Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

November 03 2013

Why is Saudi Arabia changing its foreign policy ? Interview with Toby Craig Jones

Why is Saudi Arabia changing its foreign policy ?
Interview with Toby Craig Jones
http://thequestiontoday.com/2013/why-is-saudi-arabia-changing-its-foreign-policyinterview-with-toby

Since the beginning of the Arab Spring, the Saudis have become much more active regionally. Not just in Syria, but also in Yemen and Bahrain. According to Saudi insider and royal adviser Nawaf Obaid, the Saudis are embarking on a doctrinal shift towards a more “activist foreign policy”. Is this because the Saudis are reacting to a vacuum in U.S. leadership in the region?

JONES : It’s an interesting question, whether or not the Saudis are acting in an American vacuum. But I actually think the U.S. has more consistently supported the Saudi position than they’ve opposed it, most visibly in Bahrain and in Yemen. And also in Egypt where the United States now supports the military regime and has not really had any problems with the coup there this past summer which was certainly delightful to the Saudis.

To answer your original question, yes, the Saudis have become more active in the region, (...)

Overall, the Saudi concerns and reasons for the recent increase in foreign political activity comes down to three issues:

First, there’s Syria, Bahrain and the fear of Iranian regional hegemony. The increase in Saudi activity here is best seen through the lens of a balance of power consideration: They want to check Iranian ambitions in the region. (...)

The second issue has to do with fears about democratic transition and change. The Saudis are simply fearful that there could be more support in the region for democratic politics. They want to support the status quo, the old autocrats and all the perquisites that follow from that.

The third thing is connected to the second issue. If there is a popular change in government and more people have a say in the workings of domestic political economy, decision making could shift to more populist kinds of politics. The consequences of that for the Saudis in particular of course would be, that they would lose their grip over the ability to generate massive wealth for themselves and to live their lives of considerable privilege. Being a Saudi not only means that you have power over the Arabian peninsula, it also means that you have fantastic wealth, you know, gold plated 747′s [Boeing airliners], multiple palaces, the ability to travel and so on. It’s a business as much as it is a country, and the Saudis fear the possible passing of their ability to control that.

Autre question abordée : les dirigeants de l’Arabie ont-ils vraiment les moyens et le désir de rompre avec les Etats-Unis ?

August 19 2013

Abdel Bari Atwan : Al-Sisi's Appalling Mistakes May Destroy Egypt

Abdel Bari Atwan: Al-Sisi’s Appalling Mistakes May Destroy Egypt
http://www.bariatwan.com/english/?p=1921

But the truth of the matter is this: repression and killings will bring the real al-Qaeda to Egypt – not this fake propagandist one. Fighters from Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen will flock to join a new jihad.

July 04 2013

New Report Documents the Human Cost of U.S. Drone Strikes in Yemen | Politics News | Rolling Stone

New Report Documents the Human Cost of U.S. Drone Strikes in Yemen | Politics News | Rolling Stone
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/new-report-documents-the-human-cost-of-u-s-drone-strikes-in-yemen-2013

There are more than 80 names at the end of a human rights report published online this week. Each one is said to belong to a civilian killed or maimed as a result of U.S. missile strikes in Yemen since 2009. They were mothers, fathers, children and grandparents – and they stand in contrast to claims that the United States does not launch missiles into Yemen unless there is a “near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured,” as President Obama told the nation in May.

The names are preceded by 25 pages of detailed descriptions of U.S. airstrikes in Yemen and their consequences, offering a rare level of information on specific attacks and their physical, psychological and financial impacts on individual Yemeni civilians.

“For me, its power is in the totality,” says Gregory D. Johnsen, a former Fulbright Fellow in Yemen and author of the book The Last Refuge: Yemen, Al Qaeda, and America's War in Arabia. “We tend to hear about these strikes in drips and drabs over the course of months and years, but the report is the most comprehensive one I've seen on U.S. strikes in Yemen.”

The report has been turned over to Ben Emmerson, the United Nations' special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, who is in the midst of an investigation into the civilian impacts of U.S. targeted killings and drone strikes abroad. The interviews contained within – collected by Alkarama, a Swiss-based human rights organization, and HOOD, an organization of lawyers and activists in Yemen – paint a violent picture of life on the receiving end of U.S. counterterrorism policy in the Arabian Peninsula.

La guerre des drones au Yémen : Un premier rapport présenté à l'ONU
http://fr.alkarama.org/index.php?option=com_content

#victimes_civiles #drones #Yemen #mensonges

June 28 2013

Failed states are a western_myth | Elliot Ross | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Failed states are a #western_myth | Elliot Ross | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/28/failed-states-western-myth-us-interests

Quibbling with the many bizarre claims of the index is tempting (Kenya is “less stable” than Syria, we learn), but in the end such gripes only give credibility to this tedious yearly exercise in faux-empirical cultural bigotry. For anyone interested in actually finding out about places such as Yemen or Uganda, the index is probably the last place you'd want to go. But what's more interesting, and more helpful in understanding what the index really does, is to grasp that the very concept of the “#failed_state” comes with its own story.

The organisation that produces the index, the #Fund_for_Peace http://global.fundforpeace.org/index.php, is the kind of outfit John le Carré thinks we should all be having nightmares about. Its director, JJ Messner (who puts together the list), is a former #lobbyist for the private military industry. None of the raw data behind the index is made public. So why on earth would an organisation like this want to keep the idea of the failed state prominent in public discourse?

The main reason is that the concept of the failed state has never existed outside a programme for western intervention. It has always been a way of constructing a rationale for imposing #US_interests on less powerful nations.

Luckily, we can pinpoint exactly where it all began – right down to the words on the page. The failed state was invented in late 1992 by Gerald Helman and Steven Ratner, two US state department employees, in an article in – you guessed it – #Foreign_Policy, suggestively entitled Saving failed states. With the end of the cold war, they argued, “a disturbing new phenomenon is emerging: the failed nation state, utterly incapable of sustaining itself as a member of the international community”. And with that, the beast was born.

Mais dire « US interests » c'est adopter le vocabulaire de ceux que l'on dénonce.

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl