Evolutions with global impact(4) Is "our ugly war" the most important global issue today? | publicatii - Politica La Est

Evolutions with global impact(4) Is "our ugly war" the most important global issue today?

Iunie 2019: evolutii de impact global - 4
    Este “our ugly war”cea mai importanta chestiune globala azi ?
                                                               Mihail E. Ionescu
         Osaka. Reuniunea G-7 din Japonia ( sfarsit de iunie 2019 )  a fost asteptata cu mult interes pentru ca avea loc  intalnirea Xi-Trump si eventualitatea unei decizii in razboiul tarifar déjà declansat intre cele doua superputeri, la initiativa lui D. Trump. Poate ca interviul lui Putin in ’ Financial Times’ ( 27 iunie)  , prin atacul fara precedent la ideologia neoliberala a ridicat si mai mult asteptarile in ajunul reuniunii ( liderii rus si american urmau sa se intalneasca in Japonia si erau cunoscute vederile ostile cvasi-similare ale celor doi in privinta anumitor accente neo-liberale ) , dar focusul atentiei globale a ramas pe intalnirea Trump-Xi. Iar acest fapt are explicatia lui indeajuns de simpla. In ultimii ani- incepand din 2011-2012, orice pronostic ( forecast )  privind dimensiunile sistemului international si starea lui in 2025, 2030, 2035 s.a.m.d- elaborate de institutii prestigioase americane sau din alte orizonturi- specificau ca ‘ motoarele’  sistemice vor functiona in viitor in functie de natura relatiilor dintre SUA si China. Pentru a da un exmeplu: ‘ lumile alternative’ ale anilor 2035- 2040 erau intrevazute – iar ele sunt in numar de patru- si  definite de felul in care se evaluau la momentul respectiv relatiile intre cei “ doi mari”- cooperare si gradul ei sau ostilitate si natura acesteia . [1] Un studiu dedicat “viitorului care incepe azi”  al Ministerului Apararii al UK, publicat in 2018, identifica , pentru perspectiva 2040, o difuziune si restructurare a puterii sistemice, in care China si SUA sunt cele dintai importante   : ”Great Power Rivalry. Historically, when great powers emerge and alter geopolitical balance, conflict often follows. Change to the global order is likely to create several opportunities and incentives for great powers to challenge one another. For example, China’s growing economic, military and diplomatic capability could equal and even surpass, that of the United States in the coming decades. Potential developments in the North Korea and disputes over maritime territory in the East and South China Sea all provide potential flash points between China, the US and their respective allies. India’s economy is also growing rapidly, and it may emerge as a great power during the next 30 years. India’s and China’s shared 3,000 Kilometers border  has already seen clashes, and the two countries are likely to increasingly vie for influence and control, not least in Indian Ocean. Russia has already become more assertive in recent years and, though unlikely to want a major conflict with the West, is likely to use sub-threshold conflict( activity that remains below the threshold of the armed aggression to avoid reprisal) and the threat of it , to pursue its aims”.[2]
              Poate unul dintre cele mai importante articole aparute in luna iunie 2019 in presa internationala este cel din “Financial Times” ( 4 iunie ) sub semnatura cunoscutului editorialist pentru probleme economico-finan- ciare, Martin Wolf, si intitulat The Looming 100-year US-China Conflict. Potrivit lui Wolf, “China’s ideology is not a threat to liberal democracy in the way the Soviet Union’s was. Rightwing demagogues are far more dangerous. An effort to halt China’s economic and technological rise is almost certain to fail. Worse, it will foment deep hostility in the Chinese people. In the long run, the demands of an increasingly prosperous and well-educated people for control over their lives might still win out. But that is far less likely if China’s natural rise is threatened. Moreover, the rise of China is not an important cause of western malaise. That reflects far more the indifference and incompetence of domestic elites. What is seen as theft of intellectual property reflects, in large part, the inevitable attempt of a rising economy to master the technologies of the day. Above all, an attempt to preserve the domination of 4 per cent of humanity over the rest is illegitimate.”[3] Subintitulat Donald Trump’s unnecessary fight for domination is increasingly being framed as a zero-sum game, articolul lui Wolf spune practic acelasi lucru ca asertiunile “global trends”  sumarizate in precedentele randuri , anume ca relatia China- SUA va domina urmatorul secol, iar alternativele in ansamblul ei sunt  “zero sum game” sau  “win-win”. Asadar, ‘motoarele’ lumii viitoare vor functiona fie pe modul  “oprit ” ( conflict sau ‘zero sum game’) sau “viteza maxima” ( cooperare ). Ceea ce a nemultumit foarte multi comentatori a fost faptul ca autorul considera ca D. Trump nu face altceva azi decat sa vrea sa conserve hegemonia a “patru la suta “din populatia lumii  ( SUA ) , ceea ce este  ‘ilegitim’. Una dintre vocile critice  scrie  ca “In 2019, very few statements are as absurd as ‘China’s ideology is not a threat to liberal democracy in the way the Soviet Union’s was. Rightwing demagogues are far more dangerous’." ; si ca- nemeritat in  opinia noastra pentru reputatul analist al “Financial Times” - “Wolf might be delusional, but if he hasn't received it already, he deserves a five-star vacation courtesy of Xi Jinping.”[4]
         Intalnirea Xi-Trump de la Osaka s-a finalizat printr-un compromis intre pozitiile celor doi protagonisti ai razboiului tarifelor. Un sir de 3  tweet-uri  al lui D. Trump mentioneaza esenta acestui compromis:
I had a great meeting with President Xi of China yesterday, far better than expected. I agreed not to increase the already existing Tariffs that we charge China while we continue to negotiate. China has agreed that, during the negotiation, they will begin purchasing large.....
/ 3:32 PM - 29 Jun 2019/....amounts of agricultural product from our great Farmers. At the request of our High Tech companies, and President Xi, I agreed to allow Chinese company Huawei to buy product from them which will not impact our National Security. Importantly, we have opened up negotiations...
....again with China as our relationship with them continues to be a very good one. The quality of the transaction is far more important to me than speed. I am in no hurry, but things look very good! There will be no reduction in the Tariffs currently being charged to China.”[5]
              Asadar, fiind la inceputul unui “conflict de 100 de ani”- pentru a imprumuta formula lui Martin Wolf- amanuntele deal-lui Trump-Xi de la Osaka  sunt mai putin importante -oricum cele mai sus citate evidentiaza o dorinta reciproca de a evita ‘zero sum game’- fata de o veritabila premiera a relatiilor internationale care l-a avut in zilele urmatoare reuniunii internationale ca protagonist pe liderul de la Casa Alba . Anume ‘patrunderea’ pe teritoriul Coreei de Nord a presedintelui american, fapt fara precedent la asemenea nivel  de la sfarsitul razboiului din peninsula Koreea in 1953. Iata imprejurarile acestei premiere, relatata pe contul sau de twitter de catre presedintele Donald Trump:
After some very important meetings, including my meeting with President Xi of China, I will be leaving Japan for South Korea (with President Moon). While there, if Chairman Kim of North Korea sees this, I would meet him at the Border/DMZ just to shake his hand and say Hello(?)!
3:51 PM - 28 Jun 2019 “ .[6]
Leaving South Korea after a wonderful meeting with Chairman Kim Jong Un. Stood on the soil of North Korea, an important statement for all, and a great honor!
3:21 AM - 30 Jun 2019[7]
Thank you to President Moon of South Korea for hosting the American Delegation and me immediately following the very successful G-20 in Japan. While there, it was great to call on Chairman Kim of North Korea to have our very well covered meeting. Good things can happen for all!
7:57 AM - 1 Jul 2019[8].
         In alte doua tweet-uri , mentionate pe contul sau de catre D. Trump dupa intoarcerea la Casa Alba, presedintele a oferit – indirect, prin redirectionarea idelior exprimate de un analist cu care s-a declarat de accord-amanunte ale acestei premiere internationale:
@realDonaldTrump Jul 1
 ‘In my opinion the President has done more good on the Korean issue in the last year and a half than President Obama did in eight years. If you look at the strides they made during the Obama years, which advocated strategic patience-they stuck their head in the sand. This is.....
.....why President Trump has to deal with North Korea the way it is now. He had to figure out what to do with the Korea mess. I think this is why the President deserves a lot of credit.’  Harry Kazianis, Center for the National Interest. Thank you!
8:47 AM - 1 Jul 2019[9]
         Desigur, dupa aceasta “ vizita” scurta a presedintelui american in Coreea de Nord s-au inmultit speculatiile privind viitorul curs al negocierilor Washington- Pyongyang in privinta denuclearizarii statului nord-coreean. Ceea ce transpare din aceste speculatii este faptul ca partea americana ar putea sa accepte un anumit statut nuclearizat al statului comunist coreean- un negociat  numar de ogive si rachete  , cu control international, in schimbul ridicarii treptate a sanctiunilor . Deopotriva, se specifica rolul foarte mare pe care are a-l dobandi in acest process de negociere statul sud-coreean. Cu alte cuvinte,  o abandonare a pozitiei inflexibile americane privind denuclearizarea totala a peninsulei, datand din secolul trecut. Fostul commandant al fortelor aliate NATO in Europa , James Stavridis , a vorbit intr-un comentariu publicat in ‘ Bloomberg’, la doua saptamani dupa intalnirea post-Osaka dintre  Trump si Kim,  de scenariul unui “ denuclearization-lite” care ar fi practic impus de realitatile actuale si ar fi de folos campaniei prezidentiale din 2020. Termenii acesteia ar fi : “the U.S. would likely demand a full, verifiable accounting of North Korea’s active nuclear and missile programs, with specific geographic positions identified. The U.S. could also push for a reduction in the total stockpile to a number that international inspectors could keep under permanent observation, say 50 warheads of a specified level of kilotons each. The warheads would be held in a small number of locations, three or so, each with a technical oversight system (cameras, electronic monitors) to alert inspectors if the facilities were breached. There could be a similar plan for the launcher systems, but they would be based different parts of the country than the warheads. All of this would be verified by international teams, which would have a mandate to inspect the facilities at any time. In exchange, the North would receive sanctions relief and a large amount of development aid  ”.[11]
            Desigur, dosarul nuclear nord-coreean , extrem de complicat , va cunoaste evolutii corespunzatoare pattern-ului stabilit de Trump de la preluarea prezidentiei, cu neobisnuite schimbari de directie, dar cu mentinerea unei legaturi intre liderii implicati care ofera  speranta unui progres . Tot atat de real este si faptul ca acest dosar nu poate fi despartit total de cel al relatiilor multilaterale dintre  SUA si China.
         Republica Moldova a intrat , probabil,  in cursul lunii iunie 2019 intr-o veritabila revolutie geopolitica, in desfasurare,   la o privire mai atenta ceea ce s-a intamplat  fiind un caz test pentru miscari de amploare la nivelul ‘  ligii intai’ a sistemului international de state ( care include marile puteri sistemice ). Dupa mai multe saptamani in care rezultatele alegerilor legislative nu au produs un guvern cu majoritate parlamentara, un anunt surprinzator a facut sa fie evitata noua consultare a electoratului. Ceea ce parea de negandit pana atunci  s-a produs: coalitia ACUM, pro-europeana,  condusa de Maia Sandu,  a format un guvern cu partidul socialist, apropiat de Moscova si baza politica a presedintelui Dodon. Scopul: dezoligarhizarea statului, anume eliberarea Moldovei de tentaculele uriase cu care oligarhul I.  Plahotniuc a impanzit sistemul de putere. Intelegerea a putut fi realizata intr-o graba neobisnuita, Plahotniuc parasind Republica Moldova, urmare a intelegerilor intervenite ( prin reprezentanti ) unii cu rang foarte inalt ) intre UE, Rusia si SUA. Autoritatile romanesti  au fost luate prin surprindere, au intarziat contactele cu noul guvern, iar ulterior au facut un “ damage control”  incercand sa redevina “jucator” de drept in destinul vecinului imediat de la Est legat de Romania identitar,  istoric si statal.
         In media din Romania, ca de obicei , nu au lipsit pozitiile pro si contra, dar disputa s-a stins rapid, fara a deveni cunoscute raspunderi , costuri, beneficii sau ce impact au avut aceste evenimnete asupra ansamblului relatiilor internationale ale Bucurestilor . Opiniei publice autoritatile romanesti  au ramas datoare cu explicatii  privind originea evenimentelor din iunie 2019 din Republica Moldova, actorii implicati din Romania in ele si modalitatile acestei implicari, cu alte cuvinte care este pozitia Bucurestilor in “dosarul moldovenesc” . Mai ales ca , daca sunt citite intr-o anumita cheie,  evenimentele de la inceput de iunie de la Chisinau, atunci se profileaza o politica noua la Est, in relatia cu fostele republici sovioetice devenite independente, a Uniunii Europene,  concordanta sau nu cu exigentele Parteneriatului Estic , dar oricum cu impact regional. Deja la 17 mai 2019, dupa o intalnire Lavrov- Maas, Rusia a primit verde pentru revenirea in Adunarea parlamentara a Consiliului Europei, iar votul ulterior ( 26 iunie ) a aratat ostilitatea  fata de un asemenea pas la anumiti actori din Estul continentului( Ucraina, statele baltice, Georgia).[12] Desi a facut demersuri pentru a pronunta acest act dupa ce Rusia inceteaza agresiunea asupra tarii sale, noul presedinte al Ucrainei  nu a avut success in demersul sau.
         Iata consemnarea sa pe Facebook in aceasta privinta: “The disappointed decision of PACE ( Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe- n.n. ) to approve without restrictions the authority of the delegation of the Russian Federation. Last week, I personally discuss this question with the president of France and with the Federal Chancellor of Germany. I tried to convince Mr. Macron and Mrs. Merkel that the return of the Russian delegation to PACE  is only possible after Russia will perform the principled requirements of the assembly. It's a pity that our European partners haven't heard us and engaged themselves  otherwise. I am grateful to the Ukrainian parliamentary delegation and the friendly national delegations that bravely fought to the end. The main argument for return became the necessity of human rights protection and citizen as the highest democratic values. I hope that in the matter of the protection of democratic values, nobody thought about material values. I also want to see how supporters of the return of the Russian delegation to the Assembly - an organization that has protected the rule of law in Europe for 70 years - will defend and demand another return - the return of the captured Ukrainian sailors. I remind you that exactly today, June 25, passes the term of execution of the appropriate order of the international tribunal of the marine. We are looking forward to how declared theses on the rule of law will be implemented in real life.” [13]
         In ce ne priveste, fata de acest episod politic din R. Moldova, foarte important pentru Europa de Est in general, iar pentru Romania poate si mai important, avem doua intrebari la care nu asteptam neaparat un raspuns:
  1. Inainte de a perfecta intelegerea cu socialistii, liderii ACUM  sau oficiali ai acestei aliante politice nu au contactat deloc Bucurestii oficiali  in ce priveste propriile intentii  si acordul politic realizat prin intermediul a trei mari puteri?
2. Dupa stirile aparute in media , unii politicieni ( chiar un sef de         partid de opozitie ) au fost contactati in acest sens de la Chisinau          de la ( probabil ) ‘ varful’  ACUM. De ce atunci au fost atat de mari surpriza si intarzierea   racordarii      Bucurestilor oficiali  la   pozitia UE   fata de alianta      actuala de guvernare din R. Moldova ?
         Reactii la interviul lui Putin din 27 iunie 2019. Dincolo de ripostele la opiniile presedintelui rus, V. Putin,  fata de ideile liberale exprimate in interviul din “Financial Times”-  facute la ‘cald’ pe twitter sau bloguri, din care am citat cateva in prima parte a sintezei pe luna iunie – apar sporadic noi luari de pozitie. Pentru ca este vorba de acest “ our ugly war” , mentionat in subtitlul episoadelor lunii iunie, promitem sa referim in continuare la . Asadar, pe curand , episoade ale evolutiei relatiilor internationale pe Est Europa si Asia in luna iulie 2019.  
[1]  Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds , National Intelligence Council, USA, December 2012, ISBN 978-1-929667-21-5-https://globaltrends2030.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/global-trends-2030-november2012.pdf
Bucuresti - 16 iulie 2019


Nu exista niciun comentariu

Postarea comentariilor dupa trei luni a fost dezactivata.