No Haiti, temos Aristides posto e deposto. No Kosovo, a Nato foi defender o separatismo albanês e hoje a própia Nato fala do seu terrorismo. No Iraque tenta-se a unidade e teme-se o que irá suceder com a sua democracia multi-étnica. Na Arábia Saudita querem instigar o separatismo e a queda da monarquia (o Príncipe Carlos sempre tinha razão!). No Afeganistão, sabe-se que os Taliban tinham introduzido ordem no caos pós-soviético e combatido a cultura de droga e hoje parecem não existir alternativas, especialmente porque ser Taliban = terrorista (um pouco racista, não, identificar toda uma facção religiosa como "terrorista" e combatê-la colectivamente como tal) e não podem existir quem simplesmente combata a presença de estrangeiros (contra os soviéticos foram freedom fighter´s). No Koweit, Qatar, Emirados Unidos, são todos bons aliados (o que até acho muito bem, são o que de melhor existe na região) e boas autocracias (diga-se, que para mim, o assunto até é pouco relevante, mas existe a quem o não deveria ser).
1. Haiti:
Probing U.S. ties to Haiti coup
2. Kosovo:
Many die as Kosovo clashes spread
Kosovo clashes were planned, says UN official: "But in a sign that the outbreak of violence could have been planned, Serb enclaves in the towns of Caglavica and Gracanica, as well as villages elsewhere, were also attacked. A senior international United Nations police official said: "The situation is not under control. This is planned, co-ordinated, one-way violence from the Albanians against the Serbs. It is spreading and has been brewing for the past week.
"Nothing in Kosovo happens spontaneously.""
Nota: a Nato foi (com bombardeamentos durante 2 meses consecutivos, dia e noite, a grande altitude), defender os separatista muçulmanos albaneses num território que sempre foi da Sérvia. Hoje os Sérvios estão a pedinchar sem grande sucesso (Vojislav Kostunica, who recently called for the partitioning of Kosovo, said the province’s current set-up had "clearly failed the test".), a autonomia de uma porção do Kosovo, mas a própria Nato fala do terrorismo Albanês.
3. Afeganistão:
"Marauding Taliban and drug-dealing warlords on the road to Kandahar"
"(...)Khaksar was a founding member of the Taliban movement, which arose in Kandahar in the early nineties. After the defeat of the Soviets by the Afghan mujahideen in 1989 and the collapse of the Afghan communist government in 1992, Kabul had been taken over by mujahideen factions that fought bitterly. Meanwhile, Kandahar was at the mercy of violent, thieving warlords. Their militias stopped cars at every other intersection to demand money or weapons. Even Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan’s current president, who is also from Kandahar, supported the Taliban’s intervention in the anarchic post-Soviet period.
(...)
The new governor, Yusuf Pashtun, wants to make changes, to give people something they will want to protect. “They are apathetic,” he says. “They have nothing to lose. No roads, no wells. Give them something to build, something to which they can be attached.” For this, of course, one needs security. “It’s not so much that the Taliban are in control,” Pashtun said to me. “It’s that we haven’t established an alternative.” The government can’t get aid to the outlying areas because they are insecure, and they are insecure because no aid is getting to them.
“The situation is reminiscent of what was witnessed after the establishment of the mujahideen government in 1992,” Lakhdar Brahimi said in December, shortly before the completion of a two-year stint as the United Nations special envoy to Afghanistan. “The spectacular rise of the Taliban then was a direct result of the hard, unjust, and chaotic rule of the mujahideen rather than due to any enthusiasm for Taliban ideology.”
This, of course, is what the Americans have in mind as they deploy the new Provincial Reconstruction Teams. Joseph Collins, at the Defense Department in Washington, explained to me that one couldn’t really think about “conflict” and “postconflict” anymore.
(...)
What’s really needed is a strong national government that works and that can rein in the warlords and government ministers who threaten to turn Afghanistan into a narco state that rivals Colombia. "
4. Arábia Saudita
'Liberating' Saudi's Shi'ites (and their oil)
"If the rulers of Saudi Arabia held out any hope that the post-September 11, 2001, demonization of their kingdom was finally waning, then someone in Riyadh should pick up a copy of An End to Evil, a recently published neo-conservative roadmap for "winning" the "war on terror". In it, David Frum, an ex-speechwriter for President George W Bush (and inventor of the term "axis of evil"), and Richard Perle, the eminence grise of the neo-con fraternity, suggest that the United States should bring Saudi Arabia to heel by threatening to support independence for the country's Eastern Province or Al Hasa (also known as Ash Sharqiyah), where much of Saudi Arabia's minority Shi'ite population and, coincidentally, most of its oil is situated.
(...) they deduce that "it is not bigotry alone that explains these Saudi actions, but also their fear that the Shi'ites might someday seek independence for the Eastern Province - and its oil". If this fear were somehow brought to fruition it "would obviously be a catastrophic outcome for the Saudi state. But it might be a very good outcome for the US."
There is, of course, nothing new in the suggestion that, in extreme circumstances, the United States might seize strategically important oilfields in the Persian Gulf region. Such a step was contemplated at an advanced level by the administration of president Richard Nixon during the 1973 Arab oil embargo. But some observers believe that the events of September 11, as well as the frailty of the House of Saud and the Shi'ite awakening in Iraq, have given this contingency new life."
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário