RAPORT DIN TRANSEE- 20 MARTIE 2020 - 3 | publicatii - Politica La Est
ple5.png

RAPORT DIN TRANSEE- 20 MARTIE 2020 - 3

Mihail E. Ionescu
 
Sunt, in continuare, uimit de faptul ca , daca atunci cand am inceput ‘reportajele din transee’ , am destinat unul dintre primele ca avand tematica consecintelor geopolitice ale Covid-19, am ajuns azi  sa scriu despre o cu totul alta evolutie geopolitica decat aveam in gand initial. Sa ma explic :

Mai intai ce aveam in gand initial ?   Evolutiile pandemiei globale nu puteau sa nu aiba consecinte geopolitice . Ele trebuiau sa fie determinate de modul in care ar fi urmat sa se schimbe ierahiile globale ca urmare a parjolului Covid-19, cum vor cauta unii jucatori regionali sau globali sa profite de aceste noi  realitati in miscare altele decat la inceputul pandemiei, cu interes marcat manifestat  mai ales  la varf, anume asupra Chinei si SUA, eventual si alte mai puteri ( Germania in special, ca principalul actor al UE ) .Consideram  ab initio ca fiind cea mai lovita tara mare , avand in vedere greutatea ei neobisnuita in economia globala , evaluam ca a cantari impactul neaparatei incetiniri sau chiar colaps al economiei Chinei  va  fi unul dramatic , ca intregul system se va reaseza  pe masura acestui eveniment si ca va trebui raspuns la un set aparte de intrebari.

Astfel:
-va mai pedala SUA pe focusarea marii sale strategii in India –Pacific sau va incetini acest transfer de importanta , forte si mijloce dinspre Europa si Orientul Mijlociu catre noua zona de interesglobal? ;
- in ce masura boala ‘dragonului’ va obliga Rusia sa-si reconsidere prioriatile si aliatii ?;
-cum va evolua situatia din Siria ca urmare a ostilitatii crescand intre Rusia si Turcia in zona Idlib si ce rol are a avea aici evnimentul Covis-19 ? ;

- ce impact va avea criza migrantilor instrumentata la sfarsit de februarie 2020  de catre Erdogan asupra Uniunii Europene, directionand circa un million de refugiati sirieni catre granitele terestre ale Greciei si Bulgariei ?;

Bruxelles- sediul UE
 -ce se va intampla in Marea Egee strans legata de frontierele terestre ale Turciei intr-o asemenea operatie ampla ?;
- ce se va intampla  in Libia, unde Turcia a transferat déjà forte militare si a descxhis un nou front de coliziune cu Rusia si UE?;
- incotro va actiona Iranul o data ce in Afganistan se va fi  incheiat razboiul cu talibanii sau ce alta operatie va pregati NATO pentru a mentine in stare de alerta capabilitatile aliate si sprijinul partenerilor ?;
- orientarile Macron in Eurasia vor avea o altfel de evolutie dupa declansarea dialogului necesar Berlin- Paris ?;
- care vor fi consecintele Brexit cumulate cu cele ale coronavirusului  asupra Europei sau NATO si UE ?

Brexit conceptual map
-etc.   etc. etc.
 
            Eram indemnat catre o astfel de abordare geopolitica traditionala, mai ales ca urmarisem cu atentie intre 14 si 16 februarie celebra MSC-209 reuniunea globala de securitate de la Munchen ), unde se evidentiasera cateva trenduri in legatura cu evolutiile transatlantice, cu adancimea conceptului de ‘ Westlessness’ , si caile de depasire a acestuia spre binele  intregului system international , precum si relativ la rolul tehnologiei in actuala etapa. Desigur, urmarisem cu atentie zilnic, impreuna cu un  prieten care se afla in legatura electronica cu prieteni  din Wuhan  si observasem cu ingrijorare si ‘inchiderea provinciei Hubei ( 56 de milioane) , apoi si patrunderea armatei chineze ( cu sarcini sanitare )  in Wuhan sau alte evolutii care semnalau gravitatea Covid-19, dar nu imaginam rapiditatea extensiei pandemiei . La 6 martie, la cursul obisnuit la SNSPA- referitor la institutiile de securitate sistemice si romanesti,  am vorbit studentilor desprfe evolutiile internationale post conferinta de la  Munchen si le semnalam  faptul ca presedintele Germaniei afirmase ca unitatea Europei este responsabilitatea Berlinului , iar – din aceasta perspectiva- amenintarea turca cu un nou val de migranti va disparea de pe radarul international- se pare ca Erdogan avea mai multe informatii pentru ca nu s-a intamplat asa, ci a continuat sa ameninte Europa-sau despre angajamentul Berlinului de a raspunde rapid chemarii la dialog a Parisului. Iar o alta satisfactie a fost sa le spun ca pozitia germana se contureaza a fi , in acest dialog intraeuropean,  intarirea euro, asa cum a scris atunci prezumtivul inlocuitor al lui Merkel la sefia coalitiei crestin-democrate  din Germania.
            Fulgerator, geopolitica s-a transformat subit, desi la ‘varful’ ei a desenat acelasi contur traditional: competitia pentru intaietate in sistem intre superputerile existente. Numai ca , aceasta competitie s-a adaptat circumstantelor speciale de infruntare: “frontul Covid-19”.

Australia's Bondi Beach closed after crowds defy  Covid-19 warning
  
            Mai intai ,au aparut teoriile numite- adecvat sau nu- conspirationiste. Iata ce consemneaza un  articol dintr-o foarte serioasa revista:
You’ve probably heard the rumor: The new coronavirus is a bioweapon. Some malicious country—perhaps the United States, maybe China, depending on who’s talking or tweeting—purposefully unleashed the virus that causes Covid-19 on the world. You might have also heard that the idea was widely dismissed by disease and defense experts. A good bioweapon, some note, wouldn’t spread as easily and indiscriminately as the new coronavirus does. But for political opportunists and conspiracy theorists, the rising number of Covid-19 infections, the growing ranks of the dead, and the mass disruptions to the daily rhythms of life have created fertile conspiratorial ground.
The Covid-19 bioweapon conspiracy theory has not only failed to be debunk; it even seems to be getting a second wind, and prominent politicians from countries around the world are embracing it. ‘For a while, it seemed the pushback on the bioweapons narrative from the Washington Post and Foreign Policy was effective,’ biodefense researcher Filippa Lentzos said. ‘But in recent days, the narrative seems to be coming back with a vengeance.’ Current and former government officials, including former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lijian Zhao, and US Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas have given credence to some version of the theory in the last month.” [1]
Cum se poate constata, sunt nume grele de lideri ai statelor- nu doar intamplator alese- aflate in competitie geopolitica traditionala. In SUA, Covid-19 a inceput sa fie numit ‘ Wuhan virus’, iar de la cel mai inalt nivel ‘Chinese virus’ .Iar  un expert in stiinte politice de la Columbia University – New York , nu ezita sa se intrebe, aratand inutilul unor asemenea pozitii razboinice:
ian bremmer
@ianbremmer
Q: Why has President Trump only just started to call it China virus? Especially since he said he knew coronavirus would become a pandemic for months now.
A: He had no idea. Now that his failure to respond is proving disastrous, he needs to blame someone.
@ianbremmer
#AmericaFirst should mean the US President taking responsibility for American citizens, especially in time of great need. Instead it’s blaming everybody else for US failure to respond.
1:48 PM · Mar 19, 2020” [2]
            Ian Bremmer, binecunoscut prin analizele sale sagace ale relatiilor internationale  a expus inutilitatea, mai mult pericolul unor asemenea abordari la “varf”, in care sunt implicate oficialitati atat din SUA, cat si China:
 
“ian bremmer
@ianbremmer
Did coronavirus come from China? Yes.
Did it expand globally because the Chinese govt covered it up for a month? Yes.
 Does China produce most of US medical supply chain? Yes.
Is it wise to antagonize China in the middle of this crisis? Are you fucking kidding me.
6:43 p.m. • 18 mar. 2020•”[3]
Concomitent, alti experti  au observat  energia pe care o depune China pentru a prezenta succesul deocamdata validat de rezultatele obtinute in infruntarea cu Covid-19  ca un exemplu de urmat in Europa sau chiar in SUA:
Gideon Rachman a redistribuit
Bojan Pancevski
@bopanc
 #Coronavirus could make China’s authoritarian regime look attractive in the eyes of some Europeans, said Ivan Krastev. A regime such as China’s ‘can monitor people and close down whole areas. Otherwise-horrific social control now seems welcome.’ @WSJ /’China can claim this is success of their system, because they brought the epidemic under control, while Europe is struggling,’ Mr. Krastev said./ Italy got no joy from #EU partners when it pleaded for masks this month. Now China has sent 300 doctors and nurses, impressing—and unnerving— Europe. Via @WSJ /#China tries to rebrand itself internationally from source of the new #coronavirus to a friendly helper after European countries failed to show solidarity to the worst-hit nations like Italy.  @WSJ/’ It’s good that China is making humanitarian gestures, but it should not be allowed to rewrite the history of where the virus originated and how their initial handling of it allowed for it to spread across the world,’ said
@thorstenbenner @WSJ/’ This is a shocking failure of European solidarity. The impression in Italy, Spain, Serbia and so on is that the weaker links will be left alone’ by the #EU. @WSJ/ China’s #coronavirus diplomacy has also extended to Balkan countries wanting to import medical material from the EU—including Serbia, which has strong ties to Beijing. ‘ European solidarity does not exist. It was a fairy tale’- President Aleksandar Vucic/  #Coronavirus could make China’s authoritarian regime look attractive in the eyes of some Europeans, said Ivan Krastev. A regime such as China’s ‘ can monitor people and close down whole areas. Otherwise-horrific social control now seems welcome.’ @WSJ/ ‘ China can claim this is success of their system, because they brought the epidemic under control, while Europe is struggling,’ Mr. Krastev said.

A group of 300 Chinese intensive-care doctors began arriving in Italy, one of several Chinese offers to support epidemic-stricken European countries, as China tries to rebrand itself internationally...wsj.com” [4]
 
 Pare-se ca aici, in campul mai sensibil al perceptiei internationale a modificarilor geopolitice,  putem situa ceea ce se intampla  azi pe aceasta dimensiune sistemica la  “ varf”. Este asadar competitia intre SUA si China pentru a demonstra ca balanta geopolitica nu s-a schimbat ( SUA) ori dimpotriva s-a rasturnat ( China ) . SUA vrea sa arate ca  China, in urma Covid-19 si raspunsului la pandemie,  nu are indreptatire sa fie considerate drept castigatoare si clasata asadar – in perceptia globala- in fruntea sistemului, inaintea Americii. In oglinda, China vrea contrariul.
Un articol extrem de important pe aceasta tema a propus in ‘ Financial Times’ Gideon Rachman la 17 martie 2020. El a prilejuit aproape patru sute de comentarii care s-au vadit o veritabila ancheta de opinie publica in aceasta competitie geopolitica sistemica. .
Iata tezele Rachman:
“The coronavirus outbreak started as a propaganda disaster for the Chinese government. But now — with the number of new cases falling sharply in China and rising quickly in the US and Europe — Beijing has reframed the narrative. China’s new story points to the Communist party’s success in taking draconian measures to control the disease and contrasts that with the chaotic response of the US and much of Europe.
 
The belief that China is on the rise and the west is in inexorable decline will gain new adherents. And arguments for authoritarianism and against democracy will be made with increased boldness — in both China and the west.
 
China did indeed confine some 60m people in Hubei province to their homes, while imposing movement controls on hundreds of millions more. And, for now, this seems to have worked. Nicholas Christakis, a Yale professor, expressed a widespread sentiment when praising China for “an astonishing achievement from a public health point of view”. As the virus has subsided in China, so Beijing has pivoted to making gestures of support to the rest of the world. Last week, Chinese doctors flew into Italy with 31 tonnes of emergency medical supplies — arriving just as Italians were bemoaning a lack of support from their EU neighbours.
 
But the Chinese leader’s behaviour genuinely looks good when compared with the floundering of US President Donald Trump — who at various times suggested the disease would disappear “like a miracle”, or that it was a hoax got up by his enemies. It is easy for many western liberals to lambast Mr Trump — but harder to acknowledge or remedy the flaws in the American democratic system, which put an obvious incompetent like him into the White House. The US system has also exhibited wider deficiencies — such as the ramshackle state of its public health system, which has so far led to remarkably little testing for the virus. The result of all this political malfunction may be the unnecessary deaths of many thousands.
 
Europe, meanwhile, is now the epicenter of the epidemic. The reluctance of the EU and British governments to take tough measures quickly was partly a failure of imagination. But it also reflected the difficulties that democracies will have in sustaining Chinese-style restrictions for long. With Spain, Italy and France imposing harsh controls on people’s movements, the administrative and social capabilities of European democracy are undergoing an extraordinary stress test.
 
It is still far too soon to concede the argument to the authoritarians. In Asia, democracies such as South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan seem to have done a good job in restraining the spread of infection without resorting to total lockdown. Instead, they have relied on widespread testing and the rapid implementation of social distancing — measures the US and the EU were probably too slow to embrace. The Chinese government also still faces awkward questions about how it let the virus get out of control in the first place, and about what will happen as movement restrictions are eased. Official anxiety about these issues is reflected in the disappearance of some who have dared to criticise Mr Xi’s handling of the crisis. Some Chinese officials have also demonstrated their anxiety to shift the blame, by suggesting the virus actually originated in the US.
 
That kind of crude propaganda looks unnecessary because the global narrative about coronavirus is already shifting in China’s favour. Of course, this could change as events unfold at a bewildering pace. But at the moment, it feels as if China is past the worst — while the outbreak in the west is only just beginning.
The last global crisis — the financial meltdown of 2008 — triggered a loss of western self-confidence and a shift in political and economic power towards China. The coronavirus crisis of 2020 could force a much bigger shift in the same direction.[5]
 
            In cele 371 de comentarii la acest suculent articol- care practic dezvaluie actualul trend geopolitic global, desemmnand , prin analiza,  China ca un ‘castigator’ in confruntarea cu Vestul- am urmarit daca respondentii- in ultima instanta reprezentand opinia publica internationala- se clasifica in vreuna din clusterele/ taberele  obisnuite ale geopoliticii traditionale. Referirea la aceste clustere/ tabere  o fac functie de monedele curente pe piata geopoliticii traditionale care s-au impus in ultimul timp ( mai ales dupa ce Trump a castigat prezidentia – anume: tabara ‘globalistilor’ sau a ‘patriotilor’ ( Trump ); ‘rusofobii’ ( atlantistii )  sau ‘europenistii’; ‘liberalistii sau iliberalistii ( cu nuante fata de tandemul  globalisti/patrioti ) .
            De ce pun mare prêt pe aceasta impartire in ‘tabere’ de opinie  exprimate fata de acest articol ?
 Pentru ca  cititorii analizelor lui Rachman sunt , in mod current, cu o foarte buna cunoastere a relatiilor internationale- in pofida impartirii lor in ‘tabere’- , incearca sa se obiectiveze, mai mult sau mai putin reusit , dincolo de angajarile  ideologice ( intre ei sunt , cum este firesc, partizani de ‘stanga’ sau conservatori , liberali, libertarieni, iliberali, ‘verzi’, chiar extremisti ). Inutil sa mai adaug ca ‘ Financial Times’ este unul dintre cele mai citite ziare internationale, adresandu-se si avand o audienta constituita din segmentele inalte ale mediului politic si de afaceri global,  intelectualitate por-occidentala.
De aceasta data , analiza Rachman a starnit o veritabila furtuna, nemaiintalnita pana acum in asemenea analize ‘ deranjante’ – in care autorul se face remarcat: el este autorul cartii cunsocute din 2016 “ Easternization”, care anunta pierderea de catre Europa a centralitatii sistemice in favoarea Asiei-, iar autorul a fost , ca niciodata, caracterizat drept ‘ comunist” adresandu-i-se apelativul “ tovarase’, incat a fost nevoit la un moment dat chiar el sa intervina pentru a  se explica ca nu a “aruncat prosopul” in  ‘meciul” cu China:
 
 “Joseph D
4 DAYS AGO
It is deplorable that Mr Rachman seems to have thrown in the towel to  “...concede the argument to the authoritarians.”  Is the crisis over? We are still in the midst of a very profound moment in history whose implications can hardly be discerned let alone fully and unqualifiedly assessed. Calling it in favour of a government who allowed it to get out of control in the first instance is the worst sort of defeatism and short-sightedness.  This drama is still in its opening act.  The last thing we need is the kind of shallow kowtowing to the totalitarian propaganda machine that is the CCP.  What does the author suggest? That we abandon our democracies by accepting the CCP’s Orwellian logic that their system is supposedly better than we are at solving problems of their own system’s creation? Pathetic drivel
 
Gideon Rachman
4 DAYS AGO
reply In reply to Joseph D
Actually the article says “it’s far too soon to concede the argument to the authoritarians”. But what do I know - I only wrote it
Joseph D
reply In reply to Gideon Rachman
Yes, but your conclusion suggests you believe otherwise./…/
Perhaps, Mr Rachman, you could explain to us when it will ever be time to concede the argument to the CCP. Does the CCP argue? The last I looked the party lies, slanders and demands obedience to its dictates, but it does not debate. And besides, since when does efficiency become an argument in favour of totalitarianism. Mussolini made the trains run on time. So what. There were commentators in the ‘30s who claimed fascism was superior to democracy because the Nazis pulled the German economy out of the Depression while the Western democracies continued to languish in stagnation. But at what eventual cost. Fascism proved to be an unmitigated disaster for all of humanity. Communism is no different. With the benefit of hindsight we have our answer to Lincoln Steffens: we have seen the past and it does not work.
 
coolhead
reply In reply to Joseph D
Mr Rachman has had a soft spot for CCP-led China (although not to the extent Martin Wolf has) but he has been shifting course in the past 6-8 months. It appears from this piece that he hasn’t fallen out of love completely and still harbours some doubts. If he had woken up to the reality of the menace, he would see why this latest propaganda offensive was deemed necessary by CCP after people started asking tough questions about what exactly happened in Wuhan and how Beijing mishandled the outbreak” .[6]
 
 
            Schimbul de replici cu un cititor , angajat de autorul analizei   , argumentele invocate de ambii sunt semnificative pentru fierbinteala adezbaterii in privinta competitiei geopolitice nu atat chino-americane, cat intre China si Vest, intre modelul chinez ( communist , autoritar ) si cel occidental ( liberal si democratic ) .
            Urmatorul raport din transee va detalia pozitiile exprimate de cititori  fata de aceasta faimoasa déjà analiza.
 
Bucuresti- 20 martie 2020

 
 
[1] Matt Field, John Krzyzaniak,Why do politicians keep breathing life into the false conspiracy theory that the coronavirus is a bioweapon?, in ‘Bulletin of Atomic Scientists,March 13, 2020- https://thebulletin.org/2020/03/why-do-politicians-keep-breathing-life-into-the-false-conspiracy-theory-that-the-coronavirus-is-a-bioweapon/#
 
[5] Gideon Rachman, How Beijing reframed the coronavirus response narrative ,Financial Times’ March, 16, 20220 - https://www.ft.com/content/20ab52d8-676a-11ea-800d-da70cff6e4d3
 

Comentarii

Nu exista niciun comentariu

Postarea comentariilor dupa trei luni a fost dezactivata.