this article). He would have remarked that Ms Ashton did not express any human sentiment whatsoever about 94 persons killed at Maidan events by neo-nazis and that she failed so far to report this publicly since this phone call 26 February, and to call for an international investigation about these crimes. 
Steven Blockmans, this is the most important international law and you failed to protect it. It is justified to say that human rights and fundamental freedoms were violated by fascists and neo-nazis in Kiev which seized power by unconstitutional means.

4) Steven Blockmans failed to mention that US department of State supported the ukrainian opposition, the ones who killed innocents and accused Yanukovich, with "more than $5 billion" during years as claimed by Ms Nuland on a leaked phone call (1, 2).

5) Steven Blockmans failed to mention the fascist way of doing politics the ukrainian opposition leaders nowadays (3, 4). Who does he really want to protect with his comments in Law: ukrainian citizens or fascists, terrorists and neo-nazis? 

6) Steven Blockmans failed to mention how Klitschko betrayed Ukraine for money to NATO (5, 6)

Conclusion at this step:

Thus, if the international community, and Western in particular, is encouraging those acts, who is going to protect the rule of law? What does it means for Western citizens?

So far, the US and the EU representatives have not bothered to seriously rebut allegations by the Kremlin that ukrainian opposition has violated the ukrainian Constitution and human rights.

More worryingly, the US and the EU allow themselves to be inconsistent with their own commitments and are reneging their own words.

This has all the trappings of panicking dictatorships, which crush dissent at home and abroad and portrays confidence in willing to support the citizens' fascist enemy abroad. How can thus anybody trust what the US and the EU representatives say or commit to in the future?


Europeans citizens, our political and civil society representatives who supports the Kiev neo-nazi coup are all attempting to violate our deepest and most honorable values. Will you let them do that there and inevitably after in your country by your own government (the same who declare to support the Kiev coup)? Don't you understand not only the historical shame for us but the deadly path for our societies on this road

Without common values there is no trust, no society. No european spirit whatsoever would remain for a long time: it would be split.



2013/10/14

Remembering Bob K.

A revolution is coming — a revolution which will be peaceful if we are wise enough; compassionate if we care enough; successful if we are fortunate enough — But a revolution which is coming whether we will it or not. We can affect its character; we cannot alter its inevitability. 
(R. F. Kennedy, 1925 - 1968 ; Speech in the United States Senate, 9 May 1966) 

Our answer is the world's hope; it is to rely on youth. The cruelties and the obstacles of this swiftly changing planet will not yield to obsolete dogmas and outworn slogans. It cannot be moved by those who cling to a present which is already dying, who prefer the illusion of security to the excitement and danger which comes with even the most peaceful progress. This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind, a temper of the will, a quality of the imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the love of ease.[...]
First, is the danger of futility: the belief there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills — against misery, against ignorance, or injustice and violence. Yet many of the world's great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man. [...]
It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.[...]
The second danger is that of expediency: of those who say that hopes and beliefs must bend before immediate necessities. Of course, if we must act effectively we must deal with the world as it is. We must get things done. But [...] there is no basic inconsistency between ideals and realistic possibilities, no separation between the deepest desires of heart and of mind and the rational application of human effort to human problems.[...because] it ignores the realities of human faith and of passion and of belief — forces ultimately more powerful than all of the calculations of our economists or of our generals. Of course to adhere to standards, to idealism, to vision in the face of immediate dangers takes great courage and takes self-confidence. But we also know that only those who dare to fail greatly, can ever achieve greatly.[...]
And a third danger is timidity. Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality of those who seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change.[...]
For the fortunate amongst us, the fourth danger, my friends, is comfort, the temptation to follow the easy and familiar paths of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who have the privilege of an education. [...] 
There is a Chinese curse which says, "May he live in interesting times." Like it or not we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history. And everyone here will ultimately be judged — will ultimately judge himself — on the effort he has contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which his ideals and goals have shaped that effort. 
(R. F. Kennedy, 1925 - 1968 ; Day of Affirmation Address, 6 June 1966)

     O captain! dear father! 
     This arm beneath your head; 
     It is some dream that on the deck, 
     You've fallen cold and dead. 
My Captain does not answer, his lips are pale and still; 
My father does not feel my arm, he has no pulse nor will; 
The ship was long ago anchor'd safe and sound, its voyage since never closed and done; 
From fearful trip, the victor ship, has yet to come in with object won; 
(inspired by W. Whitman - 1865)




2013/01/04

Rapport du Parlement européen sur le programme de la CIA de détention secrète et de torture

La terreur qui frappe l’Amérique le 11 Septembre 2001 met les institutions des Etats démocratiques à rude épreuve. Le lendemain de l’attentat, les Etats-Unis déclarent ouverte « la guerre contre le terrorisme » et lancent une vaste traque planétaire et clandestine des présumés terroristes. Il s’agit du programme de « restitutions extraordinaires » élaboré par la CIA. Il est agréé par les Etats-membres de l’OTAN et mis en œuvre par leurs services spéciaux entre 2001 et 2006.

Ses victimes - combien sont-elles ? - ont été kidnappées, torturées, enfermées ; leur intégrité et leur dignité ont été profanées de façon procédurale et systématique. Certaines croupissent toujours, sans espoir de procès, à Guantánamo. A ce jour aucun responsable politique, aucun agent des services d’Etat, aucun président d’entreprise sous-traitante, ni en Europe ni aux USA, n’a été tenu de s’expliquer et de rendre des comptes.

Partout l’impunité fait loi. En Europe, les Etats ont eu à connaître de cette entreprise criminelle. Ils y ont participé, tacitement ou de façon active, certains jusqu’à autoriser plusieurs centaines de vols clandestins de la CIA dans leur espace aérien, d’autres jusqu’à tolérer sur leur territoire des sites de détention et de torture secrets.

Onze ans plus tard, après de nombreux rapports, enquêtes, articles et témoignages confondants, les Etats n’ont toujours pas lâché prise : pas de reconnaissance des faits, pas d’excuses ni de réparations aux victimes, pas de responsabilités identifiées. Le rapport adopté le 11 septembre 2012, que j’ai eu la responsabilité de conduire pour le Parlement européen, met les Etats européens au pied du mur de la vérité. Il conforte et légitime les travaux des journalistes, des défenseurs des droits de l’Homme, des parlementaires, des juristes, des experts, des victimes, qui jour après jour, relèvent le défi de vérité.

Non, le Parlement européen n’accepte pas qu’au nom des citoyens et de leur sécurité, les États développent des pratiques illégales clandestines, violatrices des droits de l’Homme et se dispensent de rendre des comptes. En 2007, mon prédécesseur, Claudio Fava, avait dû affronter les outrances assumées des atlantistes virulents, pour lesquels il n’y aura jamais de plus belle preuve de loyauté envers l’Amérique que le secret gardé sur l’exécution du programme de la CIA. Pendant les travaux de la commission d’enquête, ils avaient déployé tous leurs efforts pour saper la démarche d’enquête, discréditer les témoins auditionnés, protéger les secrets d’État et dénier le besoin de vérité.

Mais à l’heure où les télégrammes diplomatiques ont pignon sur le net, où les archives des services secrets s’étalent dans les ruines des dictatures déchues, où les victimes des tortures passent du côté du pouvoir, les négationnistes sont moins diserts. Seuls désormais, les Etats tentent de protéger leurs secrets de polichinelle. Poussés à rendre des comptes, ils rechignent, tergiversent, mentent, feignent, retardent, camouflent. Ils se tiennent par la barbichette à qui parlera le dernier !

Lors de l’audition organisée au Parlement européen en mars 2012, aucune autorité invitée n’est venue défendre son enquête, pas un procureur, pas un ministre, pas un parlementaire. La conjuration nationaliste est-elle trop forte ? Les pressions américaines trop convaincantes ? « L’Etat profond » trop puissant ? L’enquête trop peu crédible ? L’Europe ne doit pas abandonner les Etats à leurs démons. La clause européenne de solidarité et de confiance mutuelle doit être activée, elle est le levier qui peut forcer le couvercle de la vérité.

L’Europe serait la première victime du déni. Sa promesse de dignité et de démocratie anéantie, elle perdrait toute autorité ! Le lendemain de l’adoption du rapport, le 12 septembre 2012, répondant à la presse, le Président le la République de Roumanie dit : « La Roumanie suivra les recommandations du Parlement européen ». Une onde d’espoir parcourt la planète des « épris de justice ». La vérité viendra.

Ce texte empreint d'une profonde volonté de renforcer le contrôle démocratique est la préface de la député européenne Hélène Flautre, publiée le 6 décembre 2012, à son livre en libre diffusion :  « Le programme secret de la CIA et le Parlement Européen :  Histoire d'un forfait, histoire d'un sursaut ».
Je ne saurais trop vous conseiller de télécharger le rapport officiel annexé à ce livre enquête d’Hélène Flautre et de Bertrand Verfaillie ou le visionner avec d'autres vidéos sur le site d’EELV au parlement européen.
Il s'agit d'une remarquable et si précieuse mise en application d'une parole de Arendt: « Le courage est la première de toutes les vertus politiques ». C'est aussi l'aune à laquelle on mesure la capacité d'un peuple à maîtriser son devenir. Ce rapport est un acte qui grandit tous les Européens, grâce aux vertus des « obstinés de la vérité » et de la transparence.