LUC MICHEL (ЛЮК МИШЕЛЬ) & EODE/

Luc MICHEL pour EODE/

Quotidien géopolitique – Geopolitical Daily/

2018 03 19/

The hot news has not yet allowed me to deal with the Munich Security Conference. So far-fetched on Russia in these days of paranoid Russophobia, the Western media hardly spoke of the great speech of Russian Minister Lavrov, exposing the geo-ideological foundations of Russian foreign policy. A disturbing speech, because it draws a historical and ideological parallel between the international politics of the Third Reich and the present one of the USA (1) …

On February 17, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov delivered this speech at the annual Munich Security Conference, summarizing all the main pillars of Russia’s foreign policy. Unsurprisingly, Lavrov chose to open with one of his favorite leitmotifs: Francis Fukuyama’s ‘End Of History’ has been overturned.

Fukuyama’s book “The End of History and the Last Man,” published in 1992, postulated that, with the end of the Cold War, Western liberal democracy has survived as the final form of human government (2). However, in recent years, Lavrov has been promoting the counter thesis that Fukuyama’s End of History has failed to materialize. Lavrov stressed this contention at the previous Munich Security Conference of 2017 as well. On that occasion, Lavrov claimed that “the post-Cold War order,” i.e. liberalism, “has come to an end.” Rebutting allegations that Russia is attempting to undermine the so-called “liberal world order,” he nevertheless stressed that Russia rejects the ‘liberal world order,’ which he defined as a model that had degenerated into merely serving as “an instrument for ensuring the growth of an elite club of countries and its domination over everyone else.” In his 2017Munich address, Lavrov implored leaders with “a sense of responsibility” to choose “a post-Western world order,” in which each country develops its own “sovereignty” within the framework of international law, with respect for each country’s identity.

This year, Lavrov was far less conciliatory in his analysis, as he drew a parallel between the Third Reich’s policies and the Western world order. Lavrov mentioned that during the Nuremberg Trials, the leaders of the Third Reich justified the Munich Pact (1938) by claiming “that is aimed to eject Russia from Europe.” According to Lavrov, “the West, led by the U.S., is today repeating the same Third Reich policies, by trying to isolate Russia.”

Lavrov then drew more parallels with the Third Reich. He said that the tragedy of the Munich Agreement highlighted the main pressure points of that period, including “belief in one’s exceptionalism”, a clear reference to the American concept of exceptionalism, “mutual suspicion”, a reference to Western “Russophobia”, “reliance on sanitary cordons and buffer zones”, a reference to NATO’s expansion eastward, as well as “open interference in the internal affairs of other countries”, a reference to what Moscow’s sees as U.S. meddling in Russia’s internal affairs in the country and in former Soviet Republics like Ukraine. “This memory is especially alarming when superimposed on modern realities,” said Lavrov.

Lavrov then moved to another of his favorite leitmotifs: “Russia is not Europe’s political outsider, but it is an integral part of the European context.” What I say since 1983! (3) This concept was tackled at length in his treatise “Russia’s Foreign Policy: Historical Background,” (published on March 3, 2016), in which Lavrov, harping on “Russia’s Eurasian identity”, explained that “Russia has played an important role in shaping both European history and contemporary European policies.” In his speech in Munich, Lavrov appealed to the EU “to stop trying to swim against the tide of history” and to renew the system of international relations on an “equitable” basis. He concluded with a call for the EU “to join the work of the Eurasian Economic Union.”

# RESUME FRANÇAIS :

GEOIDEOLOGIE – L’IDENTITE EURASIENNE DE LA RUSSIE (I).

LE MINISTRE RUSSE LAVROV A DIT A LA CONFERENCE SUR LA SECURITE DE MUNICH “COMME LE TROISIEME REICH, LES ETATS-UNIS ESSAYENT DE REJETER LA RUSSIE HORS DE L’EUROPE”

L’actualité brûlante ne m’a pas encore permis de traiter la Conférence sur la sécurité de Munich. Si prolixe sur la Russie en ces jours de russophobie paranoïaque, les médias occidentaux n’ont guère parlé du grand discours du ministre russe Lavrov, exposant les fondements géoidéologiques de la Politique étrangère russe. Un discours dérangeant, parce qu’il dresse un parallèle historique et idéologique entre la politique internationale du IIIe Reich et celle, actuelle, des USA (1) …

Le 17 février, le ministre russe des Affaires étrangères Sergueï Lavrov a prononcé ce discours lors de la conférence annuelle de Munich sur la sécurité, résumant tous les principaux piliers de la politique étrangère de la Russie. Sans surprise, Lavrov a choisi d’ouvrir avec un de ses leitmotive préféré: «End Of History» de Francis Fukuyama a été renversé.

Le livre de Fukuyama “La fin de l’histoire et le dernier homme”, publié en 1992, postule que, avec la fin de la guerre froide, la démocratie libérale occidentale a survécu en tant que forme finale du gouvernement humain (2). Cependant, au cours des dernières années, Lavrov a promu la contre-thèse que la fin de l’histoire de Fukuyama n’a pas réussi à concrétiser. Lavrov a également souligné cette affirmation lors de la précédente conférence de Munich sur la sécurité en 2017. À cette occasion, Lavrov a affirmé que «l’ordre de l’après-guerre froide», c’est-à-dire le libéralisme, «a pris fin». Rejetant les allégations selon lesquelles la Russie tente de saper le soi-disant «ordre mondial libéral», il a néanmoins souligné que la Russie rejette «l’ordre mondial libéral», qu’il a défini comme un modèle qui a dégénéré en un simple instrument de la croissance d’un club d’élite de pays et sa domination sur tout le monde. ” Dans son discours de Munich 2017, Lavrov a imploré les dirigeants «d’un sens des responsabilités» de choisir «un ordre mondial post-occidental» dans lequel chaque pays développe sa propre «souveraineté» dans le cadre du droit international, dans le respect de l’identité de chaque pays.

Cette année, Lavrov était beaucoup moins conciliant dans son analyse, car il établissait un parallèle entre les politiques du Troisième Reich et l’ordre mondial occidental. Lavrov a mentionné que lors des Procès de Nuremberg, les dirigeants du Troisième Reich ont justifié le Pacte de Munich (1938) en affirmant que «l’objectif est d’expulser la Russie de l’Europe.» Selon Lavrov, «l’Occident dirigé par les Etats-Unis répète aujourd’hui les mêmes politiques du Troisième Reich, en essayant d’isoler la Russie.”

Lavrov est ensuite passé à un autre de ses leitmotifs préférés: “La Russie n’est pas l’outsider politique de l’Europe, mais elle fait partie intégrante du contexte européen.” Ce que je dit depuis 1983 ! (3) Ce concept a été longuement abordé dans son traité “Russia’s Foreign Policy: Historical Background” le 3 mars 2016. Dans lequel Lavrov, insistant sur “l’identité eurasienne de la Russie”, a expliqué que “la Russie a joué un rôle important dans l’histoire européenne et les politiques européennes contemporaines.” Dans son discours à Munich, Lavrov a appelé l’UE “Arrêter d’essayer de nager à contre-courant de l’histoire” et de renouveler le système des relations internationales sur une base “équitable”. Il a conclu en demandant à l’UE de “se joindre aux travaux de l’Union économique eurasienne”.

# DOCUMENT:

LAVROV’S SPEECH IN MUNICH.

“THE ‘END OF HISTORY’ THESIS HAS BEEN OVERTURNED”

Russian FM Sergey Lavrov at the Munich Security Conference (Source: Mid.ru) :

“Now that international relations have entered a period of radical change, which has overturned the thesis about ‘the end of history,’ we should remember what happened in the relatively recent past. As Russian historian Vasily Klyuchevsky said, ‘History (…) punishes us for not learning its lessons. Eighty years ago, in 1938, an agreement on the division of Czechoslovakia was signed in Munich, which led to the Second World War. During the Nuremberg Trials after the war, the leaders of the Third Reich tried to justify the Munich Pact by saying that its aim was to push Russia out of Europe. For example, this is what Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel said.

The tragedy of the Munich Agreement highlighted the main pressure points of that period, including belief in one’s exceptionalism, disunity and mutual suspicion, reliance on sanitary cordons and buffer zones, as well as open interference in the internal affairs of other countries. This memory is especially alarming when superimposed on modern realities, the underhanded attempts to distort the truth about World War II and the events preceding it, as well as the rehabilitation of Nazis and their accomplices. Some EU countries have laws equating Nazis and their accomplices with those who liberated Europe and allow the demolition of monuments to those who defeated Nazism.”

“The experience of WWII and the subsequent polarization of Europe during the age of bipolar confrontation should have shown European nations that there is no alternative to building a common European home where people will not be divided into ‘us’ and ‘them.’ The very integration project of the European Union is rooted in a desire of the founding fathers to prevent the revival of the logic of confrontation, which was the reason behind many disasters on the continent.

For many years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany, in which Russia played a crucial role, we did our best to build a system of equal and indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic region. We dramatically decreased our military capability on our western borders. We advocated the strengthening of common European institutions, primarily the OSCE, and the coordination of an international framework of treaties on European security.

Regrettably, our calls for an equal dialogue and for realizing the principle of indivisible security fell on deaf ears.”

“Contrary to the promises made to us in the 1990s, as documents from the U.S. National Archives have recently confirmed again, NATO continues its eastward expansion. NATO troops and military infrastructure are accumulating on our borders. The European theatre of war is being systematically developed. The implementation of U.S. missile defense plans in Europe is undermining strategic stability. Purposeful propaganda campaigns are underway to engender hostility against Russia among the European public. It has nearly become politically correct in the establishment of many countries to say either bad things or nothing about Russia.

When people in the West speak about Russia’s growing influence, they mostly do so in a negative way. The authors of a report for this conference encountered this as well. I would like to remind you that when Russia was weakened and facing historical trials, our partners said that they wanted Russia to be strong and that any actions by Russia’s neighbors outside the region and other countries are not directed against our interests. We have been given promises regarding the EU Eastern Partnership project [a joint initiative involving the EU, its Member States and six Eastern European Partners: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine]. We hope they will be fulfilled and that Brussels will cut short any attempts to transform this project into a Russophobic narrative. Looking at the situation in Europe from the perspective of a zero-sum game can have extremely dangerous consequences.”

“One such consequence is the internal conflict raging in Ukraine, which was forced to choose between the West and Russia during the preparation of the Association Agreement. It is highly regrettable that the EU, which subsequently agreed to act as guarantor for the February 21, 2014 agreement between the Ukrainian Government and the opposition, proved unable to ensure its implementation and actually supported the anti-constitutional coup. And now Ukraine, a country with huge potential and talented people, has been reduced to a situation where it cannot govern itself. Russia has a greater interest in the settlement of the internal Ukrainian crisis than anyone else. We have the legal framework for this – the Minsk Package of Measures, which was drafted by Russia, Germany, Ukraine and France with Donetsk and Lugansk and approved by the UN Security Council. This agreement must be implemented strictly and in full. However, Kiev is openly sabotaging this in the Contact Group and within the framework of the Normandy format. Moreover, Kiev officials are talking about a military scenario. I am sure that the EU is aware of the dangers of this U-turn.

Regrettably, fresh attempts are being made to force the countries that border Russia and the EU, be they in the CIS or the Balkans, to choose between the West and the East. The German newspaper Die Welt has recently published an item titled ‘The EU or Putin: Who Gets the Western Balkans?’ [EU oder Putin – wer bekommt den Westbalkan]. And this is far from the only example of public indoctrination in keeping with the ‘us or them’ philosophy.”

“The renunciation of collective Russia-EU cooperation mechanisms, such as summit meetings, the Permanent Partnership Council and industry dialogues, and reliance on pressure has not made Europe a safer place. On the contrary, the conflict potential has grown visibly, and the number of problems and crises is growing in Europe and around it.

The developments in the Middle East and North Africa have shown that the policy of replacing undesirable governments across the ocean and forcing alien development models on other countries not only creates chaos in vast areas but boomerangs with very real problems imported to Europe, primarily a spike in international terrorism, tidal waves of illegal migration and all other related problems.

All this must be taken into account to understand the genesis of the current relations between Russia and the European Union. The Russian authorities invested hard work and political capital in developing mutually beneficial relations between Russia and the EU. But the goal of a truly strategic partnership and a reliable and stable system of relations, which would enhance the joint competitiveness of Russia and the EU, has not been attained. But for this we are not to blame.”

“I believe that the EU has been unable to find the golden mean in relations with Russia over the past decades. In the 1990s, Russia was seen as a disciple who must be tutored in the Western ways consistently and contrary to its protests. The predominant myth now is the alleged ‘omnipotent Russian threat,’ the traces of which they are trying to find everywhere from Brexit to the Catalan referendum. Both stereotypes are profoundly mistaken and point to the lack of common sense and understanding of Russia. We note that an increasing number of people in the EU feel uncomfortable about the abnormal situation in our relations. Respected experts openly admit that diplomatic paralysis is the price they have to pay for demonstrations of illusory EU unity.

Russia has not changed its policy approaches to cooperation with the EU. We would like to see the EU united on the basis of respect for the fundamental interests of its member states. They must be free to determine how to develop their economies and foreign economic relations, for example, whether to meet their energy needs based on pragmatic, commercial approaches or under the influence of political and ideological considerations.”

“We proceed from the assumption that the EU can play an active, responsible and, let me stress it, independent role in international affairs. I have taken note of [Chairman of the Munich Security Conference] Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger’s interview with the Bild newspaper, in which the respected Chairman of the Munich Security Conference speaks about the need for the EU’s higher foreign policy profile. We welcome his idea of cooperation between Russia, the EU, the U.S. and China in creating a security architecture for the Middle East. A similar approach could be applied to the Persian Gulf.

It is in Russia’s interests to have a strong and predictable European Union for a neighbor, an EU that would be able to act as a responsible member of international life in the polycentric world that is becoming reality right before our very eyes.

It is time to stop trying to swim against the tide of history and to start working together to renew the system of international relations on an equitable basis and with reliance on the central coordinating role of the UN, as stipulated in the UN Charter. Russia is open to an equal partnership with the EU based on mutual respect and a balance of interests in order to find effective responses to modern-day challenges. We are also willing to promote our relations with the United States and all other countries on these principles.”

“It is important to make good use of the potential of Russia-EU cooperation so as to create a common space of peace, equal and indivisible security and mutually beneficial cooperation in the area from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. At the strategic level, I would like to draw your attention to the initiative of President Vladimir Putin on promoting a greater Eurasian project that would combine the efforts of all members of the integration structures within the CIS, the SCO and ASEAN. I see no reason why the EU could not join in this work, for example, by starting with the establishment of professional contacts with the EAEU. I hope this day will come very soon.”

NOTES :

(1) Luc MICHEL, L’AMERICANISME EST LE NAZISME DU XXIe SIECLE !, Editorial de juin 2002 de « LA CAUSE DES PEUPLES » – N° 16,

http://www.pcn-ncp.com/editos/fr/ed-020600.htm

Excerpt: Jean-Edern Hallier, in his prophetic book LA CAUSEDES PEUPLES (THE PEOPLES’CAUSE), which directly inspired the title and our transnational Solidarity Association LCDP-TPC, denounced already four decades ago the close relationship – of projects, Darwinian methods and philosophy – between Americanism and Nazism. Before him the voices of the National-communist Lauffenberg, the leader of the Republic of the Councils of Hamburg (since 1920), the Ernst Jünger of DER ARBEITER (the Worker) and Jean Thiriart, the theorist of modern anti-Americanism, had already been raised against the Americanization of the world. Let us listen to Hallier’s strong words: “Of course, Americanism is neither fascism nor National Socialism. But he is already much more! Because American imperialism, operating on a global scale, has invented laws to the extent of its power. Between his plutocracy and puritanical fascism, one should rather speak of plutofascism! … when Hitler compared German and American expansionism, he did not conceal his admiration for the US “dynamism” and “new element of power” on the international scene, which had developed on the “virgin lands” of the world. North America, while he had to work in old Europe. Zionism spoiled everything between the two powers that had a good chance of getting along. But Hitler, in his blind racism, had not yet been able to discover that Zionism, vanguard of imperialism, harbored the same germs of nationalism and fascism, more sharpened, better adapted to the new demands of capitalism than the theories. which he developed on his side. But the US has been catching up since.”

(2) See Luc MICHEL, AMERICAN IMPERIALISM – THEORIES : THE PEOPLES’ANSWER, 7 Septembre 2012 , Conference to “Youth Camp for Green, Peace and Alternative movements” (Germany, July 2001)

on http://www.pcn-ncp.com/youthcamp2001.htm

Excerpt: The American victory of 1991, that is overestimated extensively in the conservative circles that are surrounding President Bush, will give place to a new theorizing of Yankee imperialism. Bush’s near counsellors immediately give it a new definition: it is the “New World Order” in the name of which USA had received the mission “to pacify” the world and to impose pseudo-values of  “free trade”. The main theoreticians of the American imperialism at the dawn of the XXIth century is Francis Fukuyama, Samuel P. Huntington and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Francis Fukuyama publishes in 1992 “The end of history and the last man”, where he develops the famous thesis that he had given out in 1989 in the magazine “The National Interest”.

What does mean Fukuyama by ” end of history “? Behind philosophers like Hegel and Kojève, he considers that history is the result of antagonisms between the different ideologies and social organization shapes, that fight each other for recognition. However, with the fall of the Wall, the downfall of Communism and the victory of the liberal democracy, history, taken in this sense, abolishes himself. Proof is made that the destiny of the humanity, is the modern liberal democracy, political ideology of the American imperialism, that, even if it could be perfected, offers according to Fukuyama the better as possible world.

In 1997, with “The confidence and the power”, Francis Fukuyama specifies his thought and underlines that the majority of the nations move politically toward the democracy and economically toward the market economy. In this new book, he develops an ideological justification of the superiority of the American social model and undertakes to demonstrate that an relationship exists between “social virtues and economic prosperity”, the first generating the second. State-providence must have beaten in retreat. He asserts that there are countries more capable than others of developing themself. He opposes the family societies, as France, Italy or China, with a weak degree of confidence, that implies a strong intervention of the state, and societies of confidence, automatically more prosperous, as Japan, Germany and the United States.

But Fukuyama is especially the ideologist of the long-term American society project, that he asserts to be the ultimate future of the humanity. It is simply the ultimate achievement of the “manifest destiny”. And it is especially a nightmare vision of a society where the Politician and the man as actor of history disappeared, where the destiny of men and peoples is replaced by an unified world, grey and dirty, where the accomplished consumerism will be the ultimate horizon. And will triumph then the last Man, more anxious to assure his well-being that to affirm his value by the brilliant works or by wars.

In a resounding interview to the daily newspaper “Le Monde” (Paris) of June 17, 1999, Fukuyama specifies his vision of the “last man”, that is incontestably “the end of history”: “The open character of nature contemporary sciences permits us to calculate that, from here to the next two generations, the biotechnology will give us tools that will permit us to accomplish what specialists of social engineering didn’t succeed in making. At this stage, we will definitely end the human history because we will abolish the human beings as it is. A new history will begin , beyond of the human”.

Here is brutally exposed the project of ultimate society of the American oligarchy.

In the same interview, he specifies the continuity of his thesis otherwise on “the end of history” with his orwellian project of society: “When I published “The end of history”, in 1992,he said “I have been harassed by critics, but I didn’t speak of the same history than my censors. I meant that with the downfall of the East block, numerous fundamental questions as regards to the ideology and institutions that had underlain history during decades have been adjusted more or less, in the developed countries. Today, the true problems are located at the ground of the social and religious structures, and of the culture”.

The man will become then a “happy dog” notes Fukuyama: “A dog is happy to sleep in the sun all day long, as long as it is fed, because he is not unsatisfied of what it is. He doesn’t worry to make other dogs better than it does, or that its career of dog is remaining stagnant. If the man reaches a society in which he will have succeeded in abolishing the injustice, his life will end up looking like the one of the dog”.

Fukuyama remains mute on those that will be masters of these happy dogs, and who will keep them in leash …

(3) See Luc MICHEL, “La Russie c’est aussi l’Europe”, in CONSCIENCE EUROPEENNE, review, N°6, décembre 1983, Charleroi.

The act of birth of the Neoeurasism …

on http://www.lucmichel.net/2014/05/29/pcn-timeline-ideologie-1983-84-le-pcn-reinvente-le-national-bolchevisme-moderne/

LUC MICHEL (ЛЮК МИШЕЛЬ) & EODE

* With the Geopolitician of the Eurasia-Africa Axis:

Geopolitics – Geoeconomics – Geoidology –

Neoeurasism – Neopanafricanism (Seen from Moscow and Malabo):

SPECIAL PAGE Luc MICHEL’s Geopolitical Daily

https://www.facebook.com/LucMICHELgeopoliticalDaily/

________________

* Luc MICHEL (Люк МИШЕЛЬ) :

WEBSITE http://www.lucmichel.net/

PAGE OFFICIELLE III – GEOPOLITIQUE

https://www.facebook.com/Pcn.luc.Michel.3.Geopolitique/

TWITTER https://twitter.com/LucMichelPCN

* EODE :

EODE-TV https://vimeo.com/eodetv

WEBSITE http://www.eode.org/